Mechanisms of the Online Hate Machine
--
A deeper dive into the hate culture of the internet.
Unless you have been living under a rock for the past decade, the internet can (and often is), for lack of better words, a deranged place. You have to go out of your way to avoid the mean, racist, sexist, phobic and the downright disgusting or bizarre comments left by the infamous usernames (case in point, ‘noobmaster69’). Every opinion, from political views to choice of toppings on a pizza can only seem to be tackled with intense hate, rage and name-calling.
The limit to what people can say on the internet, without batting of an eye, (like the universe) is ever expanding. As fellow participants on forums and discussion groups, we seem to have accepted the ‘dark side of the internet’ and are probably just glad that we can still participate in decent conversations.
If you were living under a rock for the past decade, an observation that human morality is quickly spiraling downwards, would seem to be an acceptable inference. Wouldn’t it? After all, if people are forced to leave platforms originally meant for open communication, because of death and rape threats, all for the crime of disagreeing and having an opinion; seems a bit too dire to even comprehend.
Does the ‘hate culture’ provide a somewhat accurate generalization of the social media and micro-blogging platforms? And if it does, who really is to be blamed? Let’s take a closer look.
Hate Culture and the Internet
As a good thought experiment, think about the last time you experienced someone in real life (pre-lockdown, of course) who said something downright horrible and unacceptable, to or someone around you? Now think about someone saying even remotely offensive. Do these same exercises for online platforms. Chances are, a week’s worth of online hate, received or otherwise witnessed, outshoots the ones in real life by a good margin.
For yet another experiment, imagine what a hate commenter on a YouTube video looks like. For a handful cases, it would be easier than others (Arthur Miller’s face and personality is certainly easier to imagine than ‘vagueAssAssin99’’s). Now imagine him/her saying his/her comment, in real life, in front of the YouTuber. Seems a bit bizarre, doesn’t it.
There is a clear dissonance between what people perceive as acceptable in real life and what people perceive as acceptable on the internet. While it is true that everyone, every so often lashes out, the people leaving hate comments or trolls (to my best estimation) are not like normal people lashing out, but are much more sinister. A part of the motive (possible even the draw) of doing online is because they can. Due to the miracle of anonymity on the internet, people can get away with saying most of the things that they cannot get away with in real life. To tackle their deep seeded anger, resentment or just boredom, they take on personas to leave hate comments as a twisted form of catharsis. Either that, or they are just depraved!
The Tyranny of Capitalism
Despite all the ‘wonders’ possible because of the internet, and social media in particular (that always get highlighted when addressing the crippling addiction of the youth to social media), it has become the driving force of the corporate wheel; and a devious one at that. It is important to remember that we are only cog in a massive wheel. While there is no cost as such, to engage in social media websites, the investments (in the form of data, time and perhaps most important, attention) of the user, pays in dividends for the advertisers, and in turn the investors.
The end goal of any company can be condensed to 5 words: ‘Growth of the bottom-line’. Social media sites are only viable because of advertisers. Advertisers, in turn, crave engagement. The more the better. It is common knowledge that social media and micro-blogging websites promote user profiles that engage more, and the content creators that get more engagement. Good, bad, it doesn’t really matter. It is human nature to respond faster and more intensely, to hate and controversies than good, positive things, and social media’s (to some extent, even many content creators’) existence hinges on that fact.
Is cancel culture really the answer?
Fortunately, for the less aggressive users of the internet, the social media and microblogging platforms have taken the matter in their own hands. In the last few months, platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube have started de-platforming people who don’t abide by the rules set by the platform. While on the surface it would seem like a victory, it sets a dangerous precedent.
As the level of online hate has increased, the tolerance for the same has progressively decreased. There is a very thin line between hate speech and wrong speech. And even thinner between wrong speech and ‘I disagree with that’ speech. The only catch is, that line is determined by the corporate overlords; you know, the ones who only want profit (which at times directly corresponds to promulgating their own agenda, political or otherwise).
Deplatforming someone for using hate speech opens up the possibility that in the future, any person who doesn’t abide by some arbitrary rules that people at the top have come up with, could get deplatformed. That would most likely include (but not limited to), people with extreme ideologies or radical beliefs. Deplatforming opens the door for a future in which the only people who use these platforms are the ones who can do so without even the slightest possibility of disagreement. A large echo-chamber. Surely that sounds any better than the condition it is in right now, doesn’t it?
Pareto’s principle in action
For the uninitiated, it states that ‘80% of the output, comes from 20% of the input’. In essence, Pareto’s principle roughly applies to everything around us. In terms of interactions online, it can be used to rationalize the distinction between users classified as the ‘non-vocal minority’ and the ‘vocal majority’. Basically, the vast majority of the people who participate in social media, micro-blogging or video streaming platforms, don’t engage as often as we might think.
Let’s take YouTube as an example. More often than naught, there is a huge difference between the number of subscribers and the average number of views of any channel. Let’s say that the number of subscribers is higher than the number of average viewers. This indicates that the user once had subscribed to the channel, probably forgotten about it, and doesn’t engage with the content anymore. Now let’s take the other side. If the number of subscribers are less than the average number of views in the channel, then viewers watch the video, but don’t actively engage; (often to the creator’s dismay) either by commenting or by subscribing to the channel.
The same is true for Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and any number of websites. The number of people who engage is overshadowed by the far greater number of people who don’t actively engage but rather just read, consume and scroll further.
If one would choose to focus on the few people who write hate, the worldview would definitely be a lot more dire. The problem of hate online isn’t really absolute, but more an issue of a distorted focus. So it makes a lot more sense to just ignore it, right? Not quite.
A way forward
Let’s take a step back and evaluate the option objectively. Is deplatforming the answer? Does banning someone for life do good to anyone? If it does, does it harm anyone? Does it impede anyone’s rights? Shouldn’t the answer to bad speech be better speech? Shouldn’t the answer to wrong speech be correct speech? Isn’t society better served by promulgating a culture of inclusion to tackle the rage and hate, instead of silencing them?
This article isn’t meant to be conclusive or absolute. Rather, it aims to provide multiple perspectives and leave the reader with questions, they probably hadn’t thought about. Further, it aims to spark a dialogue and raise further questions.
