This paper presents seven proposals for how internet companies can more effectively address harmful content on their platforms, protect freedom of expression, and provide a better experience for their users.
People don’t commit violence against other groups - or even condone it - spontaneously. First they must be taught to see other people as pests, vermin, aliens, or threats. Malicious leaders often use the same types of rhetoric to do this, in myriad cultures, languages, countries, and historical periods. We call this Dangerous Speech. Violence might be prevented by making it less abundant or less convincing. We work to find the best ways to do this – while protecting freedom of expression.
This paper presents seven proposals for how internet companies can more effectively address harmful content on their platforms, protect freedom of expression, and provide a better experience for their users.
Every day, internet users encounter hateful and dangerous speech online, and some of them choose to respond directly in order to refute or undermine it. We call this counterspeech. Only a few studies have attempted to measure the effectiveness of counterspeech directly, and as far as we know, this is the first review of relevant literature.
For the first time, Twitter marked one of Donald Trump's posts as a rules violation. It was the right decision– but Twitter should provide more detail about why posts violate its rules.
UNESCO on how education can counter hate and dangerous speech, featuring DSP Executive Director Susan Benesch
