The recent issue with riots in the UK and the link to posts being made on social media got me once again thinking about fake news and about fundamentalism and how technology amplifies what I feel is a societal issue, plus how there is no perfect solution to this problem.

Is societal cohesion breaking down?

In recent years, societal cohesion appears to be fraying, with the rise of “us vs. them” thinking, amplified by both social and mainstream media. Social media platforms often promote binary arguments, encouraging people to view those outside their group—whether divided by race, religion, or ideology—as the enemy, with the short form nature of social media only adding to this.   Even attempts to address the issue, such as highlighting how a particular group might be marginalised or be targets of abuse often only serves to strengthen the polarisation and the view of “us and them”.     I also note, that this “in group”, “us”, vs, “out group”, “them” thinking is partly hardwired into us as humans in our unconscious bias with those like us stimulating a different reaction at a brain chemistry level than those who are not like us.

All of this polarization fosters echo chambers, where in-group members are conditioned to see the “other” as a threat. In such an environment, it hardly matters who the “them” is; the division itself becomes the focus. This breakdown in unity provides fertile ground for extremists and anarchists, who exploit the growing divide to further their agendas, often using civil unrest as a smokescreen for crime and violence.    The recent riots being just one example of this.

Preventing hate speech

So, we recognise there is an issue, and that extremists and anarchists are seeking to exploit this to their own gain often using social media.   The issue is that preventing hate speech in the vast sea of online content presents a significant challenge. With millions of posts generated daily, identifying harmful speech is like finding a needle in a haystack, often requiring sophisticated algorithms alongside human oversight. Yet, the question of who defines “hate speech” is also complex. While clear instances of racial, religious, or gender-based abuse are widely condemned, the grey areas are more contentious. Cultural norms, political contexts, and free speech concerns mean that definitions of hate speech can vary, raising questions about who gets to draw the line—and whether some voices may be unfairly silenced in the process.    Consider the issue in Gaza currently where I would suggest that there are two very different perspectives on the Israeli and Palestinian sides as to what might be hate speech, and anyone viewing from outside is likely to come down more towards one side or the other, but are either wrong or right?

Maintaining freedom of speech

While preventing hate speech is crucial, it’s equally important to safeguard freedom of speech. There’s a growing concern that governments could misuse their powers under the guise of regulation to suppress dissent or unpopular opinions, leading to oppression. In such scenarios, controlling the narrative becomes a powerful tool, with authorities shaping public discourse to suit their agenda. We have already seen some governments around the world actually seeking to turn off the internet at a national level in order to control the flow of information and we also know that targeting communications systems is a key initial phase of military operations.     This manipulation or control of information can easily blur the lines between truth and propaganda.   So how do we find a balance between preventing hate speech while maintaining freedom of speech and who makes the decisions as to where this balance lies?

Hate speech, fake news and the truth

And its even more complex than finding a balance;   Hate speech, fake news, and truth may seem like clear and distinct concepts, but identifying them in practice is far more complex. What one person considers hate speech could be seen as free expression by another, and fake news might be interpreted differently depending on one’s beliefs or sources of information. The truth, often thought to be absolute, can be clouded by bias, context, and perception, making it subjective and open to interpretation. In this highly polarized and fast-moving digital world, the line between these terms becomes increasingly blurred, as individuals and institutions apply their own definitions based on personal, political, or cultural lenses.

Conclusion

In an age of rapid information sharing and deepening societal divides, navigating the complexities of hate speech, fake news, and truth requires careful balance. While it’s vital to combat harmful rhetoric and misinformation, we must also safeguard freedom of speech and avoid allowing subjective interpretations to silence genuine expression. As technology evolves, so too must our approaches to maintaining societal cohesion, fostering open dialogue, and ensuring that efforts to regulate speech don’t become tools for oppression. Ultimately, finding common ground in an increasingly fragmented world will depend on our collective ability to engage with diverse perspectives and uphold democratic values.   My feeling is that we are heading one way, and it is the wrong way, towards a breakdown of societal cohesion, but I feel social media is just amplifying and contributing to the issue rather than being the root cause.    I wonder, are we more insular as a society when compared with 20 or 30 years ago?    Are our groups or local communities less diverse but in a more diverse world?     Are we more inclined to discussion and disagreement in terms of binary positions?   

The news tends to point towards simple answers such as preventing or policing hate speech as a solution, but the issue is that things are seldom that simple.   I also think it is worth considering that all of the press around the riots in the UK are referring to maybe a few 1000 people involved in criminal activity, but that’s out of a population of over 69million.    Are we ever going to be able to stop such a minority bent on chaos, damage and mayhem, and therefore does the very act of discussing them simply feed their aims?