All social media platforms serve an important and complicated role in free speech, and indeed in democratic elections as well, but they are not the arbiters of truth.
By EMILY SCHRADERTHE TECH giants are banning examples of antisemitism one by one, completely missing the point of the IHRA definition. (photo credit: REUTERS)
In recent weeks, Facebook, Twitter and TikTok have all announced significant changes in how their platforms manage antisemitic content. But is it enough? Furthermore, is banning antisemitic content the right move? While Facebook and Twitter’s policy shifts focused on Holocaust denial, TikTok expanded their terms of service to prohibit Holocaust denial as well as white supremacist and Neo-Nazi content. These are obviously positive steps that seek to remedy an ongoing and growing problem of antisemitism on social media, but the changes are insufficient when it comes to dealing with modern antisemitism, and all of these networks know better.Throughout 2020, numerous Jewish organizations, academics, activists and even members of Knesset such as MK Michal Cotler-Wunsh, have openly called on Facebook, Twitter and TikTok to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) definition of antisemitism into their platforms. This definition, which is accepted by the consensus Jewish community, provides clear-cut examples of how classic and modern antisemitism manifests today, and urges those who adopt the definition to recognize and educate if and when antisemitism occurs.It would seem adopting the IHRA definition is an obvious move for Facebook, Twitter and TikTok, especially given that the dialogue between social media networks and minority communities is increasing more than ever. Yet instead of adopting the IHRA definition, they are picking and choosing select examples of antisemitism and banning them one by one, completely missing the educational point of the IHRA definition, and allowing other forms of antisemitism to proliferate in the meantime.For example, it shouldn’t have taken Facebook seven years to prohibit Holocaust denial, and it shouldn’t take ongoing discussions for these networks to recognize that antisemitism today manifests in more than Holocaust denial and neo-Nazis. When synagogues are repeatedly defaced with “Free Palestine,” when Holocaust survivors are harassed on American campuses and asked to “condemn Israel,” and Jewish teens are being targeted on TikTok with “Free Palestine” spam comments simply because they’re Jewish, you don’t need further evidence that obsessive anti-Israel hate today is the new antisemitism. Why then, after years of increasing online hate speech with real-life consequences for the Jewish community, do social media giants refuse to recognize the obvious?Twitter has argued that it very much values free speech, and presumably is slow to implement policies that lead to “censorship” as a result. That would make sense except for the fact that they regularly censor, shadow-ban and remove accounts with unsavory political views.EVEN MORE extreme, during this election cycle Twitter has begun flagging tweets, repeatedly adding “fact checks” to US President Trump’s tweets in a misguided effort to reduce “fake news.”Contrast this level of attention to the lack of attention directed at antisemitic conspiracy tweets from April. These were presented to Twitter in Knesset meetings in August, yet they have still not been removed. Similarly, the Iranian ayatollah on Twitter routinely calls for genocide against Israel and “Zionists.” Even when Twitter was asked about the matter in multiple Knesset hearings, the platform representative defended allowing the ayatollah to spew his antisemitism not once, not twice, but in three separate Knesset committee hearings.The double standards continue today with Twitter banning a major news publication, the New York Post, for reporting on Hunter Biden’s business affiliations – a move that resulted in subpoenas from the US Senate over its actions. It also refused to allow any users to share links pertaining to the story. Apparently, free speech is only important to Twitter when it’s a political agenda they agree with – and apparently the social messaging service is more on board with the ayatollah than it is with the New York Post.Twitter and all social media platforms serve an important and complicated role in free speech, and indeed in democratic elections as well, but they are not the arbiters of truth, and they should not engage in censorship. As such, it’s important to make a distinction between flagging or commentary by a social media platform, and censorship. There are activists who believe that antisemitic speech should be banned or removed completely from social media networks, but this is antithetical to free speech, and risks pushing hatred underground. It’s important to know and to see what the trends are, and give people a chance to consider and respond.As such, the IHRA definition is the perfect solution for social media networks as it doesn’t require any form of censorship, but simply requires education and recognition of antisemitic content. Social media networks should adopt the definition in full as a framework for proactively identifying antisemitism. Refusing to do so, or selectively picking and choosing, actually makes it more difficult for the Jewish community to stand united against the modern antisemitism with which we are faced.The writer is the CEO of Social Lite Creative LLC and a research fellow at the Tel Aviv Institute.
