Commentary:
HateAid's efforts to increase the transparency of Twitter/X's terms of use for its users may appear politically neutral, and indeed the murkiness of the company's standards for banning users is a genuine problem. But a closer examination of HateAid's work reveals a distinctive political motive that contradicts its stated mission of protecting freedom of opinion. The organization bases itself on the dubious concept of "digital violence" – which it defines as a digital communication causing, among other effects, "emotional stress" or "depression." The overbroad nature of this is evident in HateAid's efforts to combat alleged anti-semitism in Germany by banning accounts through recourse to Germany's notoriously broad criminal statutes prohibiting the relativization of the Judeocide. Yet in recent years especially, clearly political speech critical of Tel Aviv's war on Gaza has been banned or become grounds for criminal processes. There is no indication that HateAid has registered the very serious risks to those critical of the Israeli government posed by generic and broad bans on supposed anti-semitism. HateAid has also notably pursued the censorship of those protesting Berlin's backing of Kiev; it has classified the hashtag "Kriegstreiber" (or "Warmonger") as "pro-Kremlin propaganda" whose effect is to "undermine the credibility of politicians" supporting Berlin's war efforts. Here, HateAid has also recommended referral to Germany's Criminal Code in the interest of banning this anti-war expression. Far from protecting freedom of speech in civil society, and despite its potentially useful effort to scrutinize Twitter/X, HateAid should be understood as prioritizing the rights of officialdom to operate without criticism.