Online Hate Culture
Following its invention, the internet was hailed as an accessible and free source of ideas where every person’s ideas and opinions concerning various topics could be shared on an equal footing. With time, fields such as politics used the ability to access unlimited information by most of the people provided by this platform as a vehicle of civic engagement, especially in developed nations such as the United Kingdom, the United States, and Germany (Hawdon, James, et al.). This essay explores the dark side of the internet, as evident by the online hate culture. The paper explores the foundations of online hate culture, the underlying concepts, as well as the factors that make online hate culture proliferate exponentially. After a detailed analysis of online culture and its characteristics, the essay then offers insight on channels that could be used to counter online hate culture.
Background: Understanding Online Hate Culture
Since its evolution, the internet has played a crucial shaping role in domestic and international politics. The popularity of the internet accrued from its capacity to sensitize the public on civil occurrences and providing an equal playfield for all and giving a voice to the marginalized members of the community (Hawdon, James, et al.). However, globalization and increased technological advancements reduced the barriers to entry to the internet, allowing extremist groups and leaders to exploit the unseen potential of this information fountain. Since people across the world can access information on a wide array of issues, they can equally participate even in discussions that do not concern them. With access to information, anyone from any location can provide an opinion for the public view, which translates to easy abuse of the freedom granted to the public on internet usage (lobby group Article 19). People are always online, just too eager to respond to amateurs’ deracinated opinions from the blues. Notably, the explosion of hate culture coexists with the democratization capacity of the internet (List, Regina et al., 13). Politicians or activists usually post blogs online with the hope of garnering popularity among supporters who share their ideation (Klein). Moreover, platforms such as YouTube allows users to post information freely, even others tailored to offer misleading information. Furthermore, constant improvements in the internet experience have enabled anonymous companies, activists, and entrepreneurs to reach a wide target population using a single post (Hawdon, James, et al.). Aspiring celebrities, on the other hand, takes advantage of the little quality control implemented by digital media platforms. Hate culture is usually perpetuated by able individuals who attempt to change the social standards by spreading their distorted opinions. This is achieved by creating malicious cultural practices on the internet to radicalize the public sphere and gain support for extreme ideas.
Characteristics of online hate culture
The cycle of online hate culture is usually self-perpetuating. Individuals spreading extreme information usually build on the unlimited access to information by individuals and the inability to resist posting opinions even in issues that do not concern them. Online hate culture thrives by instilling a shared spirit, a common-sense among the supporters and audience that aims at radicalizing everyone who reads the content (Ganesh). Unique from other forms of hate culture, this digital face is usually built on the cultivation of a shared sense, a collective identity motivated by a single focal point (lobby group Article 19). it is well known that for a crowd of people to emerge and thrive, it takes a common fusing spirit, so strong as to coerce unquestionable loyalty among all those affiliated. In the case of online hate culture, this is knowns as a digital swarm. Through a continuous online process of feeding the audience with distorted information, the swarm succeeds in forming a community characterized by maligned feelings of identity, which are unacceptable in the mainstream.
The online hate culture is also characterized by the assimilation of cultural practices from various groups such as Christians, libertarians, atheists, and other groups who preach the improvements of lives through interracial competition. The collection and assimilation of certain elements from various platforms make online hate culture a snowballing phenomenon that garners support from multiple domains. One crucial concept in understanding digital hate is the Red Pill, which originated from an analogy from a 1999 film, The Matrix (Ganesh). Extremists use the concept of the Red Pill symbolically to refer to a personal choice of embracing troubling ‘truths which are oblivious to members of the mainstream’ (Ganesh). In digital hate culture, the purveyors of hate propel the idea that socialists, feminists, and other activism advocates for equality have conspired to erode the western culture and destroy their civilization. The perpetrators of hate are usually deluded by the notion that all races are not equal as the society is socializing people to believe, and all attempts to flatten the society are a betrayal of the ‘truth.’ In countries such as Canada and the United States, which are known as hotspots for cultural diversity, digital hate then finds profound meaning with far-reaching consequences interfering with the nature of democracy (List, Regina et al., 22). As such, the red pill ideation is taken to mean acknowledging the bitter truth that western civilization is threatened by the influx of people belonging to the minority cultures such as the blacks. As such, the issue of immigration is magnified, while liberals and leftists are considered opponents of the Western white society. This is especially the case in Canada and the United States, where the online hate culture is aimed at marginalizing those fighting for equity, which may translate into political violence.
The deluded awakening effect caused by the red pill assumption then causes a spike upon the perception of extremist content online. On their side, the projectors of hate culture are enlightened and thus mobilize people with a similar mindset; those individuals who strongly believe that the white civilization is under the attack by the unenlightened non-white groups, feminists, equality activists as well as antiracists (Ganesh). These groups of people use hashtags online that fosters the development of a toxic mentality in the contemporary digital platform against a certain group of people; for instance, the aboriginal people and the blacks residing in Canada or the United States. It is worth noting that the internet is the epicenter of multiple strands of social media platforms, which enables the enculturation of individuals into various extremist communities (lobby group Article 19). This has been used in the past to emphasize white politics and promote a disdain for black Americans by painting them as threats to the stability of the country in question. The Red Pill mentality is the bridge connecting upon which online hate culture is built. It does this by assembling people from different walks and with different ideologies but who share the same mentality regarding a certain group. Proponents of online hate culture endorse a totalizing conviction to the committed extremists terming their civilizations to be under attack from the groups as mentioned earlier of people (Ganesh).
Accounting for the Proliferation of Online Hate Culture
While some researchers have pointed at the internet in countries such as the United States and Canada as ungoverned, this essay will explore the various elements which make online hate culture ungovernable. The proponents of online hate culture are normal citizens connected by a shared mentality, bound by a collective sense of identity. The complexity of the internet allows online hate culture to be amorphous and exist through dynamic engagements between users in multiple platforms and websites (Klein). Besides, the presence of actors from multiple domains provides the necessary shield for the existence of this culture in that; efforts to fight those ‘protecting’ the western civilizations are labeled as hate speech and infringement of the public right to self-expression. In so doing, perpetrators of digital hate have succeeded in spreading their idealism while avoiding any legal obstacles.
Additionally, the lack of uniformity in internet regulation allows the seamless integration of hate in the mainstream. The level of internet regulation varies with countries from highly regulated to scarcely regulated. In countries such as the United States and Canada, efforts to regulate internet usage have been met with hostility and public protests, which have inhibited the success of any initiatives lain to counter online hate culture (lobby group Article 19). similarly, there exist sharp discrepancies between web hosts, which is equally exploited by hate culture. For instance, a group may publish what is referred to as unacceptable in one platform, and once their account is closed, migrate into another web host and carry on their hate culture. Without uniformity in the web hosts and technology companies, curtailing online hate culture will be impossible (Ganesh).
Thirdly, the social media platforms which are rampant in the present day have provided unmonitored points of spreading ideas of hate culture (Schweppe et al.). In the recent past, twitter, for example, has been forced to close down accounts perpetrating online hate information. Some of the victims then took to offline contexts while their counterparts easily migrated to websites which they already had a reputation in. There is also well-documented evidence of the reopening of some of the previously shut down accounts raising a finger to the management.
In addition to the web host interchange tendency, online hate culture usually takes a dynamic nature in its activity to avoid legal repercussions. Given that the members of the swarm of extremists are joined by a shared idealism, they can develop a coded language only understood to themselves and use this with less risk of detection by the government or guidelines by the social media platforms (Ganesh). These terms are usually based on certain contexts that conceal the harsh reality they convey. Using this method, the groups can get away without being noticed as the mainstream struggles to keep up since some of these are evident in political rallies and meetings (Klein). Any attempts to regulate such coded language use is then met with ultimate criticism and outcries from the members who claim their oppression and the attempts as efforts to silence their correct opinions.
To this end, it is possible to outline the complexity surrounding the issue of online hate culture. From criticism of religion, gender and race, extremists have turned the internet as a platform of recruiting members into their shared idealism of hate towards others advocating for some social phenomena that they disagree with, such as antiracists (Ganesh). There has been a growing body of knowledge that points to the positive correlation between digital hate and hate crimes (Schweppe et al.). In some cases, the leaders of extremist groups may feed their members with propaganda leading them to believe that violence against the identified group of people is the key to restoring the nation’s stability. The fact that such radicalizing information is readily available online speeds up the process and recruit’s people to undertake acts of violence internationally, which may end up harming innocent people (Schweppe et al.). Members of the extreme groups respond to any regulatory attempt with sarcasm to turn this into a social media outcry. Their aim is usually to shape the public debate by flooding the internet with misleading pieces of information, which is an issue of security.
Recommendations to Address the Problem of Online Hate
Present regulatory foundations are concerned with monitoring content rather than focusing on the virtual spaces inhabited by the extremist groups. Banning users from using the online platform only solves the problem for the short term and fosters the arising of the groups in a new platform. The government, in collaboration with related stakeholders, should focus on establishing shared standards of disrupting and closing individual accounts attracting extremist traffic. Technology companies also need to shift their focus towards increasing the barriers that digital hate cultures face rather than forcing one account to close. Shared standards would reduce the likelihood of extremists migrating to different platforms. This can be achieved by close monitory of tools used by online hate culture to circumnavigate regulations. Addressing the gaps in legislative and security implications in multiple platforms is a crucial first step in countering the proliferation of hate crime. It is also practical for technology platforms to work in cooperation with civil society actors to disrupt the interaction between online and offline hate culture proponents.
Conclusion
The evolution of the internet provided an important platform for influencing civic activities and democratization. That the public can access unlimited information, however, places them on the vulnerability of being manipulated by extremists into spreading online hate against a certain group or religion. This becomes a culture due to the shared ideology among the members of this online movement. For effectiveness in countering this, the features allowing its ability to mobilize support must be clearly understood and curtailed. With a consensus between the technology companies, the migration of people whose accounts have been blocked will be limited. Again by understanding the coded messages and disrupting the infrastructure supporting the online hate culture, the governments will have achieved a major leap in disrupting the online hate culture platforms.
Works Cited
Article 19. Self-Regulation And ‘Hate Speech’ On Social Media Platforms. 1st ed., Article 19, 2018, https://www.article19.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Self-regulation-and-%E2%80%98hate-speech%E2%80%99-on-social-media-platforms_March2018.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2020.
Ganesh, Bharath. “The Ungovernability Of Digital Hate Culture.” JIA SIPA, 2020, https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/ungovernability-digital-hate-culture.
Hawdon, James et al. “Exposure To Online Hate In Four Nations: A Cross-National Consideration”. Deviant Behavior, vol 38, no. 3, 2016, pp. 254-266. Informa UK Limited, doi:10.1080/01639625.2016.1196985.
Klein, Adam G. “How Online Hate Infiltrates Social Media And Politics”. The Conversation, 2017, https://theconversation.com/how-online-hate-infiltrates-social-media-and-politics-74353.
List, Regina A. et al. ONLINE PARTICIPATION IN CULTURE AND POLITICS: TOWARDS MORE DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES?. 1st ed., Council Of Europe, 2018, pp. 9-27, https://rm.coe.int/second-thematic-report-based-on-the-indicator-framework-on-culture-and/16808d2514. Accessed 19 May 2020.
Schweppe, Jennifer, and Mark Austin Walters. The Globalization Of Hate: Internationalizing Hate Crime?. 1st ed., Oxford Scholarship, 2016.