IM Cultural Institute

Tag: Policy

  • Policy vs Reality: Comparing the Policies of Social Media Sites and Users’ Experiences, in the Context of Exposure to Extremist Content

    Policy vs Reality: Comparing the Policies of Social Media Sites and Users’ Experiences, in the Context of Exposure to Extremist Content

    While social media enables communication and the sharing of opinions among like-minded users, it also presents risks related to its use for harmful and potentially illegal means.

    The study aims to explore the community guidelines and policies of major social media platforms concerning extremist material and to compare these policies with users’ reported experiences.

    To assess user exposure, the study pilots a new measurement tool, the Online Extremism Exposure Scale (OECE), which captures both exposure to extremist communication and hate speech online.

    Findings show that users report varying levels of exposure, with respondents indicating that extremist material appears during nearly half of their daily time spent on social media. The results also suggest potential shortcomings in social media platforms’ efforts to limit exposure to extremist content.

    Learn more about this study here: https://doi.org/10.1080/19434472.2023.2195466

    Reference

    Williams, T. J. V., Tzani, C., Gavin, H., & Ioannou, M. (2025). Policy vs reality: Comparing the policies of social media sites and users’ experiences, in the context of exposure to extremist content. Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression, 17(1), 110–127

  • Towards a Definition of Hate Speech—With a Focus on Online Contexts

    Towards a Definition of Hate Speech—With a Focus on Online Contexts

    This review addresses the ongoing challenges faced by legislators and digital platforms in defining and regulating hate speech online.

    Despite increased attention to the issue, questions surrounding the definition of hate speech remain unresolved, raising concerns about both theoretical clarity and practical applicability. For this reason, the paper focuses on three central questions: the main challenges involved in defining hate speech, the possible alternatives to existing definitions, and the relationship between the scope of a definition and its operationalization in online contexts.

    By tracing regulatory and definitional efforts across legal, paralegal, and technology platform settings, the review identifies four main modes of defining hate speech: teleological, pure consequentialist, formal, and consensus or relativist approaches.

    The authors highlight that, although hate speech has long been the focus of legal and ethical debate, both its theoretical definition and its regulation remain elusive. Existing definitions are often vague or internally inconsistent, with no universally accepted framework emerging from legal theory, jurisprudence, or academic research. This lack of consensus is further complicated by new ethical and communicative challenges posed by digital and social media environments.

    Learn more about this review here: https://doi.org/10.1177/01968599221124309

    Reference

    Hietanen, M., & Eddebo, J. (2022). Towards a Definition of Hate Speech—With a Focus on Online Contexts. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 47(4), 440-458