Online Library

Circa 1,5 miliardi di persone utilizzano Facebook su scala globale. Sebbene la maggioranza lo usi a scopi positivi, ce ne sono alcune che usano questa piattaforma in modo negativo. Partendo da questo presupposto, Facebook ha creato delle politiche, ossia gli Standard della Comunità, che elencano quale tipo di contenuto possa essere condiviso, e quale no. Ad esempio, Facebook proibisce e rimuove i commenti che incitano all’odio, definendoli “contenuti che attaccano direttamente una persona (o un gruppo di persone) in virtu’ di: razza, etnia, nazionalità di origine, affiliazione religiosa, orientamento sessuale, sesso, genere o identità di genere, disabilità o malattia”. Nonostante i contenuti che incitano all’odio non siano permessi, a volte le persone condividono contenuti sgradevoli o inquietanti che, tuttavia, non violano le politiche di Facebook.

Al fine di contrastare questo genere di contenuti estremisti e spiacevoli, Facebook ha dichiarato pubblicamente che il counter-speech (N.d.T.: il replicare, il controbattere), insieme ai mezzi che la piattaforma prevede per incoraggiarlo, debba rivestire un ruolo importante. Facebook ritiene non solo che, potenzialmente, tale approccio possa essere più efficace per affrontare il problema, ma che possa anche essere quello vincente nel lungo periodo.

VOX-Pol Blog post.

Facebook serves more than 1.5 billion people globally. Although the majority of people use the site for positive purposes, there are some who use the platform in negative ways. With that in mind, Facebook has created a set of policies – its Community Standards – detailing what type of content people can and cannot post. For instance, Facebook prohibits and removes hate speech and does not allow dangerous organisations (defined as groups that engage in terrorist or organised criminal activity) to have a presence on Facebook. Content that supports or promotes those groups is removed. However, sometimes people post content which other users may consider hateful or extreme, but which does not violate Facebook’s policies.

To counter this type of disagreeable or extremist content, Facebook has publicly stated that it believes counter-speech is not only potentially more effective, but also more likely to succeed in the long run. Counter-speech is a common, crowd-sourced response to extremist or hateful content. Extreme posts are often met with disagreement, derision and countercampaigns.

Combating extremism in this way has some advantages: it is faster, more flexible and responsive, and capable of dealing with extremism from anywhere and in any language; and it retains the principle of free and open public spaces for debate. However, the forms counter-speech takes are as varied as the extremism it argues against. It is also likely that it is not always as effective as it could be; and some types of counter-speech could potentially even be counter-productive. In the light of its belief in the power of counter-speech and the growing interest in a more rigorous and evidence-led approach to understanding it better, Facebook commissioned Demos to undertake this research report, examining the extent to which different types of counter-speech are produced and shared on Facebook.

Beyond the familiar online world that most of us inhabit lies a vast network of sites, communities and cultures where freedom is pushed to its limits. A world that is as creative and complex as it is dangerous and disturbing. A world that is much closer than you think. The Dark Net is a revelatory examination of the internet today, and of its most innovative and dangerous.

There are increasing calls to curtail or revoke Section 230, a 1996 law that protects internet companies from most lawsuits related to user-generated content. Critics of Section 230 say it discourages vigilant self-regulation. Proponents counter that the law has fostered free expression and innovation. Our report concludes that Section 230 ought to be preserved but significantly amended.

This article offers a bottom-up understanding of the media strategy employed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) as it relates to the production and dissemination of its hostage execution videos. Through an empirical analysis of sixty-two videos of executions produced by ISIL in the year following its establishment as the “Islamic State” in 2014, this study examines the videos as a major component of ISIL’s media strategy. Through these media products, ISIL seeks to spread a political message aimed at both local and global, ingroup and outgroup consumption through audience segmentation, while striving to influence both local and global audiences through the use and production of graphic violence. This article also discusses the strategy governing the production and release of ISIL’s execution videos; how it relies on the global media to transmit its intertwined political and religious agenda in the digital media age.