Filtering Hate Globally?
As the internet makes content easily and widely available globally, the question of how to address online hate becomes increasingly difficult. One response here in the U.S. has been that of the ADL which has developed software they call "HateFilter." The software is free, downloadable, and allows the end-user to filter out a list of hate sites that the ADL works to keep updated with subsequent downloads of the software. HateFilter works like any other filtering software, with a parental (or "master") password that allows the filter to be turned off at will.
Unfortunately, its a less than ideal solution for a number of reasons. First, it does nothing to actually address or remove the websites promulgating hate from the web. Second, even according to the ADL the filter isn't effective at eliminating all hate websites from the browser of unsuspecting web surfers. Third, and in my view most importantly, the HateFilter does nothing to develop any kind of critical thinking that might equip those opposed to such sites with cogent, articulate criticisms of what is objectionable in the sites and what steps one might take to challenge those ideas. And, within the logic of ADL's stance that the "best way to combat hate speech is with more speech" the HateFilter seems, at the very least inconsistent, though ADL argues that it is not.
It seems to me that other western industrialized nations have been more progressive, diligent and thoughtful in their response to hate online than we Americans have been. For example, the Canadian Media Awareness Network has since 1996 been developing a range of education campaigns based on the belief that to be functionally literate in the world today young people need critical thinking skills. Included in their work is a component that critically examines online hate.
European nations have also been more attentive to these issues than the U.S. I recently mentioned the French case against Yahoo for selling Nazi memorabilia. And, the New Council of Europe has attempted to respond to the regulatory challenges posed by the Internet. The main objective of that body is to stirke a balance between freedom of expression and information on the Internet and other rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, such as the protection of children against unsuitable online content, including hate speech.
And, the Australians have also been active in combatting what they call cyber-racism.
One wonders what it would take for Americans to take online racism and hate speech seriously as other western industrialized nations do.
Unfortunately, its a less than ideal solution for a number of reasons. First, it does nothing to actually address or remove the websites promulgating hate from the web. Second, even according to the ADL the filter isn't effective at eliminating all hate websites from the browser of unsuspecting web surfers. Third, and in my view most importantly, the HateFilter does nothing to develop any kind of critical thinking that might equip those opposed to such sites with cogent, articulate criticisms of what is objectionable in the sites and what steps one might take to challenge those ideas. And, within the logic of ADL's stance that the "best way to combat hate speech is with more speech" the HateFilter seems, at the very least inconsistent, though ADL argues that it is not.
It seems to me that other western industrialized nations have been more progressive, diligent and thoughtful in their response to hate online than we Americans have been. For example, the Canadian Media Awareness Network has since 1996 been developing a range of education campaigns based on the belief that to be functionally literate in the world today young people need critical thinking skills. Included in their work is a component that critically examines online hate.
European nations have also been more attentive to these issues than the U.S. I recently mentioned the French case against Yahoo for selling Nazi memorabilia. And, the New Council of Europe has attempted to respond to the regulatory challenges posed by the Internet. The main objective of that body is to stirke a balance between freedom of expression and information on the Internet and other rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, such as the protection of children against unsuitable online content, including hate speech.
And, the Australians have also been active in combatting what they call cyber-racism.
One wonders what it would take for Americans to take online racism and hate speech seriously as other western industrialized nations do.
posted by Jessie Daniels at
12:16 PM
