Twitter recently unveiled some startling news: it is suing researchers who had been hired to detect and measure hate speech on the microblogging platform. This news comes only days after it lifted the ban it imposed on controversial musician, Kanye West, earlier this month.
In order to better understand the nature and effects of hate speech on its platform, Twitter had engaged the services of two renowned academic researchers in the US: Professor Rebekah Tromble and Dr. Caroline Sinders. As part of their work, the two academics assembled a dataset of tweets that were perceived to contain hate speech.
However, Twitter’s latest lawsuit alleges that the two researchers shared the dataset with third parties, thus violating the non-disclosure agreement that had been put in place as part of their employment. The company is also suing an unnamed third-party with whom the data was allegedly shared with.
The filing of lawsuits against hate speech researchers days after Twitter lifted its ban on Kanye West appears rather perplexing. After all, it is well known that the rapper’s controversial tweets often court public ire and are regularly criticized for containing hate speech. This legal action thus seems to send a strange message from the microblogging service.
Twitter’s association with controversial figures such as Kanye West is nothing new. The company’s track record in handling hate speech and other forms of malicious content is muddied with mixed results. On one hand, it has its admirable stances, such as banning political ads and plans to crack down on bots and fake accounts. On the other, its decisions – and indecision – to deal with abuse and hate speech from prominent figures have always been open to criticism.
The current lawsuit against Prof. Tromble and Dr. Sinders has also been met with some backlash. Advocates and members of the legal fraternity are arguing that this kind of legal action will only stifle discussions and research into the fight against hate speech.
Ultimately, Twitter’s latest lawsuit gives us a birds-eye view of the duality that defines the platform. It embarks on noble efforts to combat online misuse and misuse and yet cannot seem to make up its mind or effectively implement sanctions or reprimands against those whom it deems guilty of doing the same.
The microblogging giant needs to tread carefully and make sure that its actions and decisions are consistent. If not, it runs the risk of undermining its status as an online platform that supports dialogue and respects free speech.
