main navigation
my pace

The Conversation | PACE UNIVERSITY

News & Events


Filter Newsfeed

News Item

The Ridgefield Press featured Dyson Professor Adam G. Klein's piece "Social networks aim to erase hate but miss the target on guns"


The Ridgefield Press featured Dyson Professor Adam G. Klein's piece "Social networks aim to erase hate but miss the target on guns"

(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.)

Adam G. Klein, Pace University

(THE CONVERSATION) As Facebook faces down a costly boycott campaign demanding the social network do more to combat hate speech, CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently announced plans to ban a “wider category of hateful content in ads.” Twitter, YouTube and Reddit have also taken additional steps to curtail online hate, removing several inflammatory accounts.

But as social networks refine their policies and update algorithms for detecting extremism, they overlook a major source of hateful content: gun talk.

As a researcher of online extremism, I examined the user policies of social networks and found that while each address textbook forms of hate speech, they give a pass to the widespread use of gun rhetoric that celebrates or promotes violence.

In fact, the word “gun” appears but once in Facebook’s policy on “Violence and incitement” to bar the manipulation of images to include a gun to the head. And neither “guns” nor “firearms” are mentioned in Twitter’s policy on “Glorifications of violence,” or YouTube’s guidelines on “Violent or graphic content” or within any of these networks’ rules on hate speech.

Gun talk as a threat

Gun references have become prevalent in social media dialogues involving the nationwide protests over racial injustice, police reform and the Black Lives Matter movement.

On Facebook, a group called White Lives Matter shared a post that reads, “Don’t allow yourself or your property to become a victim of violence. Pick up your weapon and defend yourself.” Another user posted the picture of a handgun beneath the message, “I never carried a weapon, never needed it, but I have changed my mind and will apply for what I deem necessary to handle things my way … Tired of all these BLM idiots looters.”

While nearly every social network works to identify and prohibit violent speech, gun groups have managed to evade censure. One such Facebook community gleefully taunts protesters with the prospect of retaliation by firearm. They share a meme of a stack of bullets surrounded by the caption, “If you defund the police you should know, I don’t own any rubber bullets.”

News & Events


Filter Newsfeed

News Item

"The Conversation" featured Pace University's Professor of Communication Studies Adam G. Klein's piece "Fear, more than hate, feeds online bigotry and real-world violence"


"The Conversation" featured Pace University's Professor of Communication Studies Adam G. Klein's piece "Fear, more than hate, feeds online bigotry and real-world violence"

When a U.S. senator asked Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, “Can you define hate speech?” it was arguably the most important question that social networks face: how to identify extremism inside their communities.

Hate crimes in the 21st century follow a familiar pattern in which an online tirade escalates into violent actions. Before opening fire in the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, the accused gunman had vented over far-right social network Gab about Honduran migrants traveling toward the U.S. border, and the alleged Jewish conspiracy behind it all. Then he declared, “I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.” The pattern of extremists unloading their intolerance online has been a disturbing feature of some recent hate crimes. But most online hate isn’t that flagrant, or as easy to spot. 

As I found in my 2017 study on extremism in social networks and political blogs, rather than overt bigotry, most online hate looks a lot like fear. It’s not expressed in racial slurs or calls for confrontation, but rather in unfounded allegations of Hispanic invaders pouring into the country, black-on-white crime or Sharia law infiltrating American cities. Hysterical narratives such as these have become the preferred vehicle for today’s extremists – and may be more effective at provoking real-world violence than stereotypical hate speech.

The ease of spreading fear

On Twitter, a popular meme traveling around recently depicts the “Islamic Terrorist Network” spread across a map of the United States, while a Facebook account called “America Under Attack” shares an article with its 17,000 followers about the “Angry Young Men and Gangbangers” marching toward the border. And on Gab, countless profiles talk of Jewish plans to sabotage American culture, sovereignty and the president. 

While not overtly antagonistic, these notes play well to an audience that has found in social media a place where they can express their intolerance openly, as long as they color within the lines. They can avoid the exposure that traditional hate speech attracts. Whereas the white nationalist gathering in Charlottesville was high-profile and revealing, social networks can be anonymous and discreet, and therefore liberating for the undeclared racist. That presents a stark challenge to platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

Fighting hate

Of course this is not just a challenge for social media companies. The public at large is facing the complex question of how to respond to inflammatory and prejudiced narratives that are stoking racial fears and subsequent hostility. However, social networks have the unique capacity to turn down the volume on intolerance if they determine that a user has in fact breached their terms of service. For instance, in April 2018, Facebook removed two pages associated with white nationalist Richard Spencer. A few months later, Twitter suspended several accounts associated with the far-right group The Proud Boys for violating its policy “prohibiting violent extremist groups.” 

Still, some critics argue that the networks are not moving fast enough. There is mounting pressure for these websites to police the extremism that has flourished in their spaces, or else become policed themselves. A recent Huffpost/YouGov survey revealed that two-thirds of Americans wanted social networks to prevent users from posting “hate speech or racist content.”

Read the full article.

News & Events


Filter Newsfeed

News Item

Dyson College Professor of Communication Studies Adam G. Klein's featured article about the NRA's video channel in the "The Conversation"


Dyson College Professor of Communication Studies Adam G. Klein's featured article about the NRA's video channel in the "The Conversation"

The Conversation: "NRA's video channel is a hotbed of online hostility"

By Adam G. Klein, Pace University 

Adam G. Klein is an assistant professor of communication studies at Pace University.

As the National Rifle Association, the most influential gun rights advocacy group in the United States, comes under pressure from victims' groups and gun control advocates, Internet companies like Amazon, Apple and YouTube are finding themselves uncomfortably close to the center of the controversy. These are among the companies that currently stream the NRA's official video channel, NRA TV.

NRA TV has become a central focus in what could be a threshold moment in the national gun debate. In the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Fla., that claimed 17 lives, a consumer activist movement has worked to peel back the tight grip the NRA holds over the country's gun policy. The effort has driven some airlines, insurance companies, car rental companies and banks to sever their commercial and professional ties with the NRA. Now gun control activists are turning their full attention to the Internet.

In the world of online politics, it's not unusual to find videos inciting hostility. On Feb. 12, just days before the Parkland shooting, one such YouTube videofeatured a pundit smashing a sledgehammer through a TV set that featured liberal commentators, later declaring, "If we want to take back this nation from socialists who are out to destroy it ... you better believe we'll be pushing the truth on them." But that video was not the seething production of an obscure far-right blogger. It was the latest episode of the official video channel of the NRA.

NRA TV is not merely a platform for promoting Second Amendment rights or engaging gun enthusiasts. As a researcher of online extremism, I'd contend it has become one of the web's most incendiary hotspots for stoking outrage at liberal America, attacking perceived enemies like Black Lives Matter and the Women's March, and promoting the message that America is under threat from the so-called "violent left" - an especially alarming term, coming from a gun lobby.

What is NRA TV?

Given the channel's association with the NRA, a newcomer to NRA TV might reasonably expect information on gun safety, Second Amendment rights and a community for firearms enthusiasts and collectors. Its focus is none of those things. Instead, visitors find a virtual hornet's nest of hard-right politics. 

In my work, I came across NRA TV while tracking far-right and far-left groups' activities on Twitter. One such group had retweeted a video from NRA TV featuring host Dana Loesch calling the mainstream media "the rat [expletive] of the earth" whom she was happy to see "curb stomped."

The acidic tone of NRA TV represents an astonishing evolution of an organization that began as a rifle club to promote marksmanship. Even the NRA of the 1980s, which ran TV ads on the right to bear arms, would be hard to recognize as a forebear to today's version. My study of 224 NRA TV videos and tweets over two months in 2017 found that only 34 dealt with topics related to direct gun advocacy or gun ownership. The remaining 190, or about five out of every six posts, were trained on perceived political enemies, trading the core mission of gun rights for incessant attacks on "crazed liberals" and "hateful leftists."

It is hard to recall an NRA that once viewed itself as a bipartisan body. Its current online hosts warn that opponents of President Donald Trump will "perish in the political flames of their own fires." Even more provocative is the portrayal of the NRA's declared adversaries, framed not as political foes, but as ideological and even existential threats. The Women's March is labeled "a bigoted, fake feminist, jihad-supporting" movement, while Black Lives Matter is described as "a dangerous, hateful, destructive ideology." 

The dystopian picture that NRA TV portrays includes government officials encouraging violent protests against conservative groups, and a media-sponsored "war on cops." The NRA believes it must be ready to defend itself and the country against these and other forces.

In a video that streamed to NRA TV's 260,000 Twitter followers in August 2017, host Grant Stinchfield asked his audience, 

"What scares me more than the North Korean crazed tyrant? The violent left and the crazed liberals who lead them. They like North Korea also pose a clear and present danger to America ... Make no mistake, the lying leftist media, the elitist cringe-worthy celebrities, and the anti-American politicians -- who make up the violent left -- don't just hate President Trump, they hate you."

The insinuation that left-wing forces are out to destroy the country by sabotaging its institutions is a demagogic refrain with echoes of the anti-communist McCarthy era. But it is particularly unsettling when it emanates from a lobby that simultaneously promotes the necessity of gun ownership. Which brings us back to Amazon.

Pulling the plug

After another shooting at an American high school at the hands of a 19-year-old with an AR-15, the gun-control advocacy movement has turned its attention to its chief opponent, the NRA. The strategy is to dislodge the influence of the NRA by going after its support system. That has led activists to Amazon, Apple, Roku and other services that stream NRA TV content. While other companies support the NRA financially, these Internet giants provide perhaps a more valuable currency in their prominent platforms that allow the NRA to distribute its message. 

Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America is one organization leading the charge for Internet companies to drop NRA TV, citing its "violence-inciting programming." The group is joined by some of the survivors of the Parkland shooting, such as David Hogg, who is encouraging people to boycott tech companies that carry NRA TV. A petition on, with 240,000 signatures as of Thursday, is simultaneously calling on Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos to purge NRA content from his site's offerings. And on Twitter, #dropNRATV is gaining steam, even as the channel continues to host controversial content.

The growing wave of consumer activists has effectively placed the Internet's biggest gatekeepers in the middle of America's hyperpolarized gun debate. As web hosts, their power to amplify or quiet controversial messages is unmatched in the modern media landscape. But in many ways, this is not strictly a gun issue. Rather, a closer look at NRA TV suggests that this is also an issue of community standards, which are well within a web host's domain. 

The ConversationAnd in recent months, YouTube and Twitter have each demonstrated a willingness to enforce stricter terms of service prohibiting hateful, dangerous or abusive material from their networks. So the real question that these Internet companies now face is whether an NRA tirade about American liberals posing a "clear and present danger" is legitimate gun advocacy, or barefaced incitement.

Read the article.