In social media, an evolutionary step

The administrators of Twitter and Facebook deserve praise for blocking posts in praise of this month’s savagery in Nice, France, even though their move also raises questions about who takes charge when freedom of speech is abused.
Media-watchdog groups have praised Twitter for taking such action for the first time. It has a reputation as the most freewheeling of the major social networks, its format of abbreviated messages well suited to rapid political broadsides and bursts of hate speech. It has become the online sharing medium of choice among terrorist organisations, routinely used by the Islamic State, among others, for both internal dialogue and public propaganda.
However, while the attack in southern France that killed 84 innocent people has not been specifically labelled terrorism, in its wake, most tweets lauding the murderous truck driver were deleted within minutes. It signalled a major policy shift at Twitter, which had remained committed to free speech throughout the years of terrorist assaults and other acts of mass violence. Its policy now is to suspend that freedom if there is a perceived threat to human life, and to ban all posts that explicitly advocate or abet violence.
The Bastille Day carnage in Nice generated millions of messages of condolence for the victims and solidarity with France and with efforts to forestall such violence. Thousands also used the social media to check if loved ones were safe and to search for friends and relatives who were missing.
Yet even as the hashtag #PrayforNice was circulating widely, there were those who abused it to celebrate the mass murder. At least 50 Twitter accounts carried praise for the attack in words and photos, but the posts were quickly deleted, according to the Counter Extremism Project, a non-governmental organisation that presses the social networks to take stronger action.
Thus we see the double-edged sword of the social media. It is on one hand highly useful in trying moments like this – lending support, sharing information, unifying world opinion – and on the other it is a tool by which violence is glorified and further attacks are provoked.
Twitter has not confirmed, post-Nice, whether the hateful accounts were suspended, but its responsibility to regulate content is clear. Free speech is a noble objective, and there is also ample room to argue that Western colonialism and capitalism fomented the horrors of jihad in the first place. But ultimately violence is no answer to oppression and tolerance always has its limits. Not even our most fundamental rights, including freedom of speech, outweigh human life in value.
Meanwhile, if it goes without saying that users of the social networks should avoid inciting hatred and violence, they cannot be reminded enough that their responsibility extends to shunning the spread of false and dubious rumours. In times of turmoil, there are always overeager people sharing information that might not be true, since they haven’t taken the time to check. The falsehoods are repeated, feed on popular reaction and result in personal embarrassment at best and bloody panic at worst.
Users of the sharing media should also be helping rid the networks of hate speech and other unnecessary instigation to misbehaviour. All of the networks display clear means by which cruel or abusive posts and other offensive material can be reported.
Nevertheless, it is the social-media giants who have the greatest responsibility and the biggest clout. They are making enormous profits from running marvellous sharing platforms that also unfortunately allow the spread of poisonous ideas. Given their ability to assess every user as a marketing target, they clearly already have the technology to identify and remove violence-related posts almost instantly.
Let’s keep in mind that freedom of speech cannot be permitted to curtail the freedom to live safely.