Quarantining online hate speech: technical and ethical perspectives

Ethics and Information Technology 22 (1):69-80 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper we explore quarantining as a more ethical method for delimiting the spread of Hate Speech via online social media platforms. Currently, companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google generally respondreactivelyto such material: offensive messages that have already been posted are reviewed by human moderators if complaints from users are received. The offensive posts are onlysubsequentlyremoved if the complaints are upheld; therefore, they still cause the recipients psychological harm. In addition, this approach has frequently been criticised for delimiting freedom of expression, since it requires the service providers to elaborate and implement censorship regimes. In the last few years, an emerging generation of automatic Hate Speech detection systems has started to offer new strategies for dealing with this particular kind of offensive online material. Anticipating the future efficacy of such systems, the present article advocates an approach to online Hate Speech detection that is analogous to the quarantining of malicious computer software. If a given post is automatically classified as being harmful in a reliable manner, then it can be temporarily quarantined, and the direct recipients can receive an alert, which protects them from the harmful content in the first instance. The quarantining framework is an example of more ethical online safety technology that can be extended to the handling of Hate Speech. Crucially, it provides flexible options for obtaining a more justifiable balance between freedom of expression and appropriate censorship.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

On Racist Hate Speech and the Scope of a Free Speech Principle.Mary Kate McGowan & Ishani Maitra - 2009 - Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 23 (2):343-372.
What Is the Harm of Hate Speech?Eric Barendt - 2019 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 22 (3):539-553.
What is hate speech? Part 1: The Myth of Hate.Alexander Brown - 2017 - Law and Philosophy 36 (4):419-468.
What is Hate Speech? Part 2: Family Resemblances.Alexander Brown - 2017 - Law and Philosophy 36 (5):561-613.
Dignity, Harm, and Hate Speech.Robert Mark Simpson - 2013 - Law and Philosophy 32 (6):701-728.
Hate Speech, Dignity and Self-Respect.Jonathan Seglow - 2016 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (5):1103-1116.
Hate Speech and the Problems of Agency.Kory Schaff - 2000 - Social Philosophy Today 16:185-201.

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-10-15

Downloads
63 (#250,762)

6 months
14 (#170,850)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

The eradication of hate speech on social media: a systematic review.Javier Gracia-Calandín & Leonardo Suárez-Montoya - 2023 - Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 21 (4):406-421. Translated by Jeremy Roe.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The ethics of information.Luciano Floridi - 2013 - Oxford, England: Oxford University Press UK.
Subordinating Speech.Ishani Maitra - 2012 - In Mary Kate McGowan Ishani Maitra (ed.), Speech and Harm: Controversies Over Free Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 94-120.

View all 8 references / Add more references