Social Media Misuse - Essay Example

Social Media Misuse In one way or another, social media has managed to affect people’s lives upon its development. Facebook and Twitter are the most common social media platforms. Over the years Facebook popularity has increased (Hughes et al., 561). Though social media connects people with friends and family, it is hard to even skeptics to deny that social media has made it possible to easily spread hate speech without the slightest fear of consequences. Social media has become a playground in which criminals comfortably, say and do, whenever and whatever they feel like. There is no doubt that a turbulent relationship exists between hate speech and social media, Facebook to a higher degree. To Facebook continued success, elimination of hate speech is not only paramount but also of great importance, therefore, it should be at the top in their list of priorities. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Their attempts to take down posts that promote hate are futile. Due to the existence of loopholes, Facebook bans less harmful posts rather than the ones that cause chaos the most. The usage of the platform is quite different from its sole purpose, connecting the world, and it is clear Facebook is not doing a good job managing the freedom of speech. Contents that are threatening, obscene, triggers violence and hate are prohibited from being posted by any user, according to Facebook’s statement of rights and responsibilities. If this policy is violated, Facebook has a right to remove the content as soon as it is posted and there is no room for appeal whatsoever. Certain removal or lack, sometimes hesitations, of removal has drawn heavy controversy. According to Stecklow, (n.p.), a photo was posted on Facebook and was shared 229 times. There were allegations that Facebook tolerated hate speech since it was used effectively as a tool to spread hate speech against the outnumbered Muslims in Myanmar. The photo was reported but Facebook rejected the proposal to remove the picture on grounds that it met their standards, therefore, there was no need to take it down. After a prolonged persuasion, Facebook gave in and removed it. This was just one instance among many more. The thought that Facebook was against taking down a picture, that caused violence and promoted hate yet they have the mandate to remove it without any consequence or incurring costs, raises eyebrows. There is no other way to explain why there was a delay to take an urgent action other than to conclude that Facebook is irresponsible in controlling what is posted on their site. It is an obligation that Facebook must take to clearly draw a line between peaceful protest and promotion of violent acts. Judging people depending on their skin color rather than the content of their character is a common habit and nowadays it has spread, even on Facebook. Jakubowicz confirms that targets are often harassed on the Internet (46). Racism incidents are rampant on social media. Anonymity on these social media platforms provides the means necessary to condemn other races without the fear of direct confrontation. Social media only provides support to existing relationships. Social media offers no solutions to social problems; instead, they reinforce them, for instance, racism. It is only in Social media where words can be carelessly thrown around otherwise they would never come out on a face-to-face situation. This clearly depicts the true human nature. Racism may cause mental issues. Victims have been reported to be stressful and depressed, this may lead to hypertension. Health disparities phenomenon is influenced by racism experiences. Facebook, as a social media platform, has often been accused of showing less concern than expected in enforcing their policies, such as those that are against racist. Racism also creates a sense of inferiority among the victims (Collins and Williams, 496). Most of the cases that have been flagged for attention have been ignored. Though Facebook has content reviewers, it has admitted posts that are racist. Kubheka, (n.p.) revealed that a certain Facebook post was exposed in which judge Jansen alleged that sexual assault was mostly associated with black culture. Though she was suspended from her court duties, the thought that such a post slipped through Facebook’s content reviewers is a disturbing one. Since social media efficiently broaden the audience, it is a norm to engage Facebook in political campaigns so as to sway voters to a particular side. Cauwels and Sornette confirmed that Facebook still has the potential to further its growth (56). With capable tools such as Facebook live, it is possible to reach out to voters and give them the opportunity to ask questions while answers are given immediately. For this reason, Facebook has a huge impact on the outcome of an election. When citizens want to keep up to date with trending topics concerning elections, Facebook is a reliable source. Facebook has been accused of favoring some political parties, thereby taking sides and this fails to give the candidates a level ground to ensure a fair competition. Abramson (n.p.) alleged that during the 2016 elections, approximately 500 accounts were purchased, Russian-based. He added that close to 470 accounts violated Facebook’s policies yet they were still purchased and used without their consent. Facebook once again gave shallow details concerning the same. It is evident that they are not accountable for their actions or being the cause of certain occurrences. President Donald Trump’s victory was speculated to be caused by the spread of propaganda that was spread from Russia. Mark Zuckerberg was scrutinized for dismissing the claim and terming it as “crazy ideas”. Facebook stated that they were in the dark about the issue since they lacked evidence that the latter occurred. Though how the ads were used is unclear, one thing is for certain. Facebook is not doing enough and they lack proper accountability. Freedom of speech are words that are misused and it has reached a point where it contains more misinformation compared to the truth. Smith, (67) disagreed with the critics who complain that Facebook users are being censored if they are denied the chance to post harmful content that the users perceive to be right. Majority of online offenders use them for either hiding under them or shielding themselves from consequences. Facebook deletion on anything that looks like hate speech is argued on the basis that it impedes the freedom of press or expression. Most of the people who post contents that promote hate claim that they are exercising their freedom of speech. That being said though, it is easy for one to agree that hate speech should not be tolerated based on such inconsiderate grounds. If it takes the amendment of certain laws to get either rid of hate speech or even weaken its grasp, so be it. People’s lives are more important than freedom of speech. It should not be used to justify the hateful words that are spread through Facebook and other social media platforms. Facebook is clouded by these words and always delay to take actions against hate speech and other violations. This makes the targeted users vulnerable because with Facebook in the picture, it is hard to ignore hateful contents because it spreads rapidly and broadly. It is the duty of Facebook to take down harmful contents without wasting time considering what freedom of speech is and what is not. Facebook is the most visited sites among the other social media platforms (Moran et al., 7). Its existence is beneficial but it comes with some negative impacts. Facebook has made it possible for racists to openly air their inconsiderate views about others since fake accounts can be created. Racism causes both emotional and health problems. Facebook can be used to spread offensive contents that cause chaos like the case of Myanmar where the hate speech against Muslims was primarily distributed by Facebook since it provides a wider audience with minimal risks. Facebook did not take down such materials before they could any harm though concerns were raised. Facebook has also shown relevance involvement in politics, a field they impact in a huge way. However, it was noted that Facebook, as a social media platform, was biased. Though the allegation was not solid, Facebook’s response proved that they were irresponsible in taking important matters into account. Some people might argue that Facebook should not delete some contents because of the existence of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech should not be the breeding ground of hate, and cause of bloodshed. Facebook should, therefore, be keener to details and monitor posts to ensure that the Facebook community is free from hateful comments and posts. Facebook is not doing enough to fight hate (“Facebook Urged to Fight Hate” 4). Work cited "Facebook Urged to Fight Hate." National Catholic Reporter, vol. 54, no. 20, 13 July 2018, p. 4. Abramson, Alana. “Facebook: Russian Accounts Bought Ads During 2016 Election.” Time, Time, 6 Sept. 2017, http://time.com/4930532/facebook-russian-accounts-2016-election/. Accessed 31 Aug 2018. CAUWELS, PETER and DIDIER SORNETTE. "Quis Pendit Ipsa Pretia: Facebook Valuation and Diagnostic of a Bubble Based on Nonlinear Demographic Dynamics." Journal of Portfolio Management, vol. 38, no. 2, Winter2012, pp. 56-66. Collins, C.A. and Williams, D.R., 1999, September. Segregation and mortality: the deadly effects of racism?. In Sociological Forum (Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 495-523). Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers. Hughes, David John, et al. "A tale of two sites: Twitter vs. Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage." Computers in Human Behavior 28.2 (2012): 561-569. Jakubowicz, A 2017, 'Alt_Right White Lite: trolling, hate speech and cyber racism on social media', Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 9, 3, pp. 41-60. Kubheka, Thando. “Black Lawyers Association Calls for Mabel Jansen to Resign.” Eyewitness News, 20 Nov. 2016, https://ewn.co.za/2016/05/13/Black-Lawyers-Association-calls-for-Mabel-Jansen-to-resign. Accessed 31 Aug 2018. Moran, Mike, Jeff Seaman, and Hester Tinti-Kane. "Teaching, Learning, and Sharing: How Today's Higher Education Faculty Use Social Media." Babson Survey Research Group (2011). Smith, T. (2017). THE FREE SPEECH VERNACULAR: CONCEPTUAL CONFUSIONS IN THE WAY WE SPEAK ABOUT SPEECH. Texas Review Of Law & Politics, 22(1), 57-92. Stecklow, Steve. “Why Facebook Is Losing the War on Hate Speech in Myanmar.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 15 Aug. 2018, https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/myanmar-facebook-hate/. Accessed 31 Aug 2018. Read More