Platform Governance and Social Justice

This second chapter unpacks the journey of hate speech regulation before it arrived on social media platforms. Initially, hate speech governance was conceptualised as a legal and regulatory measure to combat discrimination. Over time, it has evolved into a mechanism for controlling content on user-generated platforms. The analysis highlights five pivotal moments: the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1946–1948), debates on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1964–1969), the US campus hate speech debates (1980s–1990s), discussions within the European Union about hate speech (1989–2010) and strategies by social media platforms to address hate speech since 2016. These moments are crucial in understanding the legislative and regulatory precedents that influence current policies on social media platforms. Additionally, by delving into the sociocultural dimensions of the hate speech debate, the analysis reveals the complexities of power relations, debates and struggles among actors involved in regulating hate speech over time, and how these affect understandings and definitions of hate speech regulation. This chapter pays special attention to the roles and visions of the Soviet Union and Critical Race Theory groups, highlighting their contributions to a communal, postcolonial and internationalist sociopolitical imaginary advocating for equality, emancipation and anti-discrimination, and thus for regulation that tackles hatred. In light of this, this chapter aims to reclaim the value of sidelined arguments that sought to align hate speech regulation with social justice, emphasising the multifaceted interpretations of essential values like freedom, equality and security throughout these debates.

This chapter argues that through a thorough analysis of the actors engaged in the debate on hate speech presented in Chapter 1, examining their interpretations of freedom and equality and scrutinising their arguments, it is possible to identify three distinct regulatory approaches: the Neutral Approach, the Freedom of Expression Absolutist Approach and the Social Justice Approach, as well as two derivative approaches: the Neutral-Security Approach and the European Approach. These perspectives are informed by the unique sociopolitical contexts, values and guiding principles of various groups and political actors separated in time and space but with connected ideas about freedom or equality. This analysis extends Altman's 1993 work on the campus hate speech debates, which underscored how different ideologies shape the conceptualisation of hate speech. The aim is to structure the debate and facilitate hate speech research by creating a typology that elucidates the multifaceted nature of hate speech regulation. Additionally, this typology aims to sharpen the discourse on hate speech regulation, providing a systematic framework for understanding and managing hate speech on social media platforms. Through this exploration, this chapter enhances the dialogue on hate speech regulation by dissecting these three principal perspectives or approaches and their impact on the governance of digital platforms.

Chapter 4 delves into mainstream platforms. Since 2016, major social media platforms have progressively established a standard for governing hate speech, which I have called the Neutral-Security Approach. This model interprets hate speech from a neutral standpoint, prioritising the role of security and safety in online spaces over combatting discrimination. It relies on a definition of hate speech as a direct attack against individual users, employing a mix of automated and human moderation to maintain a hostility-free environment. This approach, grounded in the dual principles of freedom and security, marks a novel shift in the hate speech debate by assigning regulation the primary role of ensuring safety, as opposed to the historic task of combatting discrimination. Therefore, given that these platforms are private entities regulating public discourse, this raises critical questions about the implications of prioritising platform security over societal anti-discrimination efforts and about the way this specific approach has gained public and institutional legitimacy. In light of this, this chapter explores the implementation, rise and consolidation of the Neutral-Security Approach by large platforms from 2016 to 2019. Drawing on Foucauldian governmentality, it examines how the preference for balancing freedom with safety has led to a governance model focused on controlling content circulation. This analysis considers four key concepts – production, scarcity, accumulation and diversity of content – using censorship as a case study. Additionally, this chapter investigates how external regulatory bodies, especially in Europe, are legitimising this governance model. In conclusion, this chapter critiques the effectiveness of the Neutral-Security Approach in addressing discrimination, suggesting that it fundamentally fails to tackle this issue, echoing Simone Weil's perspective on governance inadequacies.

The analysis in Chapter 5 argues that Alt Tech platforms should not be considered alternatives in the sense of offering new socio-technological paradigms, but rather as political alternatives which have emerged in reaction to the mainstream platforms' governance models, particularly regarding hate speech regulation. This distinction is crucial for understanding the role of Alt Tech platforms in the digital discourse on freedom, equality and security.

This chapter outlines the connection between mainstream platforms and the emergence of Alt Tech, focusing on the phenomena of a ‘platform for all’ and deplatforming, which are more about increasing security measures than ideological stances. It challenges the perception of Alt Tech as mere alternatives, drawing on Foucault's governmentality and Arendt's notions of freedom and politics. The discussion extends to how Alt Tech platforms redefine freedom of expression, promote a form of universal equality that overlooks hate speech regulation and place the onus of ‘trust and safety’ on users, contrasting sharply with mainstream approaches. By examining these platforms' governance and agendas, particularly through the case study of Christian Freedom in Gab, this chapter reveals how Alt Tech significantly contributes to broadening the debate on hate speech, freedom and equality in the digital realm, as active participants in shaping these discussions.

This chapter examines the Casa Liken platform as a political statement and sanctuary for women, transgender and non-binary individuals, focusing on preserving and defending their intimacies in a digital space. Casa Liken emerges as a counter-narrative to mainstream digital platforms by prioritising the needs of bodies made vulnerable owing to their menstruation-related experiences and identities. The text discusses the foundation of Casa Liken on principles of social justice and inclusivity, distinguishing it through its unique ‘Oxytocin Design’ aimed at fostering authentic connections, non-competitive interactions and a supportive community environment, and through ‘Accompanied Moderation’, which aims to create dialogue. By creating a refuge away from mainstream and Alt Right platforms' hostility, Casa Liken addresses the mental health of its users as a consequential benefit, rather than its primary objective. This approach reflects a broader political stance on the role of digital spaces in society, advocating for a model that respects and protects the privacy, safety and dignity of women, trans and non-binary groups. The platform's governance, content moderation and user safety policies are analysed, highlighting how Casa Liken operationalises its commitment to freedom, equality and security. This case study contributes to the discourse on digital ethics, platform governance and the potential of technology to support marginalised communities' rights and well-being in a manifestation of a Social Justice Approach.