▲ In an image from July 2021, the lawyer was one of the presenters of the Digital Rights Charter at the La Moncloa Palace.Photo Europa Press
Armando G. Tejeda
Correspondent
The newspaper La Jornada
Sunday, September 1, 2024, p. 21
Madrid. The rise of messaging and Xenophobic and racist campaigns on social media have become a serious problem in Europe because it is being instrumentalized by far-right groups to stir up hatred of those who are different, according to one of the continent’s greatest experts on digital issues and social networks, the Spanish academic Borja Adsuara.
This professor from Madrid, born in 1964, was one of the fathers of the European Union’s Digital Services Regulation, which has been mandatory since February 17 in all member countries.
He was also one of the speakers at the Digital Rights Charter, which he presented in 2021 at the La Moncloa Palace, under the presidency of the socialist Pedro Sánchez.
In an interview with The Day, Adsuara also warned of the risks of regulating and endangering freedom of expression.
–Do you perceive that hate crimes and racist campaigns on social media have increased in Europe in recent years? – he is asked.
–Yes, there is no doubt. As social media has developed, hate messages have increased because the political situation has also become more polarized and far-right parties are on the rise, especially messages against migration.
“It is a serious problem because hate crimes tend to generalize and take advantage of the fact that an immigrant commits a crime to spread a general hate speech, saying that all migrants are criminals. And that is precisely where the hate crime is.
The far right has known how to take advantage of this breeding ground because it brings them votes and because it is a very primary thing that is based on the instinct of belonging to the tribe and being afraid of those who are outside the tribe.
Legal framework
–Is there already a legal framework to prosecute such acts in Europe?
–Yes, especially since the Digital Services Regulation, which is a European regulation and has been applied directly to all member states since 17 February, which imposes on platforms an obligation to assess the risk of disinformation, hate speech and health-related issues, as well as requiring them to implement measures to mutilate these dangers.
“That is why there is an open confrontation with the X platform, since it has not taken measures for the moderation of content that the European Commission considers sufficient, and that regulation includes fines that can amount to up to 6 percent of the platforms’ turnover.
“But, in addition, there is the Penal Code of each country. For example, in Spain there is a crime that some call hate crime, but in reality it is not called that because hate is not a crime, nor is any expression of hate a crime. The offence would be an expression that incites violence against a certain group, whether immigrants, homosexuals or members of a religion or race, because there can be a cause-effect relationship between what you say and what is done afterwards. However, saying ‘I don’t like immigrants or homosexuals’ can be xenophobic and homophobic, but it is not a crime because freedom of expression also protects imbeciles from saying barbaric things, and there is only one limit, which is when it incites violence against these groups.”
–Is it then understood that freedom of expression is a supreme right?
–Freedom of expression is for saying things that may bother people. If we were all politically correct, we wouldn’t need a right to protect our freedom of expression, so when there is an idiot saying something stupid, we would have to use our freedom of expression to say that it is stupid, but not put him in jail because then there wouldn’t be enough prisons in any country.
–Do you think that leaving the moderation or control of hate messages to the platforms is a viable solution?
–Platform X is a cause for great concern, especially since Elon Musk took over the company and removed the moderators they had, while Tik Tok, Meta, Facebook and Instagram do have them. However, it is true that the risk is that, with the best of intentions, the European Commission or national governments will tell social networks what to delete.
This worries me a lot because the only limit to freedom of expression is the law, and as long as I say things that are not illegal, no one can censor me. What the platforms are doing in many cases is removing content that is not illegal but that they consider inappropriate. In this way, a blank check has been given to these companies. And this power cannot be left in the hands of social networks or governments because they will try to pressure them to delete content that they consider inappropriate.
Rule of law
I insist: in a state of law, the principle of legality must prevail, and in case of doubt, one must lean towards the right to freedom of expression and information.adds Adsuara.
–How should the issue of anonymity and pseudonymity be resolved?
–You have to be careful because there is everything on social media. There are people who use pseudonyms to reinforce their freedom of expression, either because of the position they hold or for any personal reason. Then there are others who only create fake accounts to insult. There are also people with names and surnames who do the same thing, hate, as has happened in Spain, where even the biggest haters of all have been some far-right deputies.
But in the case of pseudonymity, in the event that a crime is committed, the judge can lift the secrecy and determine whether that action is grounds for punishment or sanction. The difference between pseudonymity and anonymity is that the latter, which some defend, is impunity, and that cannot be allowed in a state of law.
–And what about when campaigns are carried out through bots to influence public opinion in an electoral contest?
–I have always said that the best way to fight disinformation is to fight against bot networks that artificially spread it, because the problem is not that there is fake news, but that you are bombarded by land, sea and air with it.
“By repeating it, it can distort public opinion. The worrying thing now is that it is no longer just bots; there are also more and more accounts managed by human beings who are organized and who often come together with the social media manager of a particular political party. That is more difficult to combat because there are professional and sectarian haters.
The worst thing is that hate is a very contagious virus. ends.