Have Online Social Media platforms become puppets in the hands of certain protected groups of people in the West and is this doing justice to free speech?

                In today's world, some social media platforms are ruling the roost when it comes to popularity and when you have such platforms where you can be allowed to create an account for yourself, you have to first go through and familiarise yourself with the terms and conditions. Back when a friend of mine created an account for me back in my college days in some social media platforms many of which are no longer up and running. Nobody brought up anything pertaining to a certain terminology called "Hate speech" which is a term that was created to protect the interests of certain groups like Muslims, LGBTQ groups etc, especially the former. Over time, the social media platforms that did stand the test of time to outlast their competitors eventually brought up regulations which at first glance, appear to stand up for and uphold the rights of certain groups of people that were deemed to be oppressed but are these groups truly oppressed, if they were, their actions through the "report" function only proved and continue to prove the contrary for those who hold views contrary to theirs which the supposedly protected groups deem as wrong and bigoted from their perspective. We will see this issue from various angles to see how ludicrous the concept of "hate speech" is -

i) The Renaissance and the Greco-Roman value of Free Speech and Expression: 

       The Greeks were the first to champion the concept of free speech and expression, this was later adopted by the Romans. Free speech as a concept is not just speaking out one's mind and heart about anything and everything but also entailed the right to bring values and subjects to the marketplace where they were open for discussion in open spaces called "agora" where learned orators of both genders were free to voice their opinions and thoughts about a plethora of topics that the Ancient world's thinkers were preoccupied with from science to philosophy. Science at the time of the ancients such as Aristotle and Plato before him and so on was referred to as "Natural Philosophy". Political issues and social issues were not exempt from being discussed, in fact there were no topics viewed as taboo topics for discussion. Theological topics were also open for discussion including the right to mock the gods via theatre plays, albeit with limitations as certain practices like defiling sacred objects or denying the existence of a city state's "protecting deities" were seen as red lines.

      This Athenian value called "Parrhesia (παρρησία)" or "Free speech" was actually encouraged and protected including the right to criticise worldviews, ideologies and practices that were far too harmful for the society at large. In fact, part of the concept of "Free speech" comes from this Greco-Roman ideal called "Parrhesia" or "Free speech" aside from the Judeo-Christian worldview. Therefore, free speech has historically included a person's right to criticise or call to question values or beliefs that caused harm to the society at large wherever this value was carried by those who were enlightened, hence this is a key value that contributed a great deal to the West's industrial, scientific as well as social and national/international development. Neither the Greeks nor the Romans or later Medieval enlightened philosophers came up with a concept of "Hate Speech" to heavily curtail or limit the boundaries of free speech.

      The reason why the enlightened thinkers never came up with such a construct is because they knew that doing so would be counterproductive to their attempts to encourage free speech because "Parrhesia" - the term used for free speech originally means "frank speech" or "fearless speech", this meant being able to speak even to those in power and this came naturally at personal risks but such speech was allowed anyway without censure. Free speech had its roots in Ancient Greece where democracy also flourished as the very word "Democracy" comes from "Demos ("δῆμος" meaning people)" and "Kratos ("κρᾰ́τος" meaning "power")" which are both Ancient Greek words. Therefore, we see that Democracy is crucial to uphold, protect and promote the value of free speech. "Free speech" as a value can thrive only in countries ruled by Democracy. Take away democracy and free speech cannot stand in any other form of government whether it is a theocracy, communism, socialism or a dictatorship.

ii) Origins of the post-modern concept of "Hate speech": 

       In comparison to the concept of "Free Speech" which is deeply rooted in democracy which recognises the rights of individuals to free express their thoughts and opinions freely even if it meant criticising worldviews and ideologies that could be harmful to societies, nations and humanity as a whole, "Hate Speech" as a concept is far younger in comparison and it is rooted in Non-democratic forms of government that vilify Democracy and Capitalism like Communism and Socialism, this former detail is key to understanding the beginnings of the concept of "hate speech", the concept of "Hate Speech" is not older than WW-II. While at face value, Communist and Socialist governments are said to have come up with the concept of "Hate Speech" to protect groups of people who are seen as downtrodden as social classes by other groups, ultimately censure of speech is associated with dictatorships whether they are theocratic, communist or socialist where individuals or groups speaking out against the dictator in power run the risk of being silenced oppressively via legal means through imprisonment and torture or by being put to death. Hence this shows us the evil origins of "Hate Speech" as a concept since Communist, Socialist and Islamic Theocracies that promoted this as a value, are known for their oppressive dictators in the modern world.

       When we take into account theocracies in the modern world that are known to punish criticism or even if other groups in such countries do so much as share views, opinions or beliefs contrary to the theological framework of the ruling class, Islam takes the cake albeit other religio-political ideologies also seek to censure free speech. Islamic theocracies in the Middle East are known to severly curb but totally undermine and eliminate the rights of other religious groups who merely share their beliefs with other religious groups especially Muslims in such countries, in fact, those who do so are persecuted, punished and even put to death in such countries. Hence, we see that Islam, Communism and Socialism are complicit as ideologies that promote the idea that free speech cannot be encouraged especially if the beliefs of Communists, Socialists and Muslims are questioned, disagreed with, criticised or challenged by other religious or political groups and countries ruled by these 3 ideologies are more often than not governed by dictators who either wear the garb of religious imams or mullahs or outwardly dress in Western fashion while oppressing their citizens.

          With the advent of social media platforms where individuals are free to create profiles for themselves as well as groups where people from all religious backgrounds are welcomed and are encouraged to express their thoughts and views freely. Those who own such social media platforms end up not doing enough when it comes to encouraging free and open discourse on a wide range of fields including religion and politics on their platforms under the guise of making everyone feel welcome and encouraging more people to create free profiles for themselves, especially when forums where political, social or religious beliefs are openly discussed and debated upon, at times, social media creators do the contrary which does more harm than good when it comes to protection and encouraging free speech among the masses. Make no mistake that having open and free discourse on all topics and encouraging debates, discussions and even criticisms of each others' beliefs is the historically accurate definition of free speech. Instead by social media platforms bringing in hate speech rules as a part of the regulations, even forums where discussions and heated debates take place become places where free and open discourse including criticism of opposing worldviews which is a part and parcel of free speech is silenced and those who freely exercise their rights are often reported by members of protected groups to the detriment of eventually losing their social media profiles by members of opposing worldviews who believe that their views are untouchable and are above criticism and hence are opposed to free speech the way it was always defined from a Western, cultural and historic standpoint. 

iii) What is the red line in speech to demarcate critical speech deemed acceptable and pure incitement to violence against other groups and the asymmetric dynamics of hate speech:

      When an individual expresses his thoughts and views openly including his critical views on another worldview that he has problems with in a social media discussion or debate related group or on his/her own personal profile. He/she acknowledges that the other person or the reader is just as entitled to stand up for his/her beliefs as he/she is. People who are raised in democratic societies where free speech is and ideally should actively encouraged by the law and government admit that their views are also subject to scrutiny and criticism and that they are just as entitled to respond to such criticisms. This is and always has been the healthy dynamics of free speech where people can share their thoughts, opinions, views and beliefs openly without being labelled bigots, xenophobes, racists, islamophobes or such terms meant to silence criticism of views of protected groups. However, these healthy dynamics of free speech have been in danger and at risk for quite a while now especially in the West and the catalyst has been the hate speech laws on online social media platforms which seek to make their platforms more global and welcoming of people from all religions, countries and walks of life including those with non-mainstream views on sexuality for instance.

    However, there exists a key difference between the one who does not mince words but is open and explicit in his/her criticisms of religious or political worldviews which he/she deems problematic for the world and hence takes it upon himself/herself to criticise them and the one of protected groups who disagrees on the idea that free speech is not subject to limitations and hence cannot be allowed to criticise his/her religious or political worldview.  The difference is that in reality hate speech rules are well and truly being misused by people of opposing worldviews who cannot stand criticism directed at their religious or political or sexual worldviews like Muslims or LGBTQ groups to silence those who differ with them on Islam being a peaceful religion for instance or on other topics. Muslims naturally come from theocracies where free speech does not exist hence when Western countries welcome them in, they bring in a different worldview and values which are totally incompatible with Western values and hence they misuse hate speech rules in social media for instance to silence critics enforcing online Shariat in the process even in debates and discussions that are meant to foster mutual thinking on matters of theology for instance which includes rights to criticise each others views whereas a Christian's report would not usually be taken that seriously when a Muslim overtly slanders and uses foul language to denigrate his Christian faith and beliefs in Jesus Christ for instance. In most cases, the Christian would not think of reporting the Muslim because Christians believe and always have believed in free speech including passionate debate and discourse on matters of faith including rights to criticise the religious beliefs of others if they are not good for the society or if they violate our beliefs by misrepresenting or slandering them. 

iv) What then is true Hate Speech if it is not mere cricitism of another's beliefs even a sharp one?: 
 
      True Hate Speech would be worded along the lines of "I will kill you" or "I will eventually find you and finish you off" or "I will cut off your tongue for what you said", these are examples of sentences wherein the threat and call to violence is open and explicit, hence they can truly be understood as calls to incite violence against a person or group. Such authors can be deemed worthy of being reported and even losing their social media profiles if they get multiple strikes from many such people who feel threatened that they would be harmed by them in real life. These alone should be considered hate speech because these are open and clear incitements to violence and harm against other people whereas other forms of criticisms of ideologies, beliefs or views of others especially when proven to be true can be allowed in social media platforms if the end goal of aforesaid social media platforms is to encourage and promote free speech and thinking among people from all walks of life and backgrounds.

v) Many claim that AI is responsible for evaluating ideas shared by a human owner of a social media profile hence ends up making mistakes, is using AI going to do any good and for which comments can AI be used: 

      I came to know quite recently that most social media platforms use AI mediators to review content for hate speech hence AI errs on the side of safety. We all know that AI has its limitations on what would ideally constitute genuine hate speech or incitement to violence whereas humans are more apt at catching subtle nuances in the way ideas are framed into sentences way better than AI can. Therefore, AI can be used for more explicit and direct threats like "I will stab you" or "You will die in my hands" which are classic examples of overtly worded threats aimed at individuals where AI can classify these as hate speech. What about other kinds of sentences that reek of intolerance but can obviously mean something  which is far more acceptable as a contentious point of debate where passions flare up and disrespect towards each others views are seen? - these must be seen as 2 individuals exercising their inherent right of free speech instead of being seen as hate speech because doing the latter would put an end to the discussion and hinder the rights of one or both people to share their thoughts with each other openly even if the exchange itself seems to be acrimonious.

vi) Use of human moderators to moderate more subtle points of disagreement, debate or discussions where passionate flare-ups in support of one's worldview comes off as intolerant and disrespectful for the others' worldview:

    In cases like the above where a passionate debate between people holding different religious views or political views leads to exchange of vitriolic criticisms of each others views, human moderators can be used to moderate such content in which strikes should never be taken into account when either party tries to use the report function to flag each others' comments which would eventually lead to loss of one's own social media profile in the long run for the silliest of reasons where both the debaters would not have wanted harm to the other person in the first place but their points are merely directed at each others views rather than each others' rights to live despite their differences in beliefs or views.

vii) If the above is not followed by social media platforms throughout the world- the outcome?:

       If social media platforms adhere to their current standards where freedom of speech is being sacrificed on the altar of hate speech which is not clearly defined and whose limits are not set. Then such platforms are doing a terrible disservice to their primary use of not merely enabling people to be in touch with their friends, family members and others of similar interests but also as bastions where free speech must be upheld and protected for all including rights of individuals to engage in passionate debates and discussions about religion, politics as well as other topics. We already see how Muslims and other protected groups are turning social media platforms into places where online Shariat and dictatorship are being enforced since free speech is not seen in Islamic countries and other dictatorships in Communist and Socialist countries around the world. This will do no good to social media platforms either since quality of content is being sacrificed in favour of more profiles from people around the world which leads to a choice of quantity of profiles over quality when it comes to diversity of ideas expressed where all can freely express and respond to criticisms and objections against their worldviews which is the mark of a developed society and world at large where democracy and free speech reign supreme!

Disclaimer:

             The purpose of this post is not to hurt anyone's feelings. If you are a Communist, Socialist or a Muslim and this hurts your feelings. Please by all means, avoid reading this as the purpose of this post is to create awareness among social media users who favour full and complete free speech without restrictions on the shortcomings of current social media platforms and how these can be overcome by such platforms.