In George Orwell’s 1984, Hate Week is the year’s most important event, organized by a Ministry of Truth to whip citizens into a frenzy of fear and hate against designated enemies. Parades, speeches, books, plays, songs, perceived enemies being marched down streets in cages to be mocked by crowds—Orwell’s Hate Week provides a controlled, Party-sanctioned outlet for the populace’s frustration and economic misery, ensuring that citizens do not direct their anger toward Big Brother or the regime’s own failures.
We’re not living in Orwell’s 1984, but we’ve just come through a political campaign where hate was very much an important campaign theme. Hate is not a new factor in our public arena, but it’s considerably more powerful and threatening now than in our past. Where before a hate agitator needed a radio program, a newspaper column or some other mass media publication to reach a wide audience, now anyone with an Internet connection can connect to and influence millions—who then can forward hate messages to others with one keyboard stroke.
Nearly every advanced country in the world has recognized this virus roiling public discourse and has developed a legal vaccine to fight it.
Global Lessons: Fighting Online Hate Speech Abroad
Austria, for example, prohibits publicly inciting violence, hatred, or targeting groups defined by race, nationality, religion, ethnicity, disability, gender, or sexual orientation. Online hate posts can earn you to 2 to five years or more in prison. Platforms with more than 100,000 users must maintain simple, accessible reporting mechanisms and remove hate posts within 24 hours of receiving a report or risk prosecution and expensive fines.
Germany, France, the UK, Australia, Korea and others all have their own legal mechanisms for dealing with hate speech.
But not the U.S. Here, speech, no matter how vile, is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Freedom of speech is not just in our Constitution, but in our collective DNA. Consistent with our nation’s dedication to free speech, in 1993, about the time the popular Internet was born, Congress voted to protect the young industry with this law:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
In other words, if you, the user, have a complaint, sue the person who wrote it, not the platform that posted it. The Internet was popularly viewed as an important town square. All views welcome. Google’s founders’ early mantra was “do no harm.”
Reining in Big Tech: Platform Liability
Three decades later, it’s abundantly clear that influential tech leaders have abused that trust. Elon Musk has turned Twitter into hate-spewing X. Mark Zuckerberg’s original forum for friends to communicate with friends has become the see-no-evil Facebook. A slew of Internet platforms that coin millions from hate merchants have found fertile soil, unconcerned about the consequences.
So, to combat hate, are we our own worst enemies? Does our dedication to free speech leave us powerless?
Not at all. In fact, many options already exist as proposals in Congress. One would simply amend the law by making Internet platforms liable under federal or state civil rights laws, cyberstalking statutes, anti-harassment rules, or wrongful death claims. In other words, the sites could be sued as well as the authors of hate. Platforms could be forced to redesign their recommendation algorithms, enforce strict vetting for paid advertisements, handle harassment reports more aggressively and submit to transparency.
Congress would be saying, tech bros, you’ve misused your immunity. Blame yourselves for losing it.
There are legitimate concerns that stricter enforcement could cause platforms to overly self-censor controversial or unpopular speech to minimize legal exposure. But surely, with highly paid lawyers looking out for their interests and members of Congress walking on eggshells when combating the richest and most economically powerful industry in the U.S., solutions that leave room for legitimate public debate are achievable. For the next two years, with White House vetoes hovering, compromise will be required.
Beyond Legislation: AI Publishers and Media Literacy
In fact, Congress may not need to be very adversarial. As written, the law protects Internet platforms by considering them akin to printing presses, just suppliers of ink for others to write with, not publishers themselves. But AI is changing that. When a user gets a written reply to a question, not just a bunch of link suggestions to visit, AI turns the platform into an original publisher with all the vulnerability faced by those who distribute words, music or anything at all.
In addition to legislation to directly curb the worst excesses of Internet platforms, there are other avenues open to the public.
Instead (or in addition) to Meta or X deciding what’s blocked, the law could require users to be provided with optional filters to directly block hate speech themselves. And platforms could be required to offer non-algorithmic feed options so users are not automatically pushed into outrage-inducing content. Laws can also be strengthened against posting privacy information, such as addresses and phone numbers intended to incite physical harassment or violence against private individuals.
Governments at all levels could do a better job of creating awareness of hate sites and countering extremist rhetoric. It’s also more important than ever that schools play a role in helping young people be aware of how to separate truth from on-line fiction.
A number of private web sites are taking on the challenge of helping users avoid Internet hate and fakery.
Ground News shows users how thousands of outlets across the political spectrum cover the same story, allowing them to cut through bias, and to spot frauds.
Perspectify makes similar comparisons and also provides information on ownership of each news outlet and its political leanings. (disclosure: I have a financial interest in Perspectify. That also gives me an insiders view of the depth of the problem).
Most new incoming members of Congress owe little allegiance to the tech industry since they were elected despite that industry’s opposition. Measures that have been side tracked for years are likely to be seriously considered. The voters have given the new Congress a strong mandate to rein in hate capitalism and will have little patience for excuses if Congress doesn’t take that mandate and act on it.
We’ll never see an end to hate in our public discourse, but it’s possible, and necessary, to turn down the temperature.
How they will do it remains to be seen. But the prospect of Congress seriously taking on this challenge is sure bet.
Comments? Criticism? Contact Joe Rothstein at jrothstein@rothstein.net
Always Get It’s Always Something
Sign up to get the most recent column set to your inbox for free.
What happens when a fun-loving, charismatic, reform-minded Mexican-American billionairess becomes president of the United States and strikes fear in the pocketbooks of a cabal of the rich and powerful?