A broad range of academic proposals and initiatives have been presented to provide solutions and prevent the circulation of hate speech online. I explore here the key takeaways from a systematic review of these proposals, highlighting the evident gaps in the current understanding and handling of hate speech.
The review screened a corpus of 436 academic texts. Upon applying the suitability, screening and inclusion criteria, the corpus was refined to 74 articles. The primary research subjects in this collection are legal matters and social media. The vast majority of these articles associate hate speech on social media with five categories: religion, cyber racism, political slurs, misogyny, and attacks on the LGTBI community.
The review illuminates a significant oversight in the majority of these studies—the absence of ethical reflection. The role of technology in detecting and mitigating hate speech is considerable, but without an accompanying ethical evaluation, it may inadvertently incubate intolerant and supremacist ideologies.
The link between hate speech and poverty—an area known as aporophobia—remains vastly under-researched. Despite the focus on specific categories of hate speech, it’s essential to highlight and investigate all types of hate speech, especially those targeted at individuals living in poverty.
The eradication of hate speech requires multi-faceted solutions. Many studies emphasise the essential role of criminal laws governing hate crimes. However, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance suggests exploring other avenues, including addressing the ethical root of the problem and providing a more comprehensive digital education that fosters democratic, pluralistic and inclusive citizenship.
Moreover, the systematic review indicates that the discussion surrounding ethical principles and values is still inadequate. The research rarely clarifies how these principles should be understood and applied to prevent and eliminate hate speech. Moreover, tolerance and ethical compassion are not given the attention they merit within the discourse of hate speech.
There’s also a need for a critical evaluation of the term ‘hate speech’ itself, considering the varied degrees and nuances of phobic expression that it may not fully encapsulate. The term’s appropriateness and relation to hate crimes demand further scrutiny.
The role of educational proposals and corporate policies against hate speech are also under-addressed within the reviewed studies. Thus, the design, implementation, and monitoring of educational proposals, as well as the position businesses should adopt against hate speech, need to be adequately addressed.
In conclusion, numerous strategies can be employed to eradicate hate speech, but all hinge upon a better understanding and application of the core values and ethical principles crucial for a diverse, inclusive, pluralistic, and respectful society. It’s essential that future research in this area seeks to fill these gaps, offering comprehensive, ethically-considered solutions to the scourge of hate speech in our digital era.