Ever since the advent of the Internet, human communication has drastically changed. The networking potential created by the Internet has allowed people from all across the globe to communicate instantaneously in ways that seemed impossible only 25-30 years ago. With the rise of the Internet social media sites have emerged: websites with the specific purpose of communicating with others, sharing ideas and information, and creating interactive communities to share user-generated content. Facebook, the most popular social media site, as of the fourth quarter of 2015 had 1.59 billion monthly active users.
Social media can take many different shapes and sizes, and can feature registered and anonymous users. Such social media outlets, such as the app Yik Yak, have come under fire recently for the content that has been posted on the app. Users posting anonymously have made racist, sexist, and otherwise offensive posts, as well as threats about shootings and terrorism. With the constant threat of terrorism and school shootings at the forefront of the minds of law enforcement and school administrators, postings about threats of violence and other offensive posts are not taken lightly. A survey of college officials in April 2015 showed that a majority of those responding monitored such public social media feeds. The question becomes: should school officials and law enforcement monitor public social media posts, and should they actively seek out those who make offensive or threatening posts?
Pros
On the surface, the benefits to social media monitoring are obvious: should there be threatening, offensive, or other questionable posts, school officials, law enforcement, and other positions of authority will be able see the posts, and act on them. In today’s world, potential attackers with strong social media presences may post about an attack, or hint at it. Even in cases where the poster isn’t serious about the threats they are making, it is impossible to tell someone’s intent without further follow up. Some of these threats can be made over social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, where users are required to register and disclose information in order to make an account, which makes tracking down the poster easier. However, apps like Yik Yak, where users are able to post anonymously, have been hotbeds for offensive speech, and threats of violence as well. In cases where threats do occur, the anonymous nature of Yik Yak has not protected the identities of posters. Police have arrested multiple people who have used the app to threaten violence. While the police are required to provide a subpoena to get information about the posters, as they are otherwise anonymous, the timing of the arrests (hours after the post itself happens) shows that those running Yik Yak do not take these threats lightly. While the seriousness of the threats remains unknown, the proactivity of law enforcement has likely saved lives.
The benefits to monitoring social media are broader than just preventing violence and terrorism threats. Between September 2012 and September 2013, nine suicides in teenagers were linked to the last.fm social media site alone. Monitoring the social media and Internet activity of teenagers is one way to keep them safe. The Internet is a large, open space. As such, it may not be unreasonable to make sure that teenagers are not getting mixed up in trouble that they shouldn’t be. Additionally, the anonymity provided by the Internet can encourage people to say things that they wouldn’t in real life. This could be even worse for teenagers, as it gives an additional outlet for bullies to harass their victims. Being able to spot harassing posts, and posts about depression, self harm, and other red flags, and then intervene is something that could help prevent further incidents in the future.
Cons
The proponents against such monitoring and the subsequent follow-ups cite free speech as the main reason postings should be left alone. On Yik Yak, aside from a legitimate threat or other call of violence, the app self regulates through an upvoting/downvoting system. If a post gets a score of negative five, it is removed. Much of the offensive or otherwise negative content gets filtered and self regulated through the community in this way. With this system in place, many offensive or otherwise unpopular posts will not last long. Obviously, trolls and those with hateful opinions aside, many people do not approve of hate speech. Policies like this keep the community a more regulated space, without additional involvement.
For example, to prevent the app from infiltrating the high school community, “geo-fences” have been placed around about 90 percent of high schools and middle schools – effectively preventing anyone from accessing the app from a location near a high school or middle school. This helps to prevent those who aren’t mature enough to handle it from getting to it. Cyberbullying is much more prevalent in middle schools and high schools than it is in college, so the anonymous nature of this app becomes all the more dangerous in the hands of those more likely to abuse it. Taking steps such as these helps to keep the app as it was intended, while still keeping some precautions to prevent it from getting out of hand.
Even in spaces like college campuses, where users can be deemed mature enough to access the app, there is still evidence of hateful speech. However, hateful speech is not illegal. Though it may not be encouraged or condoned by the app developers, its users, or third parties to the situation, people are still free to speak their minds. Were school administrators or law enforcement to seek out those who were making racist, misogynistic, or otherwise offensive posts, there is little they could do to enforce it. The app can be banned via school’s wifi networks, but it is mostly a symbolic gesture, as the app would still be available through cellular data. At state schools, freedom of speech is protected under the first amendment of the constitution.
This also sets a potentially dangerous precedent, and could start a slippery slope. If one part of speech is censored, what will come next?
My Opinion
I see both sides of the argument, and I think there are merits to both sides. I am definitely a proponent of identifying those who make threats of violence and terror threats. As mentioned in the post, there is no way to know if the threats are serious or not, and I don’t think that we can afford to err on the side of leniency with regard to these posts. I think that public social media can be monitored, and not intervened on unless the situation calls for it. Especially when it comes to younger, less mature users of social media sites. However, I think that free speech in all other circumstances should be honored. I don’t approve of hate speech, but I do not think it is right to censor it. I also think that in this age of Internet trolls it would be a waste of resources to go after anyone who says something offensive over the Internet. The Internet is home to so many controversial posts, opinions, and people, and I think it’s important to understand that not everyone will say or do nice things, especially if they are under the veil of anonymity. However, just because someone’s feelings are hurt does not mean we need to seek out and reprimand the offender. What are your thoughts?
I agree with you. I do think we should be taking threats of violence towards other seriously. I think it is worth it to take the time to expose the people making these threats and punish them accordingly, whether the threat is real or not. I also agree that hate speech should not be moderated/monitored as closely. Like you said, there are so many people online saying mean and derogatory things that it would be impossible to weed out everything. I think that efforts would be better spent in preventing actual violence and terrorism than in making sure people are nice online. I don't know if I would necessarily call the monitoring of hate speech a free speech issue, but I would argue that it would be a waste of time.
ReplyDeleteI agree that terror threats and threats of violence are serious especially given the current escalation of terrorist attacks. All threats should be treated as if they were real and rooting out those posts could save lives. That being said, I agree with Anne. The sheer volume of interactions that take place on the internet make it incredibly difficult to police and people say plenty of nasty things on the internet-- time would be better spent finding terrorists than making sure everyone is civil. For me, the less the internet is policed, the better. Online communities foster a wide exchange of ideas and content and not everyone is going to agree with everything that is said or done online. The more open the Internet is the safer everyone will feel posting what they think creating a robust exchange of thoughts. Policing the internet too severely will chill people to using the Internet as a mode of exchange which results in a net loss for society overall. I think it's one thing to police known avenues for drug trafficking, like the Silk Road, but quite another to have access to everyone's Instagram. I understand the need to monitor to some degree but the freer the better, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI would tend to lean towards the side of caution when it comes to monitoring and moderating online forums. Keeping the internet as a free space is something I believe to be important, even if it comes at the cost of giving bigots a safe-haven. While I understand the desire to look into threatening statements, I think this might even be unnecessary. I would expect that anyone threatening violence against oneself or others on an app like yikyak, or any similar forum, is more likely attention seeking than actually threatening. I mean not to be insensitive on this issue, I understand that all such threats need to be taken seriously. However, as I understand the issue, those who are serious threats to themselves and others are unlikely to yak about it. Perhaps I misunderstand the issue, and were I to see evidence contrary to my above argument I would quickly change my position. As I understand the common mental state of someone who is suicidal or homicidal, however, I do not believe hate speech and violence speech on social media calls for monitoring. If someone feels truly threatened, they should certainly contact the authorities, but the authorities need not have an omnipresence on social media.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do think that we should continue to take terrorist and other dangerous threats on social media seriously, I agree with Charles in leaning on the side of caution. Giving law enforcement unlimited access to social media, combined with the willingness of anonymous apps like Yik-yak to surrender information quickly, could easily lead to abuse. It is important to prevent things like cyberbullying, suicide, and acts of terrorism, but where will they draw the line with surveillance? Will it only be active threats, or merely those that are alluded to? Will those threats that aren’t direct be cause for police surveillance? I would be in favor of community, rather than law enforcement, policing of posts. This still provides accountability, but without less worry about police abuse.
ReplyDeleteI find the idea of monitoring social media an uncomfortable proposition. In the world we live in, social media has become a means for every day conversation and has taken the place of a lot of what used to be done face to face. I would feel very uncomfortable if the government was monitoring my every day face to face interactions and I don't think that social media is any different. That being said, threats should never be taken lightly. This is the case in our spoken conversations as well. What Steffi said about the community monitoring makes a lot of sense to me. I don't know that it would end of being overwhelmingly effective, but I think it is similar to what we do all the time with information we gather from conversations and interactions with those in our communities. Just as there are mandatory reporters in schools or at camps who are required to report any activity or something said that suggests harm to self or to others, there could be mandatory reporters for social media. That way the government would not be the ones monitoring directly, but there would be mandated reporting of suspicious activity that could then be dealt with. Again, I'm not sure this would work, but it is just a thought.
ReplyDeleteI don't really have a huge problem with school districts monitoring the public posts of students, but I think that they should have to view them from the perspective of the general public. If anything, it will teach students early on that what they say on the internet has a real impact, and that privacy settings should be taken seriously. Ultimately I think it's a futile gesture, as students will just move inappropriate activity to private forms of communication, but I have no problem with school districts pretending like they're making a difference. However, giving school districts the capacity to gain access to student's social media is absolutely ridiculous. Schools aren't law enforcement agencies. Anything sufficiently dangerous should be handled by law enforcement, and anything short of that should be handled through less invasive means.
ReplyDeleteI think that free speech is very important but it is also important to teach and understand that "free speech" does not mean "speech without consequence." You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre neither should you be able to post "I going to fucking kill everyone at school" without reaping some consequence. I think that monitoring and the advent of stricter bullying rules lay a good foundation for teaching children the consequences for their actions with the added bonuses of making other students feel safe from online threats.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Josh is saying. Monitoring someone's public social media feed is completely ok with me. People need to realize that what they put up online has real consequences and also need to learn how to optimize their privacy settings. I think in the case of government or a large corporation, I think that while they may have safety in mind, the privacy violations are just too great if they do mass surveillance beyond what is public.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the sentiment that anything that is publicly posted should be considered fair game. I mean if anyone else (private companies, other people, other governments) can read the post, why shouldn't our government. That said, nothing posted online should be treated as a formal statement (except posts specifically posted as formal statements) that is, if someone posts that they killed someone, that should be treated as a lead, not a confession. Additionally, for anonymous sites such as Reddit, YikYak, etc. I think there should be a high burden of proof before the poster's identity is released to the government. I support YikYak in ensuring that threats to people's safety as followed through on, but I don't think that the government should be able to get information on, for example, political dissidents.
ReplyDelete