by Tim Frei
Mr. Kovic *, you spent a week on alternative tech platforms – and experienced the abyss of hatred. Where did you get such a thick skin from?
In the end, my fur wasn’t quite that thick. From a purely intellectual point of view, I knew what kind of experiment I was getting into, but this week on the old tech platforms really wore me down. First came the great shock of the bestial hatred I encountered. This was followed relatively quickly by a kind of internal dulling: the hatred quickly becomes quite “normal”. This experience of dulling impressed me. Or rather, shocked me.
To what extent was this experiment worth it?
From the experiment is a Article for the republic emerged, which showed many people how bad things actually go on the Internet. In this sense, the experiment was a small contribution to the big debate about online hatred and online radicalization.
Was that what triggered the book you are currently writing about online hatred?
It was the drop that broke the barrel. I have been dealing with hatred, extremism and radicalization on the internet for a long time. Experiencing the hate spiral firsthand also motivated me to deal with the topic in more depth.
Have you been inspired by the award-winning book “Hass im Netz” by bestselling author Ingrid Brodnig?
With a flush of shame on my face, I have to admit: I don’t even know Frau Brodnig’s book yet. This is required reading that I definitely have to catch up on. In my book, however, I focus more on the reasons why the internet makes us worse people. This largely includes the architecture of social media platforms.
“If we only hear the same thing over and over again, we will radicalize our opinion”
SRF presenter Sandro Brotz had temporarily withdrawn from Twitter after a mass of hateful comments against him and his family in order to protect his psyche. How do you assess his decision?
I find this decision understandable, but also tragic. Understandable, because digital waves of hate really get down to business and cause psychological stress and suffering. Tragic, because in a civilized society it should not be the case that anonymous hate mobs target people and thus push them out of the public debate. The positive thing about this episode with Mr Brotz is that it sparked a broader debate about hatred on the internet, including by the SRF journalist himself.
According to a study by ETH Zurich and the University of Zurich, an empathic counter-speech is most effective against hatred on the Internet. I can hardly imagine that, as a factual dialogue with such social media users is hardly possible …
Meeting hate with empathy and humor is actually not always easy. But I also have the experience that people who contact me with anger and hatred suddenly shift down two gears if I answer them in a friendly and open manner. Empathic counter-speech is highly effective in showing hateful people that you are even just a person who does not want them harm.
Is it just Twitter where the tonality has gotten rougher? Or does it also apply to other platforms?
The problem affects all platforms, not just Twitter. Platforms like Telegram, for example, are also more problematic than Twitter, because people usually only use them to move around in groups and channels with like-minded people. If we only hear the same thing over and over again, we will radicalize in our opinion and in our hatred.
Certain journalistic media have reacted: For 20 minutes, comments are only possible with a login, on SRF only selected articles can be commented on. Is that enough?
There are attempts to get the problem under control. But that is far from being the end of it. In addition, I think the decision by SRF that only selected contributions can be commented on is a great shame. I am in favor of more opportunities for participation and discussion, not less. The problem at SRF was so overwhelming that the emergency brake was pulled.
“We need clear and easy-to-use reporting points directly in the social media apps themselves”
The platforms, which experts believe should be regulated more closely, are particularly criticized. Why are we lagging behind the rest of the world in this regard?
In my opinion, we are not lagging behind other countries: Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, etc. are basically hardly regulated. That absolutely has to change. However, the regulatory debate is slowly taking off; in the USA, the EU, but also in Switzerland. In November the Federal Office of Communication has one critical report published via regulation of the platforms.
The Federal Council would like to get the regulatory debate rolling in Switzerland (persoenlich.com reported). Which requirements would be particularly important regarding hatred on the internet?
On the one hand, the platforms must finally become more cooperative in the enforcement of applicable rights. Reporting points must be set up for users and the platform operators must work actively with government agencies, above all the police. The federal government launched a reporting platform against racism of its own accord this November, but the platform is a separate website that hardly anyone knows. We need clear and easy-to-use reporting points directly in the social media apps themselves.
And on the other hand?
The platforms must also simply be forced to moderate content more strongly and adapt their algorithms in such a way that they no longer encourage hatred.
According to the psychiatrist Frank Urbaniok, the breeding ground for the Covid anger was laid long before Corona, as he told the Sunday newspaper. Is he right?
I think so. The corona pandemic is only a catalyst for conspiracy ideologies and hate potentials that existed before the pandemic – and which unfortunately will continue to exist after the pandemic.
«We have dhe disastrous downside of this coin is not anticipated»
In research there is talk of echo chambers in which like-minded people would radicalize. Did we underestimate this as a society?
We may not have underestimated the problem – we just weren’t prepared for the problem to get so big so quickly. For a long time we were optimistic and hoped that the new possibilities of the internet, especially the social media platforms, would usher in a new age of democracy, because we can all participate in public discourse more easily than ever before. We did not anticipate the catastrophic downside of this coin. To a large extent, not because we had no idea how perfidious the platform operator’s business model would be.
A tough reproach. To what extent are the platform operators acting perfidiously?
The internal documents of the Facebook leaks, for example, have shown that the Facebook operators are aware that their platforms cause psychological and social damage, but that they accept this damage for profit.
You yourself are covered with hatred of the measure critics on social media. Hand on heart: will this never be too much for you?
I’m saddened by the situation. The hatred itself is now rolling off from me. But the fact that there are people who spend so much energy and life stocking me up with hate speech breaks my heart. There is so much more beautiful and productive in life than resentment and hatred.
On the other hand, you have become an expert who is increasingly being asked for assessments by the media. How did you experience this?
To some extent it is a negative cycle: if I express myself in the media on the subject of hatred, extremism and radicalization, people react with hatred. There are moments when I think: does that make sense? I believe, however, that it is important to publicly take a critical stance on this issue and to identify the problem as such. If hatred remains unchallenged, it wins.
Finally, how are you going to relax over the festive season? Are you taking a break on social media?
I am looking forward to dedicating myself a little more intensively to writing over the festive season. But it shouldn’t work entirely without social media, because for me the platforms, despite all their problems, are an important window into the world. I just wish the window were better constructed.
* Marko Kovic researches and writes as Social and communication scientist about conspiracy theories and social change. The 35-year-old also lectures at the Kalaidos University of Applied Sciences in Zurich. Interestingly, the son of Croatian guest workers was originally “receptive” to conspiracy theories, such as those in one Broadcast from Radio SRF 3 said: “I grew up with such theories and trash TV, with 9/11 this intensified – I moved to forums that spread conspiracy theories and strongly shaped my view of the world in this context.” Fortunately, he came into contact with information that questioned what he believed in. That then showed him a different point of view.
In the series “That was 2021” we take up the big topics of the year again in compact form. Here you will find the overview.
–
