View previous stories
	Peoples under Threat 2019: The role of social media in exacerbating violence by Minority Rights Group, MercyCorps, agencies   Peoples under Threat 2019: The role of social media in exacerbating violence, report from Minority Rights Group International   In many parts of the world, wide-ranging atrocities and other human rights abuses continue to threaten populations, especially those belonging to minority groups and indigenous peoples. As the reach of social media grows ever more pervasive globally, so too does its impact in contexts where genocide, mass killing, or systematic violent repression have occurred or there is a risk of such things taking place.   The country situations at the top of the 2019 Peoples under Threat index illustrate how, in case after case, social media is playing a major role in encouraging the killing. Social media platforms now occupy a central role in stigmatizing target groups, legitimizing violence and recruiting the killers.   Deliberate misinformation, including false allegations and dehumanization of targeted groups, has been an enduring feature of conflict over the ages. But in the social media age, the process has accelerated to an unprecedented degree.   Ease of access to social media has given every violent racist a potential public platform, and the anonymity of social media has given states the ability to incubate and incite hatred across international borders.   Conflict narratives, conspiracy theories and extremist views quickly find a home on platforms where every voice competes for attention, and the moderate voices and restrained language necessary for peace-building are drowned out.   Political leaders, rebel groups, activists and ordinary civilians have all used social media as a tool for communication. Even in the most fragile and divided societies where internet access remains minimal, such as South Sudan, the role of social media is growing, as traditional media landscapes and technologies rapidly transform. Syria's devastating conflict, on the other hand - where social media platforms are used by all sides and videos uploaded to YouTube have received hundreds of millions of views - has led to it being repeatedly described as a 'social media war'.   Social media promises to increasingly influence how conflict and episodes of violence are perceived, their trajectories, and the ways they are responded to. No divided society or context of conflict can be understood without considering how social media is being used by an array of state and non-state actors.   Indeed, critics have accused social media firms of accepting too little responsibility for the use of their technologies to foment division and violence in unstable and conflict-affected societies.   Many point to Myanmar, where the United Nations (UN) has called for authorities to face charges of genocide as the starkest example of the link between social media and the commission of atrocities. There dehumanizing language and outright incitement to mass murder were amplified via Facebook and Twitter, contributing to the widespread targeting of the mainly Muslim Rohingya minority.   In November, Facebook released a report it had commissioned related to the killing of Rohingya which concluded that 'Facebook has become a means for those seeking to spread hate and cause harm'. But while the company acknowledged that 'we can and should do more', Facebook and other social media corporations continue to rely on self-regulation, based heavily on moderation in line with 'community standards' - an approach which has proved woefully ineffective when confronted by organized, and at times officiallysanctioned, campaigns of violent hatred.   Peoples under Threat draws much-needed attention to numerous other cases where, in the context of social cleavages, political instability and insecurity, social media risks exacerbating or paving the path to systematic violent repression or mass killings. In many of those countries where the risk of mass atrocity crimes is most pronounced, the internet-savvy youth often outnumbers the rest of the population.   Where deadly armed conflict rages on, from Libya to Afghanistan, combatants often wield a gun in one hand and a smartphone in the other - their cameras weaponized in a propaganda war uniting battlefields and cyberspace.   Social media is a tool in the hands of states brutally oppressing their populations, as in Syria, where supporters of President Bashar al-Assad popularized a #SyriaHoax hashtag on Twitter to discredit evidence of horrific chemical attacks on civilian targets, such as in Khan Sheikhoun and Douma. Social media can also be manipulated by outside powers to generate support for policies that harm civilians.   Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), for example, have used 'bot armies' to legitimate their bombing campaign in Yemen, while rising hostilities between India and Pakistan following the killing of 40 Indian soldiers in Kashmir were stoked by the trending of rival Twitter hashtags by nationalists in the two countries.   In conflict zones such as Afghanistan and Cameroon, where threats are on the rise, armed groups ranging from the Taliban to Anglophone separatists rely on social media platforms for a range of activities: to coordinate movements, recruit supporters and fighters, glorify victories and dispute opposing narratives, and solicit funds.   The so-called Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) has employed similar tactics. During its ascendancy, the fear instilled by graphic videos of executions, attacks and other content distributed through its sophisticated online presence encouraged many members of minorities to flee the territory under its control. But with the collapse of the group's self-described caliphate in Iraq and Syria, along with its rebranding as a global entity now under way, ISIS likely will seek to leverage social media to promote further attacks on civilian populations in future.   There is currently a debate around the effectiveness of restricting social media to prevent violence when tensions are running high. While many governments impose social media controls in an attempt to lessen dissent or division, easing restrictions can unintentionally empower and unite extreme voices, as has occurred in the wake of Ethiopia's democratic reforms. Religious or ethnic divides, often linked to colonial legacies and manipulated by contemporary elites can become more salient through social media, prompting retreats into insular solidarities amenable to radicalization.   Where inter-communal animosities exist, inflammatory misinformation and disinformation promoted on social media can spiral quickly into violence. Online hate speech and incitement in the Central African Republic (CAR) has played a role in fuelling cycles of atrocities between Christians and Muslims in recent years. In India, where social media has invigorated an aggressive, exclusionary Hindu nationalism, rumours and hate speech spread on WhatApp have led to a number of mob attacks on Muslims.   In Sri Lanka, similarly, rumours on social media sparked anti-Muslim mob attacks in Sri Lanka last year, which have re-ignited in the wake of Easter Sunday church and hotel bombings by ISIS in April 2019.   Yet social media can play a positive role too. Through circulating valuable information, it can provide a public service. Many platforms monitor the movements of militaries and insurgents, such as Libya's 'SafePath' Facebook group, which directs users to avoid certain roads due to fighting. Civilians can be similarly guided to humanitarian aid locations.   Dialogue across social divides can be facilitated by social media, shifting attitudes and promoting understanding among groups that may not otherwise communicate with each other, reverse-engineering conditions of enmity and violence.   With low opportunity costs for acquiring, tailoring, and circulating information, social media is crucial to bearing and sharing witness, to documenting violations of international humanitarian law or human rights, and widely broadcasting content to provoke action among human rights groups and international organizations.   Social media can play a role in ending inaction and impunity, securing accountability and reparation for violations.   No society can prevent violence or build peace without accounting for the role of social media, least of all those populating the upper reaches of the Peoples under Threat table, where the risk of mass killing has become pressing or critical.   But even in states where the imminent risk is much lower and which do not therefore appear on the list (including those in Western Europe and North America), social media penetration has quickly created effectively unregulated platforms for the dissemination of hatred against minorities.   Longstanding support for freedom of expression has been subverted into widespread societal tolerance for the expression of violent extremism. Governments have universally failed to live up to their obligations not just to protect freedom of expression but also to prohibit any 'advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence', as required by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 20(2)).   Peoples under Threat identifies those country situations around the world where communities face the greatest risk of genocide, mass killing, or systematic violent repression.   Based on current indicators from authoritative sources, Peoples under Threat has been compiled every year since 2005 to provide early warning of potential future mass atrocities. Peoples under Threat highlights 20 situations with pressing risks - states either at the top of the index or those swiftly rising. It is estimated that these will account for the vast majority of civilians who are likely to be killed over the following year.   http://reliefweb.int/report/world/peoples-under-threat-2019-role-social-media-exacerbating-violence   Oct. 2019   Governments and Internet companies fail to meet challenges of online hate. (OHCHR)   In a landmark report that reinforces legal standards to combat online hate, the UN's monitor for freedom of expression calls on governments and companies to move away from standardless policies and inconsistent enforcement, and to align their laws and practices against 'hate speech' with international human rights law.   'The prevalence of online hate poses challenges to everyone, first and foremost the marginalised individuals who are its principal targets', said David Kaye, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, in the report to be presented to the UN General Assembly today. 'Unfortunately, States and companies are failing to prevent 'hate speech' from becoming the next 'fake news', an ambiguous and politicised term subject to governmental abuse and company discretion.   'Online hate is no less harmful because it is online', the Special Rapporteur said. 'To the contrary, online hate, with the speed and reach of its dissemination, can incite grave offline harm and nearly always aims to silence others. The question is not whether to address such abuse. It is how to do so in a way that respects the rights everyone enjoys'.   In the report, Kaye urges that States meet their obligations by turning to key human rights treaties and the leading interpretations of human rights law by the Human Rights Committee and the 2013 Rabat Plan of Action. He expresses particular concern about governments that use 'hate speech' to restrict legitimate expression under the guise of 'blasphemy' or fail to define and enforce 'hate speech' rules according to human rights law's rigorous standards of legality, necessity and proportionality, and legitimacy.   'Governments and the public have legitimate concerns about online hate', the Special Rapporteur added, 'but new laws that impose liability on companies are failing basic standards, increasing the power of those same private actors over public norms, and risk undermining free expression and public accountability'.   'Companies likewise are not taking seriously their responsibilities to respect human rights', he said. 'It is on their platforms where hateful content spreads, spurred on by a business model and algorithmic tools that value attention and virality. They have massive impact on human rights and yet all fail to articulate policies rooted in human rights law, as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights call upon them to do'.   Kaye's report provides companies with a roadmap for tackling online hate according to basic principles of human rights law. It especially highlights the absence of human rights impact assessments at all stages of product development, the vagueness of company rules, and the lack of transparency of company processes.   'The human rights community has had a long-term conversation with social media and other companies in the Internet economy', the Special Rapporteur said, and yet the companies remain stubbornly committed to policies that fail to articulate their actions according to basic norms of human rights law, from freedom of expression and privacy to prohibitions of discrimination, incitement to violence, and promotion of public participation.   The companies failure to recognise their power and impact, and to value shareholders over public interest, must end immediately', Kaye said. This report gives the companies the tools to change course.   http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/Annual.aspx   The Weaponization of Social Media. (MercyCorps)   Social media has emerged as a powerful tool for communication, connection, community and, unfortunately, conflict. It's created new, highly accessible channels for spreading disinformation, sowing divisiveness and contributing to violence, persecution and exploitation. The impact social media has on communities is complex and rapidly evolving. It stretches across international borders and challenges traditional humanitarian aid, development and peacebuilding models.   This new paradigm requires a new approach. Mercy Corps has partnered with Do No Digital Harm and Adapt Peacebuilding on a landscape assessment called The Weaponization of Social Media: How social media can spark violence and what can be done about it. This assessment examines how social media has been used to drive or incite violence and to lay the foundation for effective, collaborative programming and initiatives to respond quickly and help protect already fragile communities.   http://www.mercycorps.org/research/weaponization-social-media Visit the related web page
	Impunity Remains: Attacks on Health Care in 23 Countries in Conflict in 2018 by Safeguarding Health in Conflict Coalition   May 2019   There were at least 973 attacks on health workers, health facilities, health transports and patients in 23 countries in conflict in 2018, the Safeguarding Health in Conflict Coalition reported today. At least 167 health workers died and at least 710 were injured. This marks an increase in the number of documented attacks compared to 2017, when the coalition reported 701 such instances.   The coalition's sixth annual report documents attacks on vaccination workers, paramedics, nurses, doctors, midwives, community volunteers, drivers and guards, in violation of international norms and interrupting global efforts to stop dangerous disease outbreaks such as Ebola and eradicate polio.   Evidence of attacks in the report, Impunity Remains: 2018 Attacks on Health Care in 23 Countries in Conflict, was gathered from humanitarian organizations, the World Health Organization and other United Nations (UN) agencies and coalition members, as well as from open source data.   'The UN and governments claim to be committed to stopping attacks and ensuring accountability', says Leonard Rubenstein, chair of the coalition and senior scientist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Johns Hopkins Center for Humanitarian Health. 'But we are seeing again widespread impunity by state militaries and armed groups, the targeting of health workers and the health of millions of people at risk'.   The report offers accounts of specific attacks, including:   * In Afghanistan in January, a suicide bomber drove an ambulance packed with explosives through a busy checkpoint then detonated a bomb that killed at least 95 bystanders.   * In February, 13 Medecins Sans Frontieres International-supported hospitals and clinics in East Ghouta, Syria, were hit by bombs or shells.   * In March in the northern Nigerian state of Borno, Boko Haram insurgents armed with automatic weapons, rocket-propelled grenades and gun trucks attacked an internally displaced persons camp, killed two Nigerians working for the International Organization for Migration and a doctor working for UNICEF, and kidnapped two midwives and a nurse. The two midwives were executed in September and October.   * In one mass demonstration in the occupied Palestinian territory in April, at least 33 health workers were injured. Four paramedics were struck by direct fire and 29 health workers suffered from tear gas inhalation.   * In May and June, armed men entered Bambari Hospital in the Central African Republic, firing shots, pillaging the hospital and threatening Muslim patients, who were forced to flee.   * In November in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), the Allied Democratic Forces group attacked near the Ebola Emergency Operations Center and hotels where many Ebola responders were staying, killing seven UN peacekeepers and 12 members of the DRC military.   Ebola treatment centers in the area were closed for two days as a result.   The greatest number of attacks occurred in Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, Libya, the occupied Palestinian territory, Syria and Yemen. Airstrikes were conducted against hospitals in Syria and Yemen. Vaccinators were attacked in Afghanistan, the CAR, the DRC, Pakistan, Somalia and Sudan.   Eighty-eight health workers were killed in Syria. More than 500 health workers were injured in the occupied Palestinian territory. Armed men entered a health facility in the DRC, looted and beat patients, and attacked and raped a nurse.   'Attacks on health facilities and health workers not only cause immediate damage and loss of life but also impede access to essential health services for vulnerable people around the world, jeopardizing universal health coverage and global health security', says Carol Bales, advocacy and policy communications manager at IntraHealth International, who oversaw the report's production. 'We need to do more to ensure health workers are safe and able to improve and save lives'.   International humanitarian law, codified in the Geneva Conventions and its Additional Protocols, as well as international human rights law prohibits attacks on health facilities and health workers. The United Nations Security Council has repeatedly condemned attacks on health facilities and health workers and demanded that governments take concrete actions to protect health facilities and medical workers during armed conflict.   'Attacks on health care workers and facilities are egregious violations of international humanitarian law and they are war crimes, sometimes rising to the level of crimes against humanity', says Susannah Sirkin, director of policy at Physicians for Human Rights.   'In the three years since the UN passed Resolution 2286 to protect health in conflict, attacks on health facilities and health personnel have continued with utter impunity. It's high time for the international community to demand accountability for these heinous crimes'.   To better document the number and impact of these attacks and stimulate compliance, the WHO launched its Surveillance System for Attacks on Health Care in January 2018. And the NGO Geneva Call issued a Deed of Commitment to encourage nonstate armed groups to protect and respect health care in conflict and to agree to performance monitoring.   'More than 900 documented attacks on health care is particularly alarming because it does not cover the full extent of the problem', says Christina Wille, director of Insecurity Insight, which led data collection for the report.   'Underreporting means that the number of attacks in 2018 is likely much higher than the report reflects. Each attack has consequences for the delivery of health care and the number of attacks does not quantify the impact of death and destruction on the broader health outcomes for affected communities'.   The new Safeguarding Health in Conflict report calls on states in conflict, through their ministries of defense, interior and health, to do more to protect health workers, end impunity and ensure that access to health care is available to all. Its recommendations include: States should strengthen military doctrine and training, reform laws that permit parties to deny health care to those they deem enemies and arrest caregivers, and improve investigations and accountability mechanisms for those who initiate attacks.   The UN Security Council and the UN Secretary-General must ensure that international investigations and accountability procedures take place for states that permit impunity.   http://www.safeguardinghealth.org/press-release-2018-year-dangerous-attacks-health-workers-facilities http://www.safeguardinghealth.org/no-respite-violence-against-health-care-conflict http://www.msf.org/attacks-medical-care http://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/index/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories