Since the Rwandan genocide, we've known that the media can play a terrifying role in conveying messages of hate against certain minorities. "Hate radio," as it came to be known, was instrumental in instigating Hutus to go out and slaughter Tutsis with machetes, as was amply demonstrated before the International Criminal Court. This happened in the 1990s, but it goes without saying that social media may have played a similar role in other, reckless events, well into the 21st century, such as in 2017.
It was in Burma or Myanmar when Facebook served to deliver messages of hate against the Rohingya minority to the masses; this led to thousands of deaths—around 20,000—and the exile of 700,000 people to Bangladesh. These facts are acknowledged by Facebook, by UN reports, and by Amnesty International. It seems that the social networks that were supposed to unite us—and bring happiness—can also serve to fuel mass murder. Facebook could have invested in moderators, programmed algorithms to detect hate, removed fake profiles, then promoted transparency and accountability, and assisted in subsequent judicial proceedings. Right now, the networks broadcast fake news and spread ideologically driven lies, they serve to spread paranoia and animosity, and magnify specific problems so that they appear, in the eyes of the masses, as chilling threats.
In Murcia, there were the riots in Torre Pacheco, with thousands of radicals taking to the streets, apparently in a hunt for immigrants. Fortunately, there were no fatalities, but there were beatings and businesses run by North Africans that should be closed. It goes without saying that social media has also been decisive in all of this. During those days in July, there were up to fifteen times more hate messages. What should the owners of these platforms have done? What would they have done if the same reality as in Rwanda or Myanmar had occurred, and, even if we weren't talking about thousands of deaths, there had been some irrecoverable victims?
We're talking about censorship on social media. Users tend to dislike being blocked from posting content, whether it's photos of nipples or opinions that attack the powerful—bankers, politicians, or petty kingpins—but having a message that targets a minority deleted is still a form of censorship, which is in favor of. It's always been said that freedom of expression shouldn't include the freedom to start a fire in a packed theater, nor the freedom to claim that the person who started the fire is an immigrant, whether or not there's proof of that. Social media doesn't create hatred, but it magnifies it and profits from it, because these kinds of messages easily go viral. They've managed to turn base passions into a market, one of unbridled attention. And the only way to stop this from generating profit is with fines.
