If that fails, social media companies like Facebook have hate speech policies that could help.
Facebook defines attacks as violent or dehumanising speech, harmful stereotypes, statements of inferiority, expressions of contempt, disgust or dismissal, cursing, and calls for exclusion or segregation, Ms Kate Blashki from Facebook’s Content Policy team told CNA.
Ms Blashki added that Facebook prohibits attacks on people based on their “protected characteristics”. This is defined as their race, ethnicity, national origin, disability, religious affliation, caste, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity and serious disease.
For content that doesn’t violate hate speech policies, she noted that they may violate other community standards, like those related to bullying and harassment.
“However, we know that the same words can be considered a slur in one country and totally benign in another, and that changes in language can occur quickly. We’re constantly working to understand these cultural and linguistic nuances,” she added.
But such extreme measures might not be necessary, said Workers’ Party’s Mr Perera, who said another danger he sees is political apathy.
He observed that away from online echo chambers, many people in Singapore “aren’t interested in politics”, unless something affects them personally.
“They don’t have a view about what an ideal society should be. I think that is profoundly dangerous, and I see that the biggest danger of Singapore is that people are more focused on personal interests,” he said.
“I’ve seen people who profoundly disagree on certain policies, and their response is that they’re going to migrate. Why isn’t your response that you’re going to stay here, and fight for things to change? Maybe it’s just that we’ve been entrenched in a one-party dominant political system for so long, that people just can’t see how that can change through citizen action.”
FIGHTING ONLINE POLARISATION THROUGH INDIVIDUAL ACTION
The individuals CNA spoke to agreed that the responsibility to create more civil discourse boils down to their own actions – whether that’s disengaging with people who just want to argue or learning to express their views in better ways.
“We do have a responsibility (to build civil discourse), but sometimes it’s also about making yourself heard in a way that you need to be heard. That doesn’t mean directing hate to people, but you also don’t owe anyone kindness or civility,” said Twitter user Ms Vijayakumar.
“If someone says something very offensive, you’re allowed to be offended. You cannot conceal your humanity just to make online discourse a bit better.”
If you think social media is polarising, don’t assign too much power to it, she added.
“Social media pushes for action in Singapore, as (some might feel that) avenues for action are few and concerns are given little importance, unless a big storm is made on social media. It’s good for this purpose, but there are downsides such as lack of nuance, bullying, doxxing and exhaustion. So I would say pick your battles.”
Looking beyond social media polarisation can simply mean opening yourself up to “a diversity of views”, which is healthy, advised SUTD’s Prof Lim.
“That to me is the first step towards healthy discourse, because if you don’t know what the other camp is thinking, and you don’t actually understand why they think the way that they do, how can you even begin to come to the table?”