Individuals who carry out attacks such as the one in El Paso are not only audience members who have heard Dangerous Speech and have been convinced to commit violence. They are also speakers themselves. Their words (through manifestos and social media posts) and their actions (the shootings) are performances designed, at least in part, to move others to commit similar atrocities in the future.
Read MoreAs with several other massacres in the past year, the attacker in the El Paso shooting appears to have online ties with white supremacist ideology and published a racist screed prior to his attack. We’ve written on the ideas espoused by this killer many times in the past.
Read MoreWhen people cannot verify or refute rumors, and cannot access alternative narratives or trustworthy counterspeech, there is an increased likelihood that these rumors will become Dangerous Speech. Therefore, if governments are serious about addressing rumors that could inspire violence, they must resist the urge to shut down the internet.
Read MoreEarlier this week, Twitter announced a new rule against language that dehumanizes others on the basis of religion. This change is a step in the right direction, but in order to truly mitigate offline harms, the company must define dehumanizing speech by its likely effect on others in addition to the literal content of the speech.
Read MoreA report shows that 78% of Americans believe aggressive language can make violence more likely. The Guardian asked Susan Benesch how we can respond to Dangerous Speech.
Read MoreShould you respond directly to hatred online? And if so, how should you do it? These are just a few of the questions that staff at the Dangerous Speech Project (DSP) discussed with an audience at RightsCon last week. DSP staff were joined by Logan Smith, creator of @YesYoureRacist.
Read MoreIn his new book, Speech Police, David Kaye argues that online content needs to be regulated in a fair, consistent way – not in reactive, confusing fits and starts. In the same week as the book’s release, YouTube showed us why he’s right.
Read MoreThe new Christchurch Call to Action is largely vague and symbolic, but it may be worthwhile since it prompts internet companies to expand their collaborations against harmful and especially terrorism-promoting content online.
Read MoreGovernments, internet companies, and civil society organizations attempting to prevent the spread of violent white supremacist ideas – and killings – must consider the radicalizing capacity of fear and threat, instead of focusing exclusively on hate speech.
Read MoreRising tension between India and Pakistan, triggered by a terrorist attack in Kashmir, have inspired an alarming flood of Dangerous Speech and misinformation to spread online in both countries – some urging mass violence or even full-scale war.
Read More