Hate Speech

Subterms

    Latest story

    138 Shares115 Views

    Nepal Lifts Ban on TikTok, in a Likely Overture to China

    by

    The move signaled that Nepal’s new prime minister, who has cultivated ties with China, would continue on that path.The new prime minister of Nepal, K.P. Sharma Oli, on Thursday overturned a ban on TikTok that his predecessor imposed in November, an apparent sign that the veteran politician intended to strengthen the country’s relations with China, its northern neighbor.The popular social media app, which is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, was banned for its refusal to curb what the previous Nepalese government had described as hate speech that disturbed “social harmony.” At the time, Nepali officials said that they had resorted to the ban after TikTok declined to address concerns about troubling content.TikTok did not respond to a request for comment.The decision to reinstate TikTok signaled Mr. Oli’s belief that, amid the geopolitical bickering between China and India, Nepal’s neighbor to the south that also banned the app, the Himalayan country was better off aligning with China.TikTok and many other Chinese apps have been banned in India since 2020, amid historically fraught relations between the two countries and more recent efforts to dominate the South Asian region.Prithvi Subba Gurung, a Nepalese government spokesman, said TikTok would now have to abide by certain directives, such as naming a point of contact in the country.“We have set a few conditions such as TikTok to be used for promoting Nepali tourism, supporting us for digital safety, digital literacy and digital education and curb hate content,” Mr. Gurung said.On Thursday morning, the Chinese ambassador to Nepal, Chen Song, wrote on the social media platform X, “Today is a good day,” which many Nepalese took to mean that the talks to reinstate TikTok had been finalized.Mr. Oli, 73, who leads Nepal’s largest communist party, returned to power in July as the leader of a new ruling coalition, taking charge of the government for the fourth time. The previous leader, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, was seen as easier than Mr. Oli for India to manipulate and frequently changing coalition partners for his personal benefit.Mr. Oli has made no secret of his opposition to India’s influence in Nepal. During his first stint as prime minister in 2015, he stood up against a crippling economic blockade that India had imposed over certain provisions in Nepal’s Constitution.During his second stint as prime minister, after elections in 2017, Mr. Oli revised Nepal’s political map in a way that further soured relations with India.On Thursday, Nepal and China also agreed to expand a few development projects aimed at strengthening bilateral ties, including an agreement to complete the upgrade of a highway in Kathmandu, the Nepalese capital, as part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative project. Anupreeta Das More

    More stories

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Scofflaws and Other Hazards on the Roads

      by

      More from our inbox:Neo-Nazis in Nashville and the Speech QuestionVance vs. the Rule of LawA Ban on Masks? Stella Kalinina for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Traffic Stops Fell in Pandemic, and Didn’t Return” (The Upshot, front page, Aug. 1):Thank you for highlighting the public health crisis that is the rise in traffic deaths across the United States. One point not made is the burden on our children. Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death of children, second to firearms. In my city, Philadelphia, five children, on average, are hit by a car every week.As a pediatric resident physician, I see the devastating outcomes of these statistics in the emergency room and intensive care unit. I advise children to wear a seatbelt, look both ways before crossing a road and wear a helmet when cycling. But people are getting killed even when they do everything right.Plastic bollards separating a designated bike lane don’t work when drivers are willing to barrel over them.We need an evidence-based approach to this public health crisis. Safe road design saves lives. We need to invest in Vision Zero programs to fund structural changes, including speed cameras and physical barriers between cyclists and drivers. Cities need to invest in public transit systems.Culture change takes time. Structural change in the meantime is evidence-based and will work to make all Americans, including our children, safer.Allison NeesonPhiladelphiaTo the Editor:The degree to which American drivers have been ignoring traffic laws over the past several years is mind-blowing. Speeding on highways and parkways is out of control and makes driving an exercise in avoiding catastrophe. It seems as if every other car is drag racing or trying to set a new speed record.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Antisemitism on Campuses, Ivy and Beyond

      by

      More from our inbox:A Middleman’s Role in Drug PrescriptionsObjection, Your HonorTrump vs. the Environment Alex Welsh for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Should American Jews Abandon Elite Universities?,” by Bret Stephens (column, June 26):Mr. Stephens has issued a sobering and well-documented indictment of antisemitism on elite campuses. The question asked by the headline is timely and troubling for many Jewish high school students and their families.As noted by Mr. Stephens, confused administrators and revisionist curriculums contributed to this crisis. But the insensitivity and hypocrisy of supposedly idealistic and enlightened college students may be the most striking and unkind cut of all.“Safe spaces” and rules against “microaggressions” have become commonplace on campuses. Yet when Jewish students made it known that calling for deadly attacks on Jews (“Globalize the intifada!”) is offensive and intimidating, they were ignored.Chants in favor of colonization or racism would never — and should never — be met with such indifference. It hurts.Perhaps the headline of Mr. Stephens’s column should be rephrased: “Have Elite Universities Abandoned American Jews?”Alan M. SchwartzTeaneck, N.J.To the Editor:While the Ivies have claimed the antisemitism spotlight this year, Jew-hatred is flourishing on many other campuses, including mine, the University of California, Davis.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Robert Kraft’s Fight Against Antisemitism Began Long Before Oct. 7

      by

      The New England Patriots owner said this week that he was “no longer comfortable supporting” Columbia University, his alma mater, which has been disrupted by protests.Protests at Columbia University have attracted national headlines, prompted congressional hearings and led to the arrest of more than 100 students. This week, the New England Patriots owner, Robert K. Kraft, one of the school’s most famous and wealthiest graduates, stepped into the fray.Mr. Kraft, who graduated from Columbia in 1963 and has donated millions of dollars to the university, said he would stop giving money to the school until it took action to curtail the hate speech that had been directed at some students and staff members.“I am no longer confident that Columbia can protect its students and staff, and I am not comfortable supporting the university until corrective action is taken,” Mr. Kraft said in a statement on Monday.Protests have roiled the campus in Upper Manhattan this month, with students arrested after refusing to leave a pro-Palestinian encampment and crowds of protesters outside the school gates at times harassing Jewish students or shouting antisemitic comments.Mr. Kraft’s attempts to fight antisemitism have become increasingly public in recent years, well before the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas on Israel and the war in Gaza. In 2019, Mr. Kraft, who was alarmed by attacks on Jews and synagogues in Pittsburgh, Poway, Calif., and elsewhere, created the Foundation to Combat Antisemitism, a nonprofit group trying to counter the surge in violent language on social media.The foundation is in the midst of a $25 million television campaign that has included running ads during the Academy Awards telecast on ABC this year. Similar ads were played during the N.F.L. season and the Super Bowl.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Now Is the Time to Pay Attention to Trump’s Violent Language

      by

      Donald Trump has never been shy with his language but recently, the editor Alex Kingsbury argues, his violent speech has escalated. In the last few weeks alone, Trump suggested his own former general was treasonous, said that shoplifters should be shot and exhorted his followers to “go after” New York’s attorney general. Kingsbury says he understands why voters tune Trump out, but stresses the need to pay attention and take action for the sake of American democracy.Illustration by Akshita Chandra/The New York Times; Photograph by Kenny Holston/The New York TimesThe Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.This Opinion short was produced by Jillian Weinberger. It was edited by Kaari Pitkin, Alison Bruzek and Annie-Rose Strasser. Mixing by Pat McCusker. Original music by Carole Sabouraud, Sonia Herrero and Pat McCusker. Fact-checking by Mary Marge Locker. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Kristina Samulewski. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Elon Musk Takes a Page Out of Mark Zuckerberg’s Social Media Playbook

      by

      As Mr. Musk takes over Twitter, he is emulating some of the actions of Mr. Zuckerberg, who leads Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.Elon Musk has positioned himself as an unconventional businessman. When he agreed to buy Twitter this year, he declared he would make the social media service a place for unfettered free speech, reversing many of its rules and allowing banned users like former President Donald J. Trump to return.But since closing his $44 billion buyout of Twitter last week, Mr. Musk has followed a surprisingly conventional social media playbook.The world’s richest man met with more than six civil rights groups — including the N.A.A.C.P. and the Anti-Defamation League — on Tuesday to assure them that he will not make changes to Twitter’s content rules before the results of next week’s midterm elections are certified. He also met with advertising executives to discuss their concerns about their brands appearing alongside toxic online content. Last week, Mr. Musk said he would form a council to advise Twitter on what kinds of content to remove from the platform and would not immediately reinstate banned accounts.If these decisions and outreach seem familiar, that’s because they are. Other leaders of social media companies have taken similar steps. After Facebook was criticized for being misused in the 2016 presidential election, Mark Zuckerberg, the social network’s chief executive, also met with civil rights groups to calm them and worked to mollify irate advertisers. He later said he would establish an independent board to advise his company on content decisions.Mr. Musk is in his early days of owning Twitter and is expected to make big changes to the service and business, including laying off some of the company’s 7,500 employees. But for now, he is engaging with many of the same constituents that Mr. Zuckerberg has had to over many years, social media experts and heads of civil society groups said.Mr. Musk “has discovered what Mark Zuckerberg discovered several years ago: Being the face of controversial big calls isn’t fun,” said Evelyn Douek, an assistant professor at Stanford Law School. Social media companies “all face the same pressures of users, advertisers and governments, and there’s always this convergence around this common set of norms and processes that you’re forced toward.”Mr. Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and a Twitter spokeswoman declined to comment. Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, declined to comment.Elon Musk’s Acquisition of TwitterCard 1 of 8A blockbuster deal. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Yogi Adityanath’s Election Win Raises His Profile Across India

      by

      Yogi Adityanath’s return as chief minister of Uttar Pradesh is fueling talk that he might succeed Narendra Modi as prime minister one day, and continue to advance their Hindu political movement.GORAKHPUR, India — The powerful chief minister of India’s most populous state woke up at a Hindu temple, fed cows sweet jaggery cakes, performed a religious ceremony for Lord Shiva, then hit the trail on the last day of his election campaign this month.This blurring of religion and politics is what some supporters love and some opponents fear most about Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, the firebrand Hindu monk who won a critical state election and a second term this week in Uttar Pradesh.His election victory and continued popularity, despite a heavily criticized government response to the coronavirus pandemic and a rise in hate speech and violence against Muslims under his watch, have cemented him as one of the most galvanizing figures in right-wing Hindu politics, and increasingly as an heir apparent to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.With the opposition in disarray, and with the support of a fervent Hindu base that appreciates his us-or-them appeals, Mr. Adityanath’s election victory is widely being seen as evidence that Mr. Modi’s governing Bharatiya Janata Party has continued to shift the electorate away from the country’s founding secularism.B.J.P. supporters turned out in great numbers to support Mr. Adityanath in Uttar Pradesh.Saumya Khandelwal for The New York TimesDespite the country’s growing economic woes and the poor state of public health and schools, Mr. Modi, Mr. Adityanath and the B.J.P. are succeeding in keeping the conversation focused on Hinduism in public affairs, bolstered by popular social welfare programs and a sophisticated mobilization of their supporters. And his election victory is likely to further raise Mr. Adityanath’s increasingly national profile.Though he came to public attention as the founder of a Hindu youth brigade and was once imprisoned for hate speech against Muslims, Mr. Adityanath has more recently followed Mr. Modi’s lead and somewhat moderated his tone — though without obscuring his Hindu-first message and policies to his right-wing base.In a TV interview in January, he cast the election in terms of “80 versus 20” — a thinly veiled reference to the rough percentage of Hindus in the state compared with Muslims.On Twitter, he railed against his political opponents as “worshipers of Jinnah” — a reference to Pakistan’s post-partition founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah — for whom the predominantly Muslim “Pakistan is dear.” He also posted pictures of a visit to New Delhi, strolling down a marble walkway with Mr. Modi embracing him like a beloved protégé.Since becoming prime minister in 2014, Mr. Modi has increasingly impassioned and emboldened far-right Hindus. And it is in this climate that Mr. Adityanath, 49, has found the ability to rapidly climb. His popularity largely derives from his ability to speak directly to his fervent base, whether in big public rallies or through his active Twitter account.Mr. Adityanath is seen by some as a potential successor to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.Saumya Khandelwal for The New York Times“Whoever speaks the truth, people will stand up for him,” said Pinki Patchauri, among a group of women at B.J.P. headquarters in Lucknow on Thursday, cheering for Mr. Adityanath. “Yogi and Modi worked for the people,” she said. “That’s why Yogi is all over the place.”Indeed, pictures of Mr. Adityanath are plastered across Uttar Pradesh, from towering billboards on highways to the sides of tea shops in villages to the Gorakhnath Math Temple in Gorakhpur, where his political career took root.One of seven children born to a forest ranger, Mr. Adityanath, born Ajay Singh Bisht, found his vocation in college as an activist in the student wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a right-wing Hindu organization.He became a Hindu priest in 1994, as politics and religion converged across India. Gorakhnath Temple and other temples espousing right-wing Hindu nationalism produced a generation of activists dedicated to the rise of Hindu culture and increasingly focused on demonizing the country’s approximately 200 million Muslims.Mr. Adityanath won a seat in Parliament for the first time in 1998, becoming India’s youngest member of the national body at the time. From Gorakhpur, he founded the Hindu Yuva Vahini, a hard-liner youth group, delivering an incendiary speech in 2007 after a Hindu boy was killed, calling for his supporters to kill Muslims. He was briefly jailed in Gorakhpur.A painting featuring Yogi Adityanath with two previous temple leaders, including his guru, Mahant Avaidyanath, in the Gorakhnath temple. Before being appointed chief minister of Uttar Pradesh in 2017, Mr. Adityanath was the temple’s head priest, a post he continues to hold.Saumya Khandelwal for The New York TimesTalat Aziz, a former leader of the opposition Samajwadi Party, has accused Mr. Adityanath of leading an attack on her political rally in 1999 during which her bodyguard was shot dead. A court dismissed the charge against Mr. Adityanath in 2019.“The plant which was planted in 1999 has grown into a massive tree. Now the hatred, the polarization, dominates everything,” Ms. Aziz said.During his first term as chief minister in Uttar Pradesh, antiterrorism, national security and sedition laws were increasingly used to jail critics and journalists. And the police have cracked down on dissent, fatally shooting nearly two dozen Muslim protesters during a demonstration in 2019 against a citizenship law that is widely seen as discriminatory.Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan, a constitutional lawyer and a minority rights activist, rose to prominence after leading protests against the citizenship law. He ran an unlikely campaign challenging Mr. Adityanath for the Gorakhpur seat, finishing fourth with less than 8,000 votes.“He always plays the religion card, and that’s why he wins,” Mr. Ravan said. “He is making a fool of people, and the country is suffering for it.”Yet voters’ perception that the streets of Uttar Pradesh have become safer, coupled with a bevy of social welfare programs and a clear commitment to Hindutva — a devout Hindu culture and way of life — have proved a winning combination.The opposition candidate Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan challenged Mr. Adityanath for his seat in Uttar Pradesh, but finished with less than 8,000 votes. “He always plays the religion card, and that’s why he wins,” Mr. Ravan said.Saumya Khandelwal for The New York TimesMr. Modi greeted the election victory in Uttar Pradesh as a road map for the 2024 general elections.“When we formed the government in 2019, experts said it was because of the 2017 victory” in Uttar Pradesh for his B.J.P., he said in a speech Thursday. “I believe the same experts will say that the 2022 election result has decided the fate of the 2024 national elections.”The B.J.P. won four of five state elections in polls that stretched from the Himalayan state of Uttarakhand in the north to coastal Goa on the Arabian Sea.“The Hindutva appeal that the B.J.P. has been creating for the last seven years, this is really now come to stay,” said Arati Jerath, a political analyst.“Its strong Hindu leadership plus soft welfare measures combined really well to give the B.J.P. that sweeping edge over the other parties,” she said.Mr. Adityanath seems comfortable with being seen as a potential successor to Mr. Modi, who turned 71 in September.“This is the blessing of 250 million people of Uttar Pradesh,” Mr. Adityanath said at a victory speech at party headquarters in Lucknow, the state capital.“We accept these blessings, and as per the expectations of common people and with the mantra of together with all, development of all, trust of all and efforts by all, we will carry forward continuously.”Back in Gorakhpur on the final night of campaigning, the B.J.P. went all-out for Mr. Adityanath with an extravagant procession, including a brass band, a troupe of male dancers wearing bells around their waists and ankles, a truck full of cameras, and boisterous supporters moshing to bass-heavy dance music and snare drums.During his campaign, Mr. Adityanath cast the election as a matter of “80 vs. 20” — a reference to the rough percentage of Hindus in the state compared with Muslims.Saumya Khandelwal for The New York TimesFrom the balcony of a medical practice in downtown Gorakphur, Dr. Sharad Srivastava and his family flung handfuls of marigold and rose petals on Mr. Adityanath, adorned in a saffron turban over his typical saffron robe, giving a regal wave from his perch atop an orange B.J.P. truck festooned with flowers.“We want to restore this type of nationalism,” Dr. Srivastava said. “We want to regain our heritage. Yogiji is not anti-Muslim. He’s against those who are anti-national.”The following morning, dozens of people waited at the Gorakhpur temple for a word with the “maharaj,” which means great king, but also refers to Mr. Adityanath’s post as temple president. They stood as he silently strode past with a large entourage of monks in saffron robes and security forces armed with machine guns.Karan Deep Singh More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Germany Struggles to Stop Online Abuse Ahead of Election

      by

      Scrolling through her social media feed, Laura Dornheim is regularly stopped cold by a new blast of abuse aimed at her, including from people threatening to kill or sexually assault her. One person last year said he looked forward to meeting her in person so he could punch her teeth out.Ms. Dornheim, a candidate for Parliament in Germany’s election on Sunday, is often attacked for her support of abortion rights, gender equality and immigration. She flags some of the posts to Facebook and Twitter, hoping that the platforms will delete the posts or that the perpetrators will be barred. She’s usually disappointed.“There might have been one instance where something actually got taken down,” Ms. Dornheim said.Harassment and abuse are all too common on the modern internet. Yet it was supposed to be different in Germany. In 2017, the country enacted one of the world’s toughest laws against online hate speech. It requires Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to remove illegal comments, pictures or videos within 24 hours of being notified about them or risk fines of up to 50 million euros, or $59 million. Supporters hailed it as a watershed moment for internet regulation and a model for other countries.But an influx of hate speech and harassment in the run-up to the German election, in which the country will choose a new leader to replace Angela Merkel, its longtime chancellor, has exposed some of the law’s weaknesses. Much of the toxic speech, researchers say, has come from far-right groups and is aimed at intimidating female candidates like Ms. Dornheim.Some critics of the law say it is too weak, with limited enforcement and oversight. They also maintain that many forms of abuse are deemed legal by the platforms, such as certain kinds of harassment of women and public officials. And when companies do remove illegal material, critics say, they often do not alert the authorities or share information about the posts, making prosecutions of the people publishing the material far more difficult. Another loophole, they say, is that smaller platforms like the messaging app Telegram, popular among far-right groups, are not subject to the law.Free-expression groups criticize the law on other grounds. They argue that the law should be abolished not only because it fails to protect victims of online abuse and harassment, but also because it sets a dangerous precedent for government censorship of the internet.The country’s experience may shape policy across the continent. German officials are playing a key role in drafting one of the world’s most anticipated new internet regulations, a European Union law called the Digital Services Act, which will require Facebook and other online platforms to do more to address the vitriol, misinformation and illicit content on their sites. Ursula von der Leyen, a German who is president of the European Commission, the 27-nation bloc’s executive arm, has called for an E.U. law that would list gender-based violence as a special crime category, a proposal that would include online attacks.“Germany was the first to try to tackle this kind of online accountability,” said Julian Jaursch, a project director at the German think tank Stiftung Neue Verantwortung, which focuses on digital issues. “It is important to ask whether the law is working.”Campaign billboards in Germany’s race for chancellor, showing, from left, Annalena Baerbock of the Green Party, Olaf Scholz of the Social Democrats and Christian Lindner of the Free Democrats.Sean Gallup/Getty ImagesMarc Liesching, a professor at HTWK Leipzig who published an academic report on the policy, said that of the posts that had been deleted by Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, a vast majority were classified as violating company policies, not the hate speech law. That distinction makes it harder for the government to measure whether companies are complying with the law. In the second half of 2020, Facebook removed 49 million pieces of “hate speech” based on its own community standards, compared with the 154 deletions that it attributed to the German law, he found.The law, Mr. Liesching said, “is not relevant in practice.”With its history of Nazism, Germany has long tried to balance free speech rights against a commitment to combat hate speech. Among Western democracies, the country has some of the world’s toughest laws against incitement to violence and hate speech. Targeting religious, ethnic and racial groups is illegal, as are Holocaust denial and displaying Nazi symbols in public. To address concerns that companies were not alerting the authorities to illegal posts, German policymakers this year passed amendments to the law. They require Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to turn over data to the police about accounts that post material that German law would consider illegal speech. The Justice Ministry was also given more powers to enforce the law. “The aim of our legislative package is to protect all those who are exposed to threats and insults on the internet,” Christine Lambrecht, the justice minister, who oversees enforcement of the law, said after the amendments were adopted. “Whoever engages in hate speech and issues threats will have to expect to be charged and convicted.”Germans will vote for a leader to replace Angela Merkel, the country’s longtime chancellor.Markus Schreiber/Associated PressFacebook and Google have filed a legal challenge to block the new rules, arguing that providing the police with personal information about users violates their privacy.Facebook said that as part of an agreement with the government it now provided more figures about the complaints it received. From January through July, the company received more than 77,000 complaints, which led it to delete or block about 11,500 pieces of content under the German law, known as NetzDG.“We have zero tolerance for hate speech and support the aims of NetzDG,” Facebook said in a statement. Twitter, which received around 833,000 complaints and removed roughly 81,000 posts during the same period, said a majority of those posts did not fit the definition of illegal speech, but still violated the company’s terms of service.“Threats, abusive content and harassment all have the potential to silence individuals,” Twitter said in a statement. “However, regulation and legislation such as this also has the potential to chill free speech by emboldening regimes around the world to legislate as a way to stifle dissent and legitimate speech.”YouTube, which received around 312,000 complaints and removed around 48,000 pieces of content in the first six months of the year, declined to comment other than saying it complies with the law.The amount of hate speech has become increasingly pronounced during election season, according to researchers at Reset and HateAid, organizations that track online hate speech and are pushing for tougher laws.The groups reviewed nearly one million comments on far-right and conspiratorial groups across about 75,000 Facebook posts in June, finding that roughly 5 percent were “highly toxic” or violated the online hate speech law. Some of the worst material, including messages with Nazi symbolism, had been online for more than a year, the groups found. Of 100 posts reported by the groups to Facebook, roughly half were removed within a few days, while the others remain online.The election has also seen a wave of misinformation, including false claims about voter fraud.Annalena Baerbock, the 40-year-old leader of the Green Party and the only woman among the top candidates running to succeed Ms. Merkel, has been the subject of an outsize amount of abuse compared with her male rivals from other parties, including sexist slurs and misinformation campaigns, according to researchers.Ms. Baerbock, the Green Party candidate for chancellor, taking a selfie with one of her supporters.Laetitia Vancon for The New York TimesOthers have stopped running altogether. In March, a former Syrian refugee running for the German Parliament, Tareq Alaows, dropped out of the race after experiencing racist attacks and violent threats online.While many policymakers want Facebook and other platforms to be aggressive in screening user-generated content, others have concerns about private companies making decisions about what people can and can’t say. The far-right party Alternative for Germany, which has criticized the law for unfairly targeting its supporters, has vowed to repeal the policy “to respect freedom of expression.”Jillian York, an author and free speech activist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in Berlin, said the German law encouraged companies to remove potentially offensive speech that is perfectly legal, undermining free expression rights.“Facebook doesn’t err on the side of caution, they just take it down,” Ms. York said. Another concern, she said, is that less democratic countries such as Turkey and Belarus have adopted laws similar to Germany’s so that they could classify certain material critical of the government as illegal.Renate Künast, a former government minister who once invited a journalist to accompany her as she confronted individuals in person who had targeted her with online abuse, wants to see the law go further. Victims of online abuse should be able to go after perpetrators directly for libel and financial settlements, she said. Without that ability, she added, online abuse will erode political participation, particularly among women and minority groups.In a survey of more than 7,000 German women released in 2019, 58 percent said they did not share political opinions online for fear of abuse.“They use the verbal power of hate speech to force people to step back, leave their office or not to be candidates,” Ms. Künast said.The Reichstag, where the German Parliament convenes, in Berlin.Emile Ducke for The New York TimesMs. Dornheim, the Berlin candidate, who has a master’s degree in computer science and used to work in the tech industry, said more restrictions were needed. She described getting her home address removed from public records after somebody mailed a package to her house during a particularly bad bout of online abuse.Yet, she said, the harassment has only steeled her resolve.“I would never give them the satisfaction of shutting up,” she said. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Facebook se debate entre combatir la desinformación y no afectar su crecimiento

      by

      SAN FRANCISCO — En los tensos días posteriores a la elección presidencial, un equipo de empleados de Facebook presentó al director ejecutivo, Mark Zuckerberg, un hallazgo alarmante: la desinformación relacionada con las elecciones se estaba volviendo viral en la plataforma.El presidente Donald Trump decía que la elección había sido amañada, y las historias de los medios de comunicación de derecha con afirmaciones falsas y engañosas sobre los votos desechados, los votos mal contados y los conteos sesgados estaban entre las noticias más populares de la plataforma.En respuesta, los empleados propusieron un cambio de emergencia en el algoritmo de noticias del sitio, que ayuda a determinar lo que más de 2000 millones de personas ven todos los días. Se trataba de hacer énfasis en la importancia de lo que Facebook denomina puntuaciones de “calidad del ecosistema de noticias”, o NEQ (por su sigla en inglés), una clasificación interna secreta que asigna a los medios noticiosos en función de las señales sobre la calidad de su periodismo.Por lo general, los puntajes NEQ desempeñan un papel menor en la determinación de lo que aparece en los muros de los usuarios. Sin embargo, varios días después de la elección, Zuckerberg acordó aumentar el peso que el algoritmo de Facebook le dio a los puntajes NEQ para asegurarse de que las noticias autorizadas aparecieran de manera más prominente, según dijeron tres personas que tienen información sobre la decisión y que no están autorizadas a divulgar las discusiones internas.El cambio forma parte de los planes de “remodelación” que Facebook desarrolló durante meses para lidiar con las secuelas de una elección disputada. Dio como resultado un aumento de visibilidad para grandes medios como CNN, The New York Times y NPR, mientras que los mensajes de páginas hiperpartidistas muy comprometidas, como Breitbart y Occupy Democrats, se volvieron menos visibles, señalaron los empleados.Era una visión de lo que podría ser un Facebook más tranquilo y menos polarizador. Algunos empleados argumentaron que el cambio debía ser permanente, aunque no estaba claro cómo podría afectar la cantidad de tiempo que la gente pasaba en Facebook. En una reunión de empleados celebrada la semana posterior a la elección, los trabajadores preguntaron si el “canal de noticias mejorado” podía mantenerse, dijeron dos personas que asistieron a la junta.Guy Rosen, un ejecutivo de Facebook que supervisa la división de integridad encargada de la limpieza de la plataforma, dijo durante una llamada con reporteros la semana pasada que los cambios siempre fueron temporales. “Nunca ha habido un plan para volverlos permanentes”, afirmó. John Hegeman, quien supervisa el canal de noticias, dijo en una entrevista que, aunque Facebook podría dar marcha atrás a estos experimentos, los analizaría y aprendería de ellos.El debate sobre las noticias ilustra una tensión central que algunos miembros de Facebook están sintiendo en la actualidad: que las aspiraciones de la compañía de mejorar el mundo a menudo están en conflicto con su deseo de dominio.En los últimos meses, a medida que Facebook ha sido objeto de un mayor escrutinio en cuanto a su papel en la amplificación de información falsa y divisiva, sus empleados se han enfrentado por el futuro de la empresa. Por un lado están los idealistas, incluyendo a muchos trabajadores de base y algunos ejecutivos, que quieren hacer más para limitar la desinformación y la polarización del contenido. Por otro lado están los pragmáticos, quienes temen que esas medidas puedan perjudicar el crecimiento de Facebook o provocar una reacción política que ocasione una regulación dolorosa.“Hay tensiones en casi todas las decisiones de productos que tomamos, y en toda la compañía hemos desarrollado una política llamada ‘Mejores decisiones’ para asegurarnos de que las tomamos con precisión, y que nuestros objetivos están directamente conectados con el hecho de ofrecer las mejores experiencias posibles para las personas”, dijo Joe Osborne, portavoz de Facebook.Estas batallas han afectado la moral. En una encuesta a los empleados aplicada este mes, los trabajadores de Facebook reportaron sentirse menos orgullosos de la compañía en comparación con años anteriores. Solo cerca de la mitad sentía que Facebook tenía un impacto positivo en el mundo, por debajo de las tres cuartas partes que opinaron eso a principios de este año, según una copia de la encuesta, conocida como Pulse, que fue analizada por The New York Times. La “intención de quedarse” de los empleados también disminuyó, así como la confianza en el liderazgo.BuzzFeed News informó previamente sobre los resultados del sondeo.Aunque el día de las elecciones y sus secuelas han pasado con pocos incidentes, algunos empleados desilusionados renunciaron; alegaron que ya no podían trabajar para una compañía cuyos productos creen que son perjudiciales. Otros se han quedado, bajo el razonamiento de que pueden cambiar las cosas desde el interior. Otros han hecho el cálculo moral de que, a final de cuentas, incluso con sus defectos, Facebook hace más bien que mal.“Los salarios de Facebook están entre los más altos del sector tecnológico en este momento, y cuando te vas a casa con un cheque gigante cada dos semanas, tienes que convencerte de que es por una buena causa”, comentó Gregor Hochmuth, exingeniero de Instagram, propiedad de Facebook, quien dejó la compañía en 2014. “De lo contrario, tu trabajo no es muy diferente del de otras industrias que destrozan el planeta y pagan a sus empleados de manera exorbitante para ayudarles a que se olviden de eso”.Con la mayoría de los empleados trabajando a distancia durante la pandemia, gran parte del examen de conciencia ha tenido lugar en Workplace, la red interna de Facebook.En mayo, al calor de las protestas de Black Lives Matter, Zuckerberg enfureció a muchos empleados cuando se negó a remover una publicación del presidente Trump que decía “cuando empieza el saqueo, empieza el tiroteo”. Los legisladores y los grupos de derechos civiles dijeron que la publicación impulsaba la violencia contra los manifestantes y pidieron que fuera retirada. Pero Zuckerberg dijo que la publicación no violaba las reglas de Facebook.Para señalar su insatisfacción, varios empleados formaron un nuevo grupo en Workplace, llamado “Take Action”. La gente en el grupo, que se incrementó hasta alcanzar más de 1500 miembros, cambiaron sus fotos de perfil a una imagen de un puño levantado de Black Lives Matter.El grupo se convirtió en un hogar para la disidencia interna y el humor negro sobre las debilidades de Facebook. En varias ocasiones, los empleados reaccionaron a las noticias negativas sobre la compañía publicando un meme de una escena de una comedia británica en la que dos nazis tienen una epifanía moral y se preguntan: “¿Somos los malos?”.En junio, los trabajadores organizaron un paro virtual para protestar por las decisiones de Zuckerberg sobre las publicaciones de Trump.En septiembre, Facebook actualizó sus políticas para los empleados con el fin de desalentar a los trabajadores de mantener debates políticos contenciosos en foros abiertos de Workplace, al decir que deberían limitar las conversaciones a espacios específicamente designados. También exigió a los empleados que usaran sus rostros reales o la primera inicial de sus nombres como la foto de su perfil, un cambio interpretado por algunos trabajadores como una medida represiva.Varios empleados dijeron que se sentían frustrados porque, para abordar temas delicados como la desinformación, a menudo tenían que demostrar que las soluciones propuestas no enojarían a los poderosos partidarios ni se harían a expensas del crecimiento de Facebook.Las ventajas y desventajas se evidenciaron este mes, cuando los ingenieros y científicos de datos de Facebook publicaron los resultados de una serie de experimentos llamados “P (Malo para el Mundo)”.La compañía había encuestado a los usuarios acerca de si ciertas publicaciones que habían visto eran “buenas para el mundo” o “malas para el mundo”. Encontraron que las publicaciones de alto alcance —vistas por muchos usuarios— tenían más probabilidades de ser consideradas “malas para el mundo”, un hallazgo que algunos empleados dijeron que les alarmaba.Así que el equipo entrenó un algoritmo de aprendizaje automático para predecir los mensajes que los usuarios considerarían como “malos para el mundo” y rebajarlos en los canales de noticias. En las primeras pruebas, el nuevo algoritmo redujo con éxito la visibilidad de los contenidos censurables. Pero también redujo el número de veces que los usuarios abrieron Facebook, una métrica interna conocida como “sesiones” que los ejecutivos monitorean de cerca.“Los resultados fueron buenos, excepto que llevó a una disminución de las sesiones, lo que nos motivó a probar un enfoque diferente”, según un resumen de los resultados, que fue publicado en la red interna de Facebook y revisado por el Times.Luego, el equipo realizó un segundo experimento en el que ajustaron el algoritmo para que un conjunto más grande de contenido “malo para el mundo” fuera rebajado con menos fuerza. Aunque eso dejaba publicaciones controversiales en los canales de noticias de los usuarios, no reducía sus sesiones o el tiempo empleado.Ese cambio fue aprobado en última instancia. Pero otras características que los empleados desarrollaron antes de la elección nunca lo fueron.Una, llamada “corregir el registro”, habría notificado retroactivamente a los usuarios que habían interactuado con noticias falsas y los habría dirigido a una verificación independiente de los hechos. Los empleados de Facebook propusieron ampliar el producto, que actualmente se utiliza para notificar a las personas que han compartido información falsa sobre la COVID-19, para que se aplique a otros tipos de información falsa.Pero eso fue vetado por los ejecutivos de políticas que temían que mostrara desproporcionadamente las notificaciones a las personas que compartían noticias falsas de sitios web de derecha, según dos personas familiarizadas con las conversaciones.Otro producto, un algoritmo para clasificar y degradar el “cebo de odio” —publicaciones que no violan estrictamente las reglas de discurso de odio de Facebook, pero que provocan una avalancha de comentarios de odio— se limitó a ser utilizado solo en grupos, en lugar de páginas, después de que el equipo de políticas determinó que afectaría principalmente a los editores de derecha si se aplicaba más ampliamente, dijeron dos personas familiarizadas con esa estrategia.Rosen, el ejecutivo de integridad de Facebook, impugnó esas caracterizaciones en una entrevista, que se celebró con la condición de que no se le citara directamente.Dijo que la herramienta “corregir el registro” no era tan eficaz como se esperaba, y que la empresa había decidido centrarse en otras maneras de poner freno a la información errónea. También dijo que la aplicación del detector de “cebo de odio” a las páginas de Facebook podría castigar injustamente a los editores por los comentarios de odio dejados por sus seguidores, o hacer posible que los malos actores dañen el alcance de una página al enviar spam con comentarios tóxicos. Ninguno de los dos proyectos fue archivado por preocupaciones políticas o porque redujo el uso de Facebook, dijo.“Ningún cambio en el canal de noticias se realiza únicamente por su impacto en el tiempo empleado”, dijo Osborne, el portavoz de Facebook. Añadió que las personas que hablaron con el Times no tenían autoridad para tomar decisiones.De alguna manera, al final del gobierno de Trump, los cambios de Facebook para limpiar su plataforma se volverán más fáciles. Por años, Trump y otros líderes conservadores acusaron a la compañía de tener sesgos anticonservadores cada vez que tomaba medidas para limitar la desinformación.No obstante, incluso con el gobierno de Biden entrante, Facebook deberá equilibrar el deseo de los empleados de tener responsabilidad social con sus objetivos comerciales.“La pregunta es esta: ¿qué han aprendido de estas elecciones para dar forma a sus políticas en el futuro?”, opinó Vanita Gupta, directora ejecutiva del grupo de derechos civiles Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “Mi preocupación es que reviertan todos estos cambios a pesar de que las condiciones que los impulsaron se sigan presentando”.En una reunión virtual de empleados celebrada la semana pasada, los ejecutivos describieron lo que vieron como éxitos electorales de Facebook, dijeron dos personas que asistieron. Mientras que el sitio seguía lleno de publicaciones que afirmaban falsamente que la elección estaba amañada, Chris Cox, jefe de producto de Facebook, dijo que estaba orgulloso de cómo la compañía había aplicado etiquetas a la información errónea relacionada con la elección, e indicado a los usuarios la información autorizada sobre los resultados, dijeron las personas.Luego la transmisión se cortó para mostrar un video que era una suerte de refuerzo moral por el Día de Acción de Gracias y que presentaba un desfile de empleados que hablaban sobre lo que estaban agradecidos este año.Kevin Roose es columnista de tecnología para el Times. Su columna The Shift, analiza la intersección de la tecnología, los negocios y la cultura. Puedes encontrarlo en Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, o Instagram. • FacebookMike Isaac es reportero de tecnología y autor de Super Pumped: The Battle for Uber, que ha estado en la lista de los más vendidos del NYT sobre el dramático ascenso y caída de la compañía de transporte de pasajeros. Cubre regularmente Facebook y Silicon Valley, y tiene sede en el buró de San Francisco del Times. @MikeIsaacSheera Frenkel cubre temas de ciberseguridad desde San Francisco. Pasó más de una década en el Medio Oriente como corresponsal en el extranjero para BuzzFeed, NPR, The Times of London y los diarios McClatchy. @sheeraf More