Prompt 1: The government has a responsibility to address the issue of online harassment.

OP-ED by: Kristin Greenfield

The evolving technology of the Internet has granted many wonderful opportunities. From the ability to get an answer on Google in seconds, to the ability to hear the perspectives of individuals living halfway across the globe, technology and social media are generally regarded as positive things. However, they are not without faults. In recent years, social media platforms have become a breeding ground for all kinds of harassment. The veil of anonymity the Internet offers has only made the issue worse. It is the duty of the government to step in and force third-parties to regulate online harassment.

Although no one is immune from online harassment and everyone from journalists to politicians have fallen victim, minorities have definitely faced the worst abuse. Women face barrages of hatred, especially when they participate in male-dominated sectors. Anita Sarkeesian was tormented with death and rape threats after she critiqued the video gaming industry’s sexist portayal of women (Franks, 2020). This trickled into her offline life and prevented her from participating in lectures as well as living her normal life without fear. Additionally, people of color are targeted with attacks of racism, such as Taylor Dumpson, who shortly after being elected as American University’s student government president, was taunted not only online but also in person with bananas hung from nooses, depicting racist epithets (O’Brien, 2019).

While it may begin as a moderate inconvenience, online harassment can quickly escalate into a dangerous situation. Conflicts with one other person can quickly turn into a relentless trollstorm with real repercussions such as the doxing of personal information. Online harassment can cause mental health problems and sometimes even drives victims to take their own lives.

Third-party platforms cannot be expected to regulate online harassment on their own. It is true that they are certainly equipped with the technology to enforce regulation, as we have seen with Instagram’s commitment to blocking nudity or YouTube’s dedication to removing any video with copyrighted music. The issue lies in the fact that they have no motivation for enforcing it. Social media sites are hardly known for their altruism; a glaring example is the 2021 report that Facebook knew that Instagram makes body image, eating issues, and suicidal thoughts worse, and opted to do nothing (Zubrow et al., 2021). Platforms are solely focused on their own profits and will turn a blind eye to harmful behavior even if their sites are specifically facilitating it. Regulating online harassment is not profitable to them and might alienate a portion of their users who enjoy harassing others. Additionally, thanks to Section 230, social media platforms get off scot-free even if their platforms are contributing to significant harm. Thus they have no incentive for monitoring it.

I believe the best course of action for eliminating harassment on the Internet is to implement a policy that excludes bad actors from the immunity offered under Section 230. Instead of blanket immunity, online service providers that deliberately leave up unlawful content that causes harm to others will be denied protection. If companies refuse to comply, their sites will be taken down. Additionally, educating adolescents and teenagers on media literacy teaching them not to torment others online is another action that can be taken to reduce harassment online.

Many people believe that if restrictions are placed on online harassment it stifles one’s ability to express themself. Still others complain that they cannot speak their mind anymore without fear of being canceled. However, having one’s claims and viewpoints challenged is actually much healthier than existing in an echo chamber in which everyone is in agreement on everything. Additionally, there is a difference between being “canceled” and being held accountable. People whose beliefs and actions actively harm marginalized people should be held liable. On top of that, cancel culture does not really exist. Most people who are exposed for their racist, sexist, or misogynistic actions are scorned by society for a few weeks and then people forget and they continue to be employed and supported by the majority of people. Furthermore, if a person is unable to express themself without harassing others, perhaps they need to reevaluate their sense of identity.

In closing, online harassment is a prevalent issue and requires immediate action from the government in the form of writing legislature to adapt the blanket immunity of Section 230 and force social media platforms to take harassment off their sites.

---

Franks, M. A. (2020). Chapter 3: The Cult of Free Speech. In The cult of the Constitution (pp. 105–157). essay, Stanford University Press.

O'Brien, L. (2018, May 3). Former American University Student president sues Andrew Anglin for racist 'troll storm'. HuffPost.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/american-university-former-black-student-president-sues andrew-anglin_n_5aea36c8e4b06748dc8f3ea0?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000618

Zubrow, K., Gavrilovic, M., & Ortiz, A. (2021, October 4). Whistleblower's SEC complaint: Facebook knew platform was used to "promote human trafficking and domestic servitude". CBS News.https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-whistleblower-sec-complaint-60-minutes -2021-10-04/