{"id":13213,"date":"2020-09-14T11:42:10","date_gmt":"2020-09-14T09:42:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/"},"modified":"2020-09-14T11:42:10","modified_gmt":"2020-09-14T09:42:10","slug":"hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/","title":{"rendered":"Hate speech in the context of mass atrocity crimes: How social media platforms help and hinder international criminal investigations"},"content":{"rendered":"

The May 2020 arrest of F\u00e9licien Kabuga brought an end to a manhunt spanning 26 years and two continents. The capture of the elusive alleged financier of the infamous RTLM hate speech radio station shows the importance of documenting hate speech for court proceedings if and when fugitives are eventually arrested. Today, extremist hate and atrocity speech in the context of genocide and war crimes takes place and is spread online. However, social media platforms have been slow to respond to and document it, and to cooperate with international authorities in doing so.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The May 2020 arrest of F\u00e9licien Kabuga<\/a> brought an end to a manhunt spanning 26 years and two continents. Among other indictments, the elusive alleged financier of the 1994 Rwandan genocide is charged with inciting genocide<\/a> as the chairman of the infamous RTLM hate speech radio station (Radio-T\u00e9l\u00e9vision Libre des Milles Collines; Free Radio and Television of the Thousand Hills). The Kabuga case shows that fugitives from International Criminal Law (ICL) can often evade capture for decades, while illustrating the importance of documenting hate speech for court proceedings if and when they are eventually arrested. The Rwandan genocide was the\u00a0\u201clast genocide with a paper trail\u201d<\/a>, the last genocide with a heavy reliance on physical paperwork. The UN Tribunal for Rwanda\u2019s proceedings also produced hundreds of pages of radio transcripts as evidence for incitement to genocide and hate speech on a massive scale, leading to numerous convictions<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Today, extremist hate and atrocity speech in the context of genocide and war crimes takes place and is spread online<\/a>. However, social media platforms have been slow to respond to and document it, and to cooperate with international authorities in doing so. On 10 September 2020, Human Rights Watch published a 100-page report<\/a> detailing international authorities\u2019 difficulties in securing the cooperation of social media platforms \u2013 Twitter, Facebook, and Google \u2013 in gaining access to potential evidence. Perhaps most prominently, Facebook\u2019s initially hesitant reaction to rampant hate speech in the Myanmar context has been roundly criticized, as has the company\u2019s subsequent reluctance to support UN investigative bodies.<\/p>\n

This essay highlights two aspects of this debate. First, it discusses hate speech on social media and platforms\u2019 responses and responsibilities in the context of ongoing atrocities, summarizing current ICL assessments. Second, it discusses the emerging importance of social media hate speech as evidence in international criminal proceedings, and platforms\u2019 troubling track records of removing activist evidence of war crimes. Such evidence is crucial for making the case against alleged perpetrators of genocide and crimes against humanity to justice \u2013 even decades down the road, as the Kabuga case shows.<\/p>\n

Hate speech in the context of genocide: media and social media<\/h2>\n

Parallels\u00a0have been drawn<\/a>\u00a0between the Rwandan radio station RTLM\u2019s role in fomenting racial hatred against the Tutsi minority over the airwaves on the one hand; and the spread of hate speech via Facebook during ongoing violence against the Rohingya in the Myanmar\u2013Bangladesh border region.<\/p>\n

Since October 2016, Myanmar military and police have destroyed Muslim Rohingya villages across Rakhine State<\/a>, conducting \u201cclearance operations\u201d and perpetrating alleged mass killings and widespread sexual violence and gang rapes<\/a>. Between 600.000 and one million Rohingya have been forcibly displaced<\/a>. The events are the subject of ongoing proceedings<\/a> regarding the applicability of the 1948 Genocide Convention at the International Court of Justice ICJ), as well as the ongoing investigation of the matter by the International Criminal Court (ICC)<\/a>, both at The Hague.<\/p>\n

In 1994, with clear evidence of mass murder in Rwanda, US policymakers decided against jamming RTLM, partially for reasons of free speech<\/a>. In 2018, Facebook in particular was slow to react<\/a> to calls for increases in content moderation regarding Myanmar. In September 2018, a UN fact-finding mission quoted numerous Facebook posts<\/a> by Myanmar officials as indications of hate speech and incitement. The mission\u2019s report concluded that \u201cFacebook has been a useful instrument for those seeking to spread hate\u201d and that the company\u2019s \u201cthe response (\u2026) has been slow and ineffective.\u201d The company itself reported in August 2018 that is had only 60 content moderators<\/a> for a country of nearly 55 million people and 20 million<\/a> Facebook users, later commissioning an impact assessment<\/a> of its activities in Myanmar, published the day of the US midterm elections<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Some scholarly opinions interpret the company\u2019s slow reaction as complicity in atrocity crimes<\/a>, but more optimistic assessments<\/a> point to self-regulation as an opportunity for reducing hate speech via social media in the context of genocide. When a government fails to fulfill its obligation to protect its own population, proactive measures by social media platforms can certainly mitigate harms.<\/p>\n

Social media posts as legal evidence of hate speech and incitement<\/h2>\n

However, Facebook\u2019s poor record extends not only to content moderation in the face of ongoing alleged war crimes, but also to the collection and provision of evidence in their wake. The 2018 fact-finding commission<\/a> \u201cregret[ted] that Facebook [was] unable to provide country-specific data about the spread of hate speech on its platform\u201d. In August 2020, the head of a UN investigative body on the situation again explicitly criticized Facebook<\/a> for withholding evidence relevant to the ongoing inquiry. The company responded by sharing some of the data in question, with the UN investigators confirming<\/a> the receipt of a \u201cfirst data set which partially complies with our previous requests\u201d.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, Facebook and Myanmar is not the only case of lacking cooperation by social media platforms in the aftermath of alleged atrocities and war crimes. Beyond Myanmar, both Facebook and YouTube have been criticized<\/a> for removing potential evidence and documentation of war crimes from Syria and Nigeria, gathered and shared by activists.<\/p>\n

In its September 2020 report, Human Rights Watch recommended<\/a> setting up a restricted archive to preserve potential evidence and make it available to investigators, as well as civil society organizations and journalists. The report named the International Tribunal for Rwanda\u2019s archives as a best practice for doing so. While Facebook has made significant improvements in removing hate and toxic speech from public profiles, the importance of archiving, retaining, and providing evidence for eventual (international) criminal proceedings is evident. Social media platforms are the primary custodians of these data \u2013 But have so far not been particularly cooperative or proactive regarding international enquiries.<\/p>\n

Platforms must be cooperative and proactive in helping international investigations<\/h2>\n

Misinformation, extremism and hate speech in the US and European contexts have seemingly been a higher priority<\/a> to Facebook than elsewhere in the world. All this has led critics to conclude that Facebook applies a different standard of care to Asian users<\/a> than to US and European ones in general, and in the Myanmar case in particular. The vast majority of the platform\u2019s users<\/a> are located outside the US and Europe, often in countries with currently precarious human rights situations regarding religious and racial hate speech, including India<\/a> and Brazil<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Kabuga case illustrates that well-connected and sheltered suspected genocidaires<\/em> can take decades to catch. This makes the permanent documentation of often fleeting social media data particularly important. Here, timely and stringent content moderation and the longer-term gathering and provision of evidence need not be at odds<\/a>. As extremist hate speech and incitement in the context of genocide and mass atrocities is increasingly spread on social media platforms, international criminal justice is reliant upon social media platforms\u2019 cooperation in bringing alleged perpetrators to justice.<\/p>\n

This Article has also been published as part of the GNET Blog series.<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The May 2020 arrest of F\u00e9licien Kabuga brought an end to a manhunt spanning 26 years and two continents. The capture of the elusive alleged financier of the infamous RTLM hate speech radio station shows the importance of documenting hate speech for court proceedings if and when fugitives are eventually arrested. Today, extremist hate and atrocity speech in the context of genocide and war crimes takes place and is spread online. However, social media platforms have been slow to respond to and document it, and to cooperate with international authorities in doing so.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":64,"featured_media":10968,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1125],"tags":[1210,1178,1165,1326,1333,1356],"coauthors":[354],"class_list":["post-13213","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-english-en","tag-genocide","tag-human-rights","tag-international-criminal-court","tag-media","tag-myanmar-en","tag-rwanda"],"acf":[],"views":363,"yoast_head":"\nHate speech in the context of mass atrocity crimes: How social media platforms help and hinder international criminal investigations - PRIF BLOG<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hate speech in the context of mass atrocity crimes: How social media platforms help and hinder international criminal investigations - PRIF BLOG\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The May 2020 arrest of F\u00e9licien Kabuga brought an end to a manhunt spanning 26 years and two continents. The capture of the elusive alleged financier of the infamous RTLM hate speech radio station shows the importance of documenting hate speech for court proceedings if and when fugitives are eventually arrested. Today, extremist hate and atrocity speech in the context of genocide and war crimes takes place and is spread online. However, social media platforms have been slow to respond to and document it, and to cooperate with international authorities in doing so.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"PRIF BLOG\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/HSFK.PRIF\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-09-14T09:42:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Blogbeitrag_Anjo_GNET_hate-speech_Myanmar.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"750\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"410\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Anton Peez\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@antonpeez\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@HSFK_PRIF\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Anton Peez\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Anton Peez\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/f327d0ed338f35e5d2638748a6785679\"},\"headline\":\"Hate speech in the context of mass atrocity crimes: How social media platforms help and hinder international criminal investigations\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-09-14T09:42:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/\"},\"wordCount\":1247,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Blogbeitrag_Anjo_GNET_hate-speech_Myanmar.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Genocide\",\"Human Rights\",\"International Criminal Court\",\"Media\",\"Myanmar\",\"Rwanda\"],\"articleSection\":[\"English\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/\",\"name\":\"Hate speech in the context of mass atrocity crimes: How social media platforms help and hinder international criminal investigations - PRIF BLOG\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Blogbeitrag_Anjo_GNET_hate-speech_Myanmar.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-09-14T09:42:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Blogbeitrag_Anjo_GNET_hate-speech_Myanmar.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Blogbeitrag_Anjo_GNET_hate-speech_Myanmar.jpg\",\"width\":750,\"height\":410,\"caption\":\"Myanmar security presence in IDP camps, Rakhine State, Myanmar, 31 July 2012. | Photo: Bernard Jaspers-Fajer EU\/ECHO; EU Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid; Flickr | CC BY-SA 2.0\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Startseite\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hate speech in the context of mass atrocity crimes: How social media platforms help and hinder international criminal investigations\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/\",\"name\":\"PRIF BLOG\",\"description\":\"Peace Research Institute Frankfurt \/ Leibniz Institut Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Peace Research Institute Frankfurt \/ Leibniz Institut Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/cropped-blog_rgb.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/cropped-blog_rgb.png\",\"width\":750,\"height\":226,\"caption\":\"Peace Research Institute Frankfurt \/ Leibniz Institut Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/HSFK.PRIF\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/HSFK_PRIF\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/8912786\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/f327d0ed338f35e5d2638748a6785679\",\"name\":\"Anton Peez\",\"description\":\"Anton Peez ist Doktorand im Programmbereich \u201eInternationale Institutionen\u201c an der HSFK. Er forscht zu Zwang, Compliance und Normen in den Internationalen Beziehungen. \/\/ Anton Peez is researcher and phd candidate in PRIF\u2019s research department \u201cInternational Institutions\u201d. His research focuses on coercion, compliance and norms in international relations. | Twitter: @antonpeez\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/x.com\/antonpeez\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/author\/apeez\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hate speech in the context of mass atrocity crimes: How social media platforms help and hinder international criminal investigations - PRIF BLOG","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hate speech in the context of mass atrocity crimes: How social media platforms help and hinder international criminal investigations - PRIF BLOG","og_description":"The May 2020 arrest of F\u00e9licien Kabuga brought an end to a manhunt spanning 26 years and two continents. The capture of the elusive alleged financier of the infamous RTLM hate speech radio station shows the importance of documenting hate speech for court proceedings if and when fugitives are eventually arrested. Today, extremist hate and atrocity speech in the context of genocide and war crimes takes place and is spread online. However, social media platforms have been slow to respond to and document it, and to cooperate with international authorities in doing so.","og_url":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/","og_site_name":"PRIF BLOG","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/HSFK.PRIF","article_published_time":"2020-09-14T09:42:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":750,"height":410,"url":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Blogbeitrag_Anjo_GNET_hate-speech_Myanmar.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Anton Peez","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@antonpeez","twitter_site":"@HSFK_PRIF","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Anton Peez","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/"},"author":{"name":"Anton Peez","@id":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/f327d0ed338f35e5d2638748a6785679"},"headline":"Hate speech in the context of mass atrocity crimes: How social media platforms help and hinder international criminal investigations","datePublished":"2020-09-14T09:42:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/"},"wordCount":1247,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Blogbeitrag_Anjo_GNET_hate-speech_Myanmar.jpg","keywords":["Genocide","Human Rights","International Criminal Court","Media","Myanmar","Rwanda"],"articleSection":["English"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/","url":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/","name":"Hate speech in the context of mass atrocity crimes: How social media platforms help and hinder international criminal investigations - PRIF BLOG","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Blogbeitrag_Anjo_GNET_hate-speech_Myanmar.jpg","datePublished":"2020-09-14T09:42:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Blogbeitrag_Anjo_GNET_hate-speech_Myanmar.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Blogbeitrag_Anjo_GNET_hate-speech_Myanmar.jpg","width":750,"height":410,"caption":"Myanmar security presence in IDP camps, Rakhine State, Myanmar, 31 July 2012. | Photo: Bernard Jaspers-Fajer EU\/ECHO; EU Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid; Flickr | CC BY-SA 2.0"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/2020\/09\/14\/hate-speech-in-the-context-of-mass-atrocity-crimes-how-social-media-platforms-help-and-hinder-international-criminal-investigations\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Startseite","item":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hate speech in the context of mass atrocity crimes: How social media platforms help and hinder international criminal investigations"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/","name":"PRIF BLOG","description":"Peace Research Institute Frankfurt \/ Leibniz Institut Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/#organization","name":"Peace Research Institute Frankfurt \/ Leibniz Institut Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung","url":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/cropped-blog_rgb.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/cropped-blog_rgb.png","width":750,"height":226,"caption":"Peace Research Institute Frankfurt \/ Leibniz Institut Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/HSFK.PRIF","https:\/\/x.com\/HSFK_PRIF","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/8912786\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/f327d0ed338f35e5d2638748a6785679","name":"Anton Peez","description":"Anton Peez ist Doktorand im Programmbereich \u201eInternationale Institutionen\u201c an der HSFK. Er forscht zu Zwang, Compliance und Normen in den Internationalen Beziehungen. \/\/ Anton Peez is researcher and phd candidate in PRIF\u2019s research department \u201cInternational Institutions\u201d. His research focuses on coercion, compliance and norms in international relations. | Twitter: @antonpeez","sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/antonpeez"],"url":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/author\/apeez\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13213","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/64"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13213"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13213\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10968"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13213"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13213"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13213"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.prif.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=13213"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}