{"id":91,"date":"2023-07-10T19:50:57","date_gmt":"2023-07-10T23:50:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/socialmedia\/chapter\/chapter-8-hate-speech-free-speech-and-anonymity-trends-in-digital-amp-social-media-v17\/"},"modified":"2026-01-26T22:44:11","modified_gmt":"2026-01-27T03:44:11","slug":"5-expression-anonymity-moderation","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/socialmedia\/chapter\/5-expression-anonymity-moderation\/","title":{"raw":"Chapter 5: Free Expression, Anonymity, and Content Moderation","rendered":"Chapter 5: Free Expression, Anonymity, and Content Moderation"},"content":{"raw":"<div class=\"bc-section section\">\r\n<div id=\"hate-speech-free-speech-and-anonymity\" class=\"chapter standard\" title=\"Chapter 8 - Hate Speech, Free Speech, and Anonymity\">\r\n<p class=\"chapter-title-wrap\"><span style=\"text-align: initial;font-size: 1em\">In this week\u2019s readings and media, you will see a study about the <\/span><strong style=\"text-align: initial;font-size: 1em\">Online Disinhibition Effect<\/strong><span style=\"text-align: initial;font-size: 1em\">, which explains how a person\u2019s social behaviour can be different when posting online anonymously. <\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"chapter-title-wrap\"><span style=\"text-align: initial;font-size: 1em\">W<\/span><span style=\"text-align: initial;font-size: 1em\">hen you consider the negative impact of trolling, you may be wondering why there isn\u2019t a global initiative to eliminate anonymous communication all together? Should the social media companies be held accountable?<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"chapter-title-wrap\"><span style=\"text-align: initial;font-size: 1em\">On the other side of the issue, you will examine the\u00a0<\/span><i style=\"text-align: initial;font-size: 1em\">social and political benefits<\/i><span style=\"text-align: initial;font-size: 1em\"> to being anonymous. There is a strong case to suggest that, without anonymity, there would be a chilling effect on free expression, which, as we have become accustomed to, is believed to be a cornerstone of democracy. <\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"chapter-title-wrap\"><span style=\"text-align: initial;font-size: 1em\">A<\/span><span style=\"text-align: initial;font-size: 1em\">lso, what content needs to be moderated and when is the time for an organization to limit, block, or deplatform a user?<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"ugc chapter-ugc\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox key-takeaways\">\r\n<h3><em>Key points in this chapter<\/em><\/h3>\r\nIn the following readings and media, the authors will present the following themes:\r\n<ol>\r\n \t<li>People behave differently when they know they are anonymous \u2013 mostly negatively or in anti-social ways.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>The power of SM to inflict suffering and to cast hate upon individuals and groups causes tension against the principles of free speech.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Anonymity provides protection for political dissenters and oppressed groups to organize and communicate safely.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Content moderation and deplatforming are pressing, but extremely complex needs for social media companies, with political controversy swirling all around the decisions made.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<h3><strong>Article: <\/strong>Council on Foreign Relations \u2013 \u201cHate Speech on Social Media: Global Comparisons\u201d by Zachary Laub, June 7, 2019 (8 pages)<\/h3>\r\nThis article provides an analysis of the relationship between hate speech on social media and hate crimes on a global scale. Worth noting are the following statements:\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>\u201cThe same technology that allows social media to galvanize democracy activists can be used by hate groups seeking to organize and recruit.\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t<li>\u201cUsers\u2019 experiences online are mediated by algorithms designed to maximize their engagement, which often inadvertently promote extreme content\u2026. \u2018YouTube may be one of the most powerful radicalizing instruments of the 21st century,\u2019 writes sociologist Zeynep Tufekci.\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t<li>\u201cThe 1996 law exempts tech platforms from liability for actionable speech by their users. Magazines and television networks, for example, can be sued for publishing defamatory information they know to be false; social media platforms cannot be found similarly liable for content they host.\u201d<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: center\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.cfr.org\/backgrounder\/hate-speech-social-media-global-comparisons\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"><img class=\"aligncenter wp-image-583 size-full\" style=\"border: 1px #000 solid\" src=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/socialmedia\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2031\/2023\/07\/VideoLink-HateSpeech.jpg\" alt=\"hate speech\" width=\"611\" height=\"281\" \/><\/a><\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">Laub, Z. (2019). Hate speech on social media: Global comparisons.\u00a0<i>Council on Foreign Relations<\/i>,\u00a0<i>7<\/i>.<\/div>\r\n<h3><strong>Article:<\/strong> The Online Disinhibition Effect<\/h3>\r\nJohn Suler\u2019s research article \u201cThe Online Disinhibition Effect\u201d describes the six psychological factors that contribute to trolling behaviour: dissociative anonymity, invisibility, asynchronicity, solipsistic in-trojection, dissociative imagination, and minimization of authority. \u00a0<b>Download PDF<\/b>:\u00a0\u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/publication\/8451443_The_Online_Disinhibition_Effect\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">The Online Disinhibition Effect<\/a>.\u201d (6 pages)\r\n\r\nKey quotes:\r\n\r\n\"When people have the opportunity to separate their actions on-line from their in-person lifestyle and identity, they feel less vulnerable about self-disclosing and acting out. Whatever they say or do can\u2019t be directly linked to the rest of their lives. In a process of dissociation, they don\u2019t have to own their behaviour by acknowledging it within the full context of an integrated online\/offline identity.\"\r\n\r\n\"Consciously or unconsciously, people may feel that the imaginary characters they 'created' exist in a different space, that one\u2019s online persona along with the online others live in an make-believe dimension, separate and apart from the demands and responsibilities of the real world. They split or dissociate online fiction from offline fact.\"\r\n\r\n\"Consciously or unconsciously, people may feel that the imaginary characters they 'created' exist in a different space, that one\u2019s online persona along with the online others live in an make-believe dimension, separate and apart from the demands and responsibilities of the real world. They split or dissociate online fiction from offline fact.\"\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">Suler, John (2004). \u201cThe Online Disinhibition Effect.\u201d CyberPsychology &amp; Behavior 7 (3): 321\u2013326. doi:10.1089\/1094931041291295. Retrieved 10 March 2013.<\/div>\r\n<h3><strong>Business policy:<\/strong> The value of anonymity<\/h3>\r\n<b>Whisper app<\/b>:\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/whisper.sh\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Whisper<\/a>\u00a0allows users to post their intimate feelings with total anonymity. Here are their\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/whisper.sh\/guidelines\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">community guidelines<\/a>\u00a0with references to their philosophy of anonymity. In this Huffington Post article, we see how the anonymity factor has served as a channel for expression: \u201c<a href=\"http:\/\/www.huffingtonpost.com\/2014\/07\/26\/lgbt-kids-unsupportive-parents-_n_5618242.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">LGBT Youths With Unsupportive Parents Sound Off Anonymously On Whisper App<\/a>\u201d by Curtis M. Wong Senior Editor, HuffPost Queer Voices. Retrieved December 18, 2016.\r\n<h3><strong>Poll:<\/strong> \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/yougov.co.uk\/topics\/technology\/survey-results\/daily\/2021\/07\/13\/66e91\/3\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">When it comes to people\u2019s identity on social media, \u2026 what you think should happen?\u201d<\/a> YouGov informal poll of 3,400+ adults, July, 2021<\/h3>\r\nWhat do you suppose are the results for the poll question above? After you read the results, <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/YouGov\/status\/1414995469030338561\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">go to the Twitter post from YouGov and read the comments<\/a>. Take into consideration that Twitter users do not represent anything or anyone else other than Twitter users, so consider this to be a trend and not necessarily scientific.\r\n<h2>Content Moderation and Deplatforming<\/h2>\r\n\u201cThe wave of violence has shown technology companies that communication and coordination flow in tandem.\u00a0 Now that technology corporations are implicated in acts of massive violence by providing and protecting forums for hate speech, CEOs are called to stand on their ethical principles, not just their terms of service.\u201d \u2013 Joan Donovan, author of \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.cigionline.org\/articles\/navigating-tech-stack-when-where-and-how-should-we-moderate-content\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Navigating the Tech Stack: When, Where and How Should We Moderate Content?<\/a>\u201d\r\n\r\nAt first glance, the issue of whether a private company has the right to moderate content for the purpose of removing (perceived) offensive or misleading content is simply a matter of conducting business. The most common meme used to describe this policy is the \u201cNo Shirt. No Shoes. No Service\u201d policy used by restaurants to refuse service to those who do not comply with the rules.\r\n\r\nHowever, the issue becomes more complicated when you consider that a small handful of tech companies now control the vast majority of content that people engage with; there is no equivalent \u201cpublic sphere.\u201d\r\n\r\nContent moderation is typically used to remove violent, pornographic, threatening, and other objectionable content from social media and the Internet. However, it can also be used to limit political expression or oppress ethnic, cultural, religious, and sexual minorities.\r\n\r\nCompanies that facilitate online communication are making discretionary decisions to remove users or entities from their systems that they deem to impose a risk to their customers or the public\u2014or their profitability. There are several ways that companies can deplatform a person or entity.\r\n\r\nDeplatforming removes or constrains a person\u2019s communication on a platform's private system, usually due to a violation of its terms of use, but there is controversy on this point.\r\n\r\nFor companies using social media accounts to engage with their target audiences, they will need to make careful decisions about when to delete posts from their accounts, why, and what to communicate about such decisions. Equally, organizations need to carefully decide how, when, and why to block individuals from contributing to their online spaces.\r\n<h1>Attributions<\/h1>\r\nThis chapter was adapted from <a href=\"https:\/\/granite.pressbooks.pub\/comm601\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Trends in Digital &amp; Social Media<\/em><\/a>\u00a0<span style=\"text-align: initial;font-size: 1em\">by Steve Covello, which is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.<\/span>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"<div class=\"bc-section section\">\n<div id=\"hate-speech-free-speech-and-anonymity\" class=\"chapter standard\" title=\"Chapter 8 - Hate Speech, Free Speech, and Anonymity\">\n<p class=\"chapter-title-wrap\"><span style=\"text-align: initial;font-size: 1em\">In this week\u2019s readings and media, you will see a study about the <\/span><strong style=\"text-align: initial;font-size: 1em\">Online Disinhibition Effect<\/strong><span style=\"text-align: initial;font-size: 1em\">, which explains how a person\u2019s social behaviour can be different when posting online anonymously. <\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"chapter-title-wrap\"><span style=\"text-align: initial;font-size: 1em\">W<\/span><span style=\"text-align: initial;font-size: 1em\">hen you consider the negative impact of trolling, you may be wondering why there isn\u2019t a global initiative to eliminate anonymous communication all together? Should the social media companies be held accountable?<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"chapter-title-wrap\"><span style=\"text-align: initial;font-size: 1em\">On the other side of the issue, you will examine the\u00a0<\/span><i style=\"text-align: initial;font-size: 1em\">social and political benefits<\/i><span style=\"text-align: initial;font-size: 1em\"> to being anonymous. There is a strong case to suggest that, without anonymity, there would be a chilling effect on free expression, which, as we have become accustomed to, is believed to be a cornerstone of democracy. <\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"chapter-title-wrap\"><span style=\"text-align: initial;font-size: 1em\">A<\/span><span style=\"text-align: initial;font-size: 1em\">lso, what content needs to be moderated and when is the time for an organization to limit, block, or deplatform a user?<\/span><\/p>\n<div class=\"ugc chapter-ugc\">\n<div class=\"textbox key-takeaways\">\n<h3><em>Key points in this chapter<\/em><\/h3>\n<p>In the following readings and media, the authors will present the following themes:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>People behave differently when they know they are anonymous \u2013 mostly negatively or in anti-social ways.<\/li>\n<li>The power of SM to inflict suffering and to cast hate upon individuals and groups causes tension against the principles of free speech.<\/li>\n<li>Anonymity provides protection for political dissenters and oppressed groups to organize and communicate safely.<\/li>\n<li>Content moderation and deplatforming are pressing, but extremely complex needs for social media companies, with political controversy swirling all around the decisions made.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<h3><strong>Article: <\/strong>Council on Foreign Relations \u2013 \u201cHate Speech on Social Media: Global Comparisons\u201d by Zachary Laub, June 7, 2019 (8 pages)<\/h3>\n<p>This article provides an analysis of the relationship between hate speech on social media and hate crimes on a global scale. Worth noting are the following statements:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\u201cThe same technology that allows social media to galvanize democracy activists can be used by hate groups seeking to organize and recruit.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cUsers\u2019 experiences online are mediated by algorithms designed to maximize their engagement, which often inadvertently promote extreme content\u2026. \u2018YouTube may be one of the most powerful radicalizing instruments of the 21st century,\u2019 writes sociologist Zeynep Tufekci.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cThe 1996 law exempts tech platforms from liability for actionable speech by their users. Magazines and television networks, for example, can be sued for publishing defamatory information they know to be false; social media platforms cannot be found similarly liable for content they host.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: center\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.cfr.org\/backgrounder\/hate-speech-social-media-global-comparisons\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter wp-image-583 size-full\" style=\"border: 1px #000 solid\" src=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/socialmedia\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2031\/2023\/07\/VideoLink-HateSpeech.jpg\" alt=\"hate speech\" width=\"611\" height=\"281\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">Laub, Z. (2019). Hate speech on social media: Global comparisons.\u00a0<i>Council on Foreign Relations<\/i>,\u00a0<i>7<\/i>.<\/div>\n<h3><strong>Article:<\/strong> The Online Disinhibition Effect<\/h3>\n<p>John Suler\u2019s research article \u201cThe Online Disinhibition Effect\u201d describes the six psychological factors that contribute to trolling behaviour: dissociative anonymity, invisibility, asynchronicity, solipsistic in-trojection, dissociative imagination, and minimization of authority. \u00a0<b>Download PDF<\/b>:\u00a0\u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/publication\/8451443_The_Online_Disinhibition_Effect\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">The Online Disinhibition Effect<\/a>.\u201d (6 pages)<\/p>\n<p>Key quotes:<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;When people have the opportunity to separate their actions on-line from their in-person lifestyle and identity, they feel less vulnerable about self-disclosing and acting out. Whatever they say or do can\u2019t be directly linked to the rest of their lives. In a process of dissociation, they don\u2019t have to own their behaviour by acknowledging it within the full context of an integrated online\/offline identity.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Consciously or unconsciously, people may feel that the imaginary characters they &#8216;created&#8217; exist in a different space, that one\u2019s online persona along with the online others live in an make-believe dimension, separate and apart from the demands and responsibilities of the real world. They split or dissociate online fiction from offline fact.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Consciously or unconsciously, people may feel that the imaginary characters they &#8216;created&#8217; exist in a different space, that one\u2019s online persona along with the online others live in an make-believe dimension, separate and apart from the demands and responsibilities of the real world. They split or dissociate online fiction from offline fact.&#8221;<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">Suler, John (2004). \u201cThe Online Disinhibition Effect.\u201d CyberPsychology &amp; Behavior 7 (3): 321\u2013326. doi:10.1089\/1094931041291295. Retrieved 10 March 2013.<\/div>\n<h3><strong>Business policy:<\/strong> The value of anonymity<\/h3>\n<p><b>Whisper app<\/b>:\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/whisper.sh\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Whisper<\/a>\u00a0allows users to post their intimate feelings with total anonymity. Here are their\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/whisper.sh\/guidelines\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">community guidelines<\/a>\u00a0with references to their philosophy of anonymity. In this Huffington Post article, we see how the anonymity factor has served as a channel for expression: \u201c<a href=\"http:\/\/www.huffingtonpost.com\/2014\/07\/26\/lgbt-kids-unsupportive-parents-_n_5618242.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">LGBT Youths With Unsupportive Parents Sound Off Anonymously On Whisper App<\/a>\u201d by Curtis M. Wong Senior Editor, HuffPost Queer Voices. Retrieved December 18, 2016.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>Poll:<\/strong> \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/yougov.co.uk\/topics\/technology\/survey-results\/daily\/2021\/07\/13\/66e91\/3\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">When it comes to people\u2019s identity on social media, \u2026 what you think should happen?\u201d<\/a> YouGov informal poll of 3,400+ adults, July, 2021<\/h3>\n<p>What do you suppose are the results for the poll question above? After you read the results, <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/YouGov\/status\/1414995469030338561\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">go to the Twitter post from YouGov and read the comments<\/a>. Take into consideration that Twitter users do not represent anything or anyone else other than Twitter users, so consider this to be a trend and not necessarily scientific.<\/p>\n<h2>Content Moderation and Deplatforming<\/h2>\n<p>\u201cThe wave of violence has shown technology companies that communication and coordination flow in tandem.\u00a0 Now that technology corporations are implicated in acts of massive violence by providing and protecting forums for hate speech, CEOs are called to stand on their ethical principles, not just their terms of service.\u201d \u2013 Joan Donovan, author of \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.cigionline.org\/articles\/navigating-tech-stack-when-where-and-how-should-we-moderate-content\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Navigating the Tech Stack: When, Where and How Should We Moderate Content?<\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n<p>At first glance, the issue of whether a private company has the right to moderate content for the purpose of removing (perceived) offensive or misleading content is simply a matter of conducting business. The most common meme used to describe this policy is the \u201cNo Shirt. No Shoes. No Service\u201d policy used by restaurants to refuse service to those who do not comply with the rules.<\/p>\n<p>However, the issue becomes more complicated when you consider that a small handful of tech companies now control the vast majority of content that people engage with; there is no equivalent \u201cpublic sphere.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Content moderation is typically used to remove violent, pornographic, threatening, and other objectionable content from social media and the Internet. However, it can also be used to limit political expression or oppress ethnic, cultural, religious, and sexual minorities.<\/p>\n<p>Companies that facilitate online communication are making discretionary decisions to remove users or entities from their systems that they deem to impose a risk to their customers or the public\u2014or their profitability. There are several ways that companies can deplatform a person or entity.<\/p>\n<p>Deplatforming removes or constrains a person\u2019s communication on a platform&#8217;s private system, usually due to a violation of its terms of use, but there is controversy on this point.<\/p>\n<p>For companies using social media accounts to engage with their target audiences, they will need to make careful decisions about when to delete posts from their accounts, why, and what to communicate about such decisions. Equally, organizations need to carefully decide how, when, and why to block individuals from contributing to their online spaces.<\/p>\n<h1>Attributions<\/h1>\n<p>This chapter was adapted from <a href=\"https:\/\/granite.pressbooks.pub\/comm601\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Trends in Digital &amp; Social Media<\/em><\/a>\u00a0<span style=\"text-align: initial;font-size: 1em\">by Steve Covello, which is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":1660,"menu_order":5,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-91","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/socialmedia\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/91","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/socialmedia\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/socialmedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/socialmedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1660"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/socialmedia\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/91\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":309,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/socialmedia\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/91\/revisions\/309"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/socialmedia\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/socialmedia\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/91\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/socialmedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=91"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/socialmedia\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=91"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/socialmedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=91"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/socialmedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=91"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}