The Washington D.C. Riots Are America’s Empathy Deficit in Action
On January 6, 2021, a group of Donald Trump loyalists stormed the United States Capitol in rebellion against a “corrupt” government that they falsely claim has “stolen” the election from Trump. The riots destroyed millions of dollars of property in the Capitol, 5 lives, and most importantly, America’s trust in a fair democracy. No one foresaw Wednesday’s insurrection, as no members of a political party in recent years had ever been so angry at election results that they would cause violence. Washington, D.C.’s lackluster response to the violent riots portrayed that surprise: despite rioters climbing up the sides of the Capitol, law enforcement failed to restrain them from breaking in. While law enforcement used rubber bullets and tear gas against some peaceful BLM protesters, even going as far as using unmarked vehicles to kidnap peaceful protestors, there were only a handful of police surrounding the Capitol rioters in the morning of January 6.
However, the signs of a violent uprising were here all along, in plain sight on social media. Since the results of November’s presidential election, President Trump has pushed a narrative of a stolen election every day on Twitter to his millions of followers. Within the thousands of tweets he posted about a stolen election, there were many that hinted at potential violence. On midnight of January 6, hours before the riots, Trump posted to his Twitter, “Get smart Republicans. FIGHT!” The capitalized usage of the word “fight” in his tweet suggested that legal battles to win back the election were not enough for him; to gain back control of the White House, his supporters needed to obliterate their ideological enemies with violence. He himself had encouraged his supporters to come to Washington, D.C.: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” Even after the riots took place, while he appeared to not condone violence, he left Twitter with his parting words of “[The great American patriots who voted for me] will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” His last words before he was suspended suggest that like spoiled children, his supporters should always get their way, even if their ideas are illogical or hurtful. His refusal to concede amplifies his supporters’ distrust in the election, as his supporters have already planned another protest in Washington, D.C. on Inauguration Day. His history of praising violence dates back to long before January 6. In fact, before the presidential election, he praised a far-right terrorist organization, the Proud Boys, on national television during a presidential debate: “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by!” While Donald Trump himself did not participate in the storming of the Capitol, he emboldened his group of disillusioned supporters to commit acts of violence. His fiery rhetoric was the match to a highly flammable bundle of conspiracy theories, racism, sexism, and science denial.
As incendiary as Donald Trump’s social media presence may be, he is not the only one promoting disinformation to the public. His supporters have formed an entire ecosystem of blogs, social media profiles, and YouTube videos centered around the same ideas. “Stop the Steal,” QAnon, and anti-vaxx pages and groups flourished on Facebook and Instagram for years before any formal action was taken. Far-right pages can also hide behind seemingly pretty aesthetics while very subtly promoting dangerous ideologies of white supremacy, under the guise of “saving the West,” making it harder for social media content moderators to detect hateful messages. Social media algorithms have enabled unwitting users to fall down the social media to alt-right pipeline. A user may start out by searching for alt-lite videos but get recommended a far-right video on the sidebar of YouTube because YouTube detects similarity in the audiences of both videos. The user may then watch the far-right video that YouTube has recommended and get recommended even more far-right content simply as a result of his existing engagement with far-right media. Many forms of social media view engagement, whether it be through views, ratings, or comments, as a sign that a user is interested in a particular type of content. The more far-right content the user consumes, the more the user gets sucked into the far-right rabbit hole through social media recommendations. Before long, the user has sealed him or herself into a far-right echo chamber, becoming more and more extreme as time progresses.
To stop the viral spread of extremist ideologies of any kind from radicalizing even more individuals, it is necessary for social media companies to ban voices that have alluded to violence and hatred. Twitter permanently banned Donald Trump’s personal account this Friday, and Facebook and Instagram suspended Trump’s accounts indefinitely. The “free speech” alternative social media network, Parler, was pulled off the Google Play and iOS App Store this weekend, and Amazon Web Services (AWS) will end its hosting of Parler effective Sunday.
Though this may seem like an assault on free speech to some, the right to free speech, as stated by the First Amendment, is not absolute. The First Amendment only applies to the government, not private companies. This means that social media companies are free to make rules about what content is acceptable for their platforms. Just as restaurants can refuse to serve unclothed people to preserve public decency and health, social media platforms can also refuse to host content that threatens public safety. The First Amendment does not make an individual immune to the consequences of their free speech: a private company imposing rules to protect the safety of its users is also free speech.
Furthermore, as established by the Supreme Court case Virginia vs. Black (2003), speech that is a “true threat” is not protected by the First Amendment. A “true threat,” as defined by the case, is a “a form of intimidation is most likely to inspire fear or cause bodily harm,” such as threatening to kill a specific person or group. The Supreme Court case Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire (1942) also makes “fighting words,” or words “inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction” not protected by the First Amendment. Though Trump did not explicitly call for violence on Twitter, his encouragement of his supporters to attend his “wild” protest on January 6 can be interpreted as a subtle hint for them to cause mayhem. His repeated, indignant refusal to acknowledge the results of a fair election has riled up his base to openly make violent death threats against public figures on social media. Without his adamant denial of the election results on social media, his supporters would have most likely not have echoed these sentiments. Though some may argue that there is no way to know for sure if these violent threats are jokes or not, it is in the public’s best interest for social media to remove them before a user decides to take action on them. It is better to be cautious than to risk losing innocent lives. By keeping such posts alive on social media where they could be potentially seen by a bad actor, social media companies are amplifying the violent threats.
While social media bans are necessary to suppress the viral spread of violent threats, they do not cure the root cause that leads people to spread these ideas. Banning these individuals is like an endless game of Whack-A-Mole: once these dangerous individuals are banned from mainstream social media networks, they will move to alternative ones, like Parler. Even after Parler gets booted from AWS, it could still find an alternative hosting provider. If Parler dies out, more alternative social media networks could spring up and take its place. Without addressing the reasons that people have for promoting hate and violence, we will never truly solve the problem.
Nationalist movements are not new to America: they have been around since the southern states formed the Confederate States of America during the Civil War. Followers of nationalist movements thrive on resentment towards “outsiders” to the dominant American culture. This resentment is motivated by a strong sense of social dominance orientation, which is the idea that society should be organized in a rigid hierarchical structure that allows “high status” groups to dominate over “low status” ones. In their minds, they view diversity as a threat to the existing social order. They have a zero-sum mindset regarding civil rights: they think that giving members of marginalized groups equal rights means that they will lose their rights, and consequentially, their power. No nationalist movement has gained popular success without a charismatic leader to enforce a rigid social hierarchy and followers who show unquestioning reverence towards authority figures. Research also shows that followers of nationalist movements have strong authoritarian personalities. They believe in always following authority figures, even at the expense of hurting others.
The mixture of high social dominance orientation and authoritarianism exhibited by followers of nationalist movements signal a lack of empathy. These individuals cannot place themselves in another person’s shoes and imagine what it would feel like to be marginalized. Their whole world revolves around themselves only, and they will literally burn down buildings to get what they want. Other people’s rights are disposable to them.
To solve the empathy crisis, it helps to start young, especially since brain development is mostly complete at age 25. High schools and middle schools can start peer counseling programs that host assemblies and interactive events that raise awareness about the importance of kindness and tolerance. These peer counselors can also host events that encourage different students to meet and potentially befriend each other, as exposure can reduce fear. Since many hateful ideas are spread through social networks both in-person and online, it is important to encourage people to cultivate positive social networks by limiting use of social media and participating in meaningful hobbies. Hobbies, even those as simple as running, can redirect a person’s energy from discussing hate online to improving one’s body and mind. In the vast sea of news sources online, it is necessary to read credible news and use critical thinking to evaluate the claims being made. We should encourage peaceful ways to advocate for change, whether it be through volunteering, voting in elections, or donating to good causes.
Though the rioters may have shattered the glass windows of the Capitol, they can only shatter our democracy if we let them. In order to prevent this violent tragedy from happening again, we need to treat the root cause that has been overlooked for hundreds of years. The real issue is not social media or a lack of “higher” education. The issue is a lack of compassion for other human beings.
