Is Liking a Tweet Hate Speech?

A salutary tale of a TD and two little red hearts

Dec 20, 2020

Justice Minister Helen McEntee (Photo via Getty Images)

The sharing of hate speech on social media is to become a criminal offence in Ireland.

The Department of Justice consultation on Hate Speech and Hate Crime was published on 17 December 2020, by Minister for Justice Helen McEntee. Outline legislation is due before cabinet by Easter 2021.

The legislation will consider hate speech in the context of the protected characteristics of transgender, sexual orientation, disability, immigrant status, and ethnic and religious minorities. That is right and proper. All minorities deserve dignity and protection from hate in our democracy.

Interestingly the Department of Justice has chosen not to protect women from hate speech despite the Council of Europe stating as recently as 2016 that hate speech is a daily phenomenon for many women. Amnesty International also published a report on the proliferation of violence and abuse towards women online as recently as 2018.

The tale of a TD and two little Hearts

In December 2020, Chris Andrews, Sinn Féin TD, apologised for liking two tweets after Transgender Equality Network Ireland (TENI) chair Sara Phillips questioned "why he feels he should be liking and sharing those tweets."

He did not author the tweets. He did not retweet. He turned the little heart red on two tweets.

I don’t wish to repeat the tweets here. I will leave you to decide if the tweets were problematic, and if the liking of them demanded a public apology. They are described in this Irish Independent article and at least one of them is easily searchable through google. It currently has approximately 65k 'likes'.

I want to examine this tale in the context of the proposed hate crime legislation combined with the #ChillingEffect of the Amnesty letter.

After Sara Phillips made her views on liking and sharing the tweets known, Chris Andrews "reached out to Sara and TENI". After some education and discussion he chose to make a public apology.

"I sincerely apologise for liking these tweets. There is a lot of misinformation about transgender participation in sports, and it needs to be addressed head on. I have since learned a lot about transgender participation in sports, and the tenuous claims of unfair advantage which are not backed up in the most recent academic research."

The Proposed Hate Speech Legislation

According to the Irish Times the proposed legislation will criminalise the sharing or retweeting of hateful speech on platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, even when the person sharing it was not the author. Interestingly “there will be protections for social-media companies from prosecution.”

It is unclear as yet how the law will define sharing on social media platform. Chris Andrews did not retweet or author these tweets. He simply liked them. But his ‘likes’ caused them to be shared with other users.

Sara Phillips noted that sharing.

Sharing Tweets on Twitter

Twitter uses an Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithm to determine how tweets are shared and proliferate through our timelines. The twitter algorithm is proprietary and secret.

According to Twitter, Top Tweets are chosen “based on accounts you interact with most, tweets you engage with, and much more.”

It is the "much more" that concerns me.

AI works by sifting through possibly 100s of features, or data signals, to make a decision. In the case of Twitter timelines and the sharing of tweets these features might include:

what people have liked in the past
which people have liked them
how many followers they have
whether they have a blue tick
their personal characteristics (sex, political views, age, sexual orientation etc)
the content of the tweet
… and so on

Remember the algorithm is proprietary and secret. We don’t know what features are used and how they are given priority.

A complex statistical analysis is performed on the features to determine how widely a tweet will be shared at any given time. It is not a deterministic calculation, as in, the algorithm may not always share a particular tweet in the same way. Depending on the type of machine learning the algorithm uses it may self-adjust as user behaviour and engagement on Twitter evolves.

In short, there is simply no way that Chris Andrews or Sarah Anderson or Helen McEntee or indeed the algorithm designers at Twitter would be able to predict how far and wide the tweets he liked would be shared. Nor would they be able to determine exactly how much his ‘likes’, as opposed to any of the approx 65k other ‘likes’ contribute to the proliferation. Such is the nature of AI algorithms.

Remember the ‘like’ feature exists so that Twitter can drive revenue by increasing user engagement with content. This is exactly why the nature of the discourse on twitter is so polarised and toxic. Controversy creates clicks and clicks drive revenue.

Yet apparently the social media companies are to get a free pass when it comes to Hate Speech legislation in Ireland.

Hate Speech and the Amnesty Letter

Perhaps you think I am being disingenuous by using the example of Chris Andrew's ‘likes’ in considering the proposed hate speech legislation. I beg to differ.

Let us revisit the #ChillingEffect of the Amnesty letter. The letter appears to identify individuals and organisations who “defend biology” and present "false narratives" and "inaccurate science" as people who "promote hate, to trade in bigotry" and “call for division based on falsities and bigotry”. Apparently their views are “not based in truth, it comes with no claims in fact, and is a dog whistle to bigots”. (full context of quotes given below the line).

So was Chris Andrews promoting false narratives, inaccurate science and hate? Was he defending biology? Are his 'likes' a dog whistle to bigots?

It appears that Sara Phillips and Chris Andrews both agree that the notion that trans women might have an advantage in women’s sport is a “tenuous claim” based on “misinformation” that is “not backed up in the most recent academic research”.

To me that sounds eerily similar to something that might be a "false narrative" based on "inaccurate science" that attempts to "defend biology".

I know not everybody likes to read as much as I do. I also like to state things clearly and plainly.

There is peer reviewed academic science that clearly raises legitimate questions about performance advantage, fairness, and inclusion in women’s sport.

I have listed three recent examples below the line.

Shutting down legitimate and respectful debate leads to polarisation and hurts communities and individuals.

When is liking a tweet Hate Speech?

Obviously I don't know the answer to that question. But I am frightened for our democracy in the context of:

The #ChillingEffect of Amnesty letter
My understanding of social media algorithms
Helen McEntee’s stated intention to criminalise Irish citizens for hate speech on social media while giving social media platforms a free pass
The salutary tale of Chris Andrew's public apology for hitting the little red heart on two tweets

What can you do?

I guess don’t share hate speech!

But for protection against accidental liking and sharing perhaps use an application such as TweetDelete. Set up an automated process to deletes ‘likes’ at the end of every day. Then at least you can say you made a mistake and attempted to rectify it. I don't know if that will be a good enough defence for the ‘like’ police, Helen McEntee, or the Department of Justice. But it might be worth a try.

I plan to keep on talking about the #ChillingEffect of the Amnesty Letter, but to paraphrase Elvis, we need a little less conversation and a lot more action.

Please share this article (if you dare!) and feel free to get in touch if you have any ideas about how to address these issues

Some recent peer reviewed academic science about performance and inclusion in women’s sport

On 9 October 2020 World Rugby released the results of their comprehensive review of transgender participation guidelines. Their process was collaborative and transparent, and reviewed the current science about performance and safety. They published both the process and the results and created a summary of the Transgender Biology and Performance Research on which the decision was based. They conclude "we do not recommend that transwomen play women’s contact rugby on safety grounds at the international level of the game where size, strength, power and speed are crucial for both risk and performance". World Rugby Chairman Sir Bill Beaumont added that a key aspect of the decision was related to concern about the risk of injury to women.
On 7 December 2020 a paper published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine concludes "transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events."
On 8 December 2020 a paper published in Sports Medicine concludes “the muscular advantage enjoyed by transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed.”

Quotes from the Amnesty Letter

“Let us say unequivocally that the statements of newly launched organisations that seek to defend biology or fight gender identity and expression do not represent the wider LGBTI+ community nor feminists in Ireland.”

“We know that by and large these false narratives are not native to the queer and feminist communities of Ireland.”

“Anyone that continues to use inaccurate science to denigrate trans people is increasing discrimination. Sex and gender are both spectrums, and the full beauty of that spectrum must be supported and included”

“We will not allow anyone to promote hate, to trade in bigotry, or to attack legislation, education and programs that affirm transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people.”

“It is not based in truth, it comes with no claims in fact, and is a dog whistle to bigots.”

You can read the full text of the letter here

The Chilling Effect

Discussion about this post