SAFE HAVENS FOR HATE

A scholarly analysis of the ways that social media platforms can—and cannot—moderate extremism and misinformation.

Writing in often labored academic prose, Mitts observes, repeatedly, that because social media lack any consistent cross-platform moderation policies, extremist groups such as QAnon and the Islamic State set up shop on one, such as Facebook, and then when charged with policy violations simply migrate to more lenient platforms such as Telegram. By the time they do, the harm is often done: As Mitts calculates, by the time Facebook began to take down Proud Boys pages in 2018, the group had attracted some 50,000 followers. Censorship can be a double-edged sword, Mitts notes: Setting firm policies against, say, hate speech and threats of violence can sometimes steer users away from extremist outlets, but just as often “being subject to content moderation motivates individuals to further seek out the banned information, ­either on the moderating platform or in less-regulated spaces.” Moreover, any suggestion of censorship can radicalize users, as a case study of a Twitter user who “experienced moderation” and later turned up at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, indicates, if in a roundabout way. Mitts suggests that heightened diligence is called for: The shooter in Christchurch, New Zealand, who targeted Muslims there managed to post video that, though deplatformed by Facebook, was up long enough to be replicated on many other sites, so that moderators on sites such as YouTube now have to play whack-a-mole to keep up with taking it down. Allowing that the landscape has changed now that Elon Musk’s X, one of the largest of the platforms, has welcomed previously banned hate groups, Mitts closes with the hopeful if unlikely thought that getting social media users to accept that moderation is a socially good thing will make them “less vulnerable to extremism.”

Repetitive and arid, but with points of interest for policymakers.