Time for social media to change its ways

Time for social media to change its ways

Facebook, Twitter and their ilk enjoy broad immunity from any liability over user-generated content. That fact that this translates into selective enforcement must change.

By Nitsana Darshan-Leitner

On June 30, 2016, 17-year-old Mohammad Tra’ayra from the West Bank village of Bani Naim infiltrated a home in nearby Kiryat Arba and stabbed 13-year-old Hallel Yaffa Ariel to death as she slept in her bed. It was later discovered that his Facebook feed was rife with messages of hate and incitement and that he boasted on his own page that he wished to die as a “shahid” – a martyr – writing, “Death is a right and I demand that right.”

The complaints lodged with Facebook over his posts, as well as the demand later to remove posts praising the killing and the murderer were, as always, ignored.

Social media platforms enjoy absolute immunity from any liability over the user-generated content they feature. They can remove controversial content without being perceived as responsible for its nature. Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms have an internal mechanism for dealing with “content that violates the community’s rules,” and they remove posts according to their sole discretion.

The broad immunity afforded to them by law often translates into selective enforcement.

There have been dozens of cases when right-wing activists and journalists has their Facebook accounts suspended for allegedly violating the community’s rules with their posts, all while someone sitting in Facebook headquarters in Ireland has no problem allowing posts inciting the murder of Jews to stand.

Facebook’s own interpretation of the limits of freedom of expression has had a clear impact on the waves of stabbing and ramming attacks in Israel and around the world. This has been clearly shown in examples of inciting social media posts included as evidence of motive and intent in many cases of mayhem and murder.

The evidence proves that the killers were often inspired by and drew ideological justification for their actions from posts by extremist religious leaders. It also proves that they received “training” from videos posted by terrorist groups on their websites as well as on social media.

It seems that, in a complete distortion of the legislator’s intent, social media platforms have become defenders of the freedom of expression of terrorists and murderers, as well as of those who despise everything Western democracies symbolize.

For years, social media giants have refused to abide by any regulation or to cooperate with state authorities because they had no intention of sharing the immense power they have amassed in terms of navigating global discourse. That is not only senseless, it violates US laws that bar aiding and abetting any form of terrorism.

Thousands of complaints may not have made a dent in social media giants’ policy, but recently, it was US President Donald Trump who decided to throw his support behind legislation that would curb their power.

In May, Trump signed an executive order ordering lawmakers to find a remedy that would scrap or weaken the protection companies like Facebook and Twitter have from legal liability for the content users post.

Last month, over 400 companies pulled their ads from Facebook citing its lacking policy on hate speech and inflammatory rhetoric. But where were the Israeli companies? Why have they remained silent vis-à-vis years of incitement on social media? Where is their boycott? And why hasn’t the Israeli public taken action to protest such policies?

Effectively monitoring content is a costly and complex process, and it will require considerable resources. This is why Facebook’s statements that it will instate changes to this policy must be taken with a big grain of salt.

The US administration must waste no time in promoting legislation that will remove social media giants’ immunity over user content, and advertisers must general financial pressure on these platforms to change their ways.

It is time to clearly state, once and for all, that the value of freedom of expression does not exceed the value of human life.

On June 30, 2016, 17-year-old Mohammad Tra’ayra from the West Bank village of Bani Naim infiltrated a home in nearby Kiryat Arba and stabbed 13-year-old Hallel Yaffa Ariel to death as she slept in her bed. It was later discovered that his Facebook feed was rife with messages of hate and incitement and that he boasted on his own page that he wished to die as a “shahid” – a martyr – writing, “Death is a right and I demand that right.”

The complaints lodged with Facebook over his posts, as well as the demand later to remove posts praising the killing and the murderer were, as always, ignored.
Social media platforms enjoy absolute immunity from any liability over the user-generated content they feature. They can remove controversial content without being perceived as responsible for its nature. Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms have an internal mechanism for dealing with “content that violates the community’s rules,” and they remove posts according to their sole discretion.

The broad immunity afforded to them by law often translates into selective enforcement.

There have been dozens of cases when right-wing activists and journalists has their Facebook accounts suspended for allegedly violating the community’s rules with their posts, all while someone sitting in Facebook headquarters in Ireland has no problem allowing posts inciting the murder of Jews to stand.

Facebook’s own interpretation of the limits of freedom of expression has had a clear impact on the waves of stabbing and ramming attacks in Israel and around the world. This has been clearly shown in examples of inciting social media posts included as evidence of motive and intent in many cases of mayhem and murder.

The evidence proves that the killers were often inspired by and drew ideological justification for their actions from posts by extremist religious leaders. It also proves that they received “training” from videos posted by terrorist groups on their websites as well as on social media.

It seems that, in a complete distortion of the legislator’s intent, social media platforms have become defenders of the freedom of expression of terrorists and murderers, as well as of those who despise everything Western democracies symbolize.

For years, social media giants have refused to abide by any regulation or to cooperate with state authorities because they had no intention of sharing the immense power they have amassed in terms of navigating global discourse. That is not only senseless, it violates US laws that bar aiding and abetting any form of terrorism.

Thousands of complaints may not have made a dent in social media giants’ policy, but recently, it was US President Donald Trump who decided to throw his support behind legislation that would curb their power.

In May, Trump signed an executive order ordering lawmakers to find a remedy that would scrap or weaken the protection companies like Facebook and Twitter have from legal liability for the content users post.

Last month, over 400 companies pulled their ads from Facebook citing its lacking policy on hate speech and inflammatory rhetoric. But where were the Israeli companies? Why have they remained silent vis-à-vis years of incitement on social media? Where is their boycott? And why hasn’t the Israeli public taken action to protest such policies?

Effectively monitoring content is a costly and complex process, and it will require considerable resources. This is why Facebook’s statements that it will instate changes to this policy must be taken with a big grain of salt.

The US administration must waste no time in promoting legislation that will remove social media giants’ immunity over user content, and advertisers must general financial pressure on these platforms to change their ways.

It is time to clearly state, once and for all, that the value of freedom of expression does not exceed the value of human life.