Abstract
Social Media has become an important medium for many to articulate their political self on a virtual platform. It has provided a platform to unheard communities and individuals to express their political opinions on social media. However, it has also become a breeding ground for hate and violence such as dehumanization, and mental and physical harassment of communities or individuals. On social media, the countries have witnessed hateful comments, discriminatory remarks, and incitements against a community or individuals. The remarks are mostly aimed at the Muslim community, civil rights activists, opposition leaders, and individuals expressing their views against the ruling regime. Such kind of manifestations arise from the socio-political landscape of the country. An essential question that arises in such a situation is whether these discriminatory remarks and incitements have began recently or do they contain a long socio-political history. This doubt occurs when we reject the notion that the Internet and social media are ahistorical and asocial phenomena. However, Banaji and Buckingham (2013) argue that, “‘the online’ is itself shaped by and part of an individual and collective psychic and political-historical experience that is always also ‘offline’” (p. 3).
Banaji and Bhatt’s (2022) Social Media and Hate is an attempt to examine hate on social media in relation to many social identities around the world in Brazil, India, Myanmar and the United Kingdom as case studies. The book places these countries in their social-political, historical, and cultural contexts to acquire a more comprehensive knowledge of hate, discrimination, and hate speech on social media. The book defines social media and hate and provides a typology of hateful content by locating it on three different grounds; the, first, a sense of the spectrum of hateful content linked to collective identities that circulate on social media; second, a spectrum of potential actors linked to collective identities that engage in and perpetrate online hate; and third, a spectrum of actors linked to identities who are most likely to be the recipient of such hate. The methodology used is qualitative and grounded in post-structuralist and interpretivist epistemological traditions that pay attention to shifting patterns in people’s expressions and understandings of their own and others’ identities, and their lived experiences (p. 4). It investigates the intersectionality of identity. It focuses on users’ behaviors, attitudes, and experiences and technological-social infrastructures that enable social media to function. The book is divided into six chapters, including the introduction and conclusion.
Banaji and Bhat argue that in the case of the Rohingya in Myanmar, the formation of “other” has played a role in generating hate and violence against them on social media. Not just in Myanmar, but also in India, the same ethnic community was targeted. On social media, negative content, hostility, and offensive statements were made against Rohingyas. The same ideology of “Othering people” drives hostility and prejudices against some groups in Brazil as well, including the working class, indigenous peoples, left activists, and LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning) persons. Authoritarian politics is continually being attempted to create a new “other” as an enemy, resulting in hatred and violence directed towards them on social media and in society.
Hatred against minorities and Dalits is not a new phenomenon in India. Through biased social media content, it is getting strengthened on daily basis. Since coming to power in 2014, the BJP has used the virtual domain and social media to spread right-wing propaganda against Muslims, Dalits, and social and civil rights activists. The study has taken a few personal experiences into consideration, showing how a queer rights activist was targeted by the state, how an activist was bullied for expressing her opinion on government policies, how it turned into a caste-based abuse for her; and how journalists were targeted. Islamophobia and misogyny are the most common forms of hatred on social media. Desi Sulli Deals is a recent example. In India, social media platforms have become a weapon for the BJP to spread hate against political opponents, which has been exacerbated by the mainstream media. The nationalist, anti-nationalist, and urban Naxals were the state-sponsored projects for hate, where all disagreements were labeled as anti-national and termed as urban Naxals. As a result of these events, society got divided.
The book presents how majoritarian demographic consolidations against vulnerable communities are culminating in online and offline violence. The country’s political turmoil has aided in the creation of a hate-filled ecosystem on social media. The book connects social media discourse with critical theory, cultural theory, and the political-economic approach to offer a holistic view of hate and its ecosystem in society. Such an approach brings to light the concept of intersectionality and “othering,” directing the authors to unearth the history and infrastructure of colonialism, casteism, racism, and capitalism, to understand the social order of a society where violence and hate are embedded. As the study pays close attention to individuals’ lived experiences of hate and violence and documents to have a broader understanding of the issue, it offers a critical perspective to readers in discerning the power of social media platforms. It also takes cognizance of readers’ experiences and their agency in encountering the hatred in real versus virtual spaces.
Banaji and Bhatt conclude with some recommendations for dealing with this issue. One recommendation is that the social media corporations should invest more and develop a framework to combat hatred on virtual platforms. Individuals should be given the ability to use a fact-checker to double-check content, and the legacy media should employ these fact-checkers to double-check content before broadcasting.
