From Digital Atrocities to Accountability: Addressing Social Media-Facilitated Violence, Terrorism, and Denial
עודכן: לפני 5 שעות
October 7 Justice Without Borders submits recommendations to the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, urging greater attention to digital violence, victims’ rights and technology companies’ human rights responsibilities.
[Read more about O7J’s UNHRC submissions here.]
The violence of October 7 did not end at the physical crime scene. Killings and abductions were filmed and livestreamed; victims’ own social media accounts were exploited to distribute footage; and videos of hostages and atrocities continued to circulate long after the attacks. In the aftermath, digital platforms also became channels for atrocity denial, antisemitic incitement and coordinated disinformation.
For many families, the digital dimension of the attacks brought the violence directly into their homes. Some encountered images of their loved ones being killed or abducted while scrolling through Facebook, X or Telegram. Involuntary exposure to such material can compound trauma, violate privacy and dignity, and prolong the harm suffered by victims and their families.
These experiences raise a question that extends beyond content moderation: when digital technologies are deliberately used to facilitate, broadcast and amplify terrorist violence, how should the law recognise the resulting harms — and who should be accountable for preventing them?
The submission forms part of O7J’s Pillar 4: Policy and Advocacy, which identifies the accountability for digital crimes and the recognition of victims of digital and technology-enabled crimes as key priorities. Through this work, we seek to address gaps in the legal and policy frameworks needed to protect victims and advance accountability, alongside a broader network of actors and initiatives, including the organisation 121.
Our broader objective is to help end impunity for digital violence and ensure that victims of terrorism are recognised not only in relation to the physical crimes committed against them, but also in relation to the harms perpetrated, enabled or amplified through digital technologies. This requires a coordinated response that places victims’ rights, accountability and access to effective remedies at its centre.
Digital technologies can extend the reach of terrorist violence
Digital platforms are often understood as channels through which information is shared after an event. The evidence examined in O7J’s submission challenges this understanding. In some cases, digital tools and platform functionalities were deliberately integrated into the commission and communication of the October 7 atrocities.
Public reporting on documents recovered from militants described an abduction manual containing sections on communication and live broadcasting, including instructions for livestreaming abductions. During the attacks, perpetrators used mobile devices to record killings and abductions and, in some cases, accessed victims’ own social media accounts to distribute the footage.
These are not merely questions about whether individual posts violate platform rules. Where perpetrators deliberately exploit digital systems to broadcast violence, intimidate civilians and distribute propaganda, technology can extend the effects of the underlying crimes beyond the immediate victims and locations.
The 2019 Christchurch mosque attack offers an important international comparison. The perpetrator deliberately livestreamed the murders of Muslim worshippers, and the footage was subsequently copied, edited and redistributed across platforms. Research has also raised concerns about the relationship between the circulation of the footage and subsequent increases in Islamophobia globally. Both Christchurch and October 7 demonstrate why accountability must consider not only the original broadcast, but also the systems through which violent material is deliberately replicated, amplified and kept in circulation.
From documenting atrocities to manipulating public understanding
The digital dimension of the attacks also continued through the information environment that followed.
Social media platforms can, and have been, exploited to spread dehumanising narratives, deny or distort documented atrocities, incite hatred and manufacture misleading impressions of public opinion. These practices can undermine the ability of individuals and communities to form opinions independently and participate meaningfully in public debate.
The data cited in O7J’s submission illustrate the scale of the challenge:
An 86% increase in antisemitic content flagged across five monitored platforms. Research by the Institute for National Security Studies reported this increase during the 25 days following October 7, compared with the preceding 25 days.
More than 25 million views of a sample of atrocity-denial content. CyberWell examined just over 300 posts concerning the denial and distortion of the October 7 attacks across five platforms. The posts had received more than 25 million views, while only 6% had been removed by March 2024. These figures relate to CyberWell’s specific sample and monitoring period.
A network of approximately 40,000 suspected inauthentic Instagram accounts. An investigation by the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism identified accounts presenting themselves as young Israelis and circulating coordinated narratives about October 7 and the subsequent war. The investigation described fabricated personas and coordinated engagement, while acknowledging that the network’s origins could not be conclusively established.
The submission also examines narratives denying or distorting reports of sexual violence, alongside claims that the attacks did not occur as documented or were orchestrated by Israel. Such narratives can compound the harm experienced by survivors and families, undermine the recognition of victims and make the pursuit of truth more difficult.
The concern is not that every false, offensive or politically contentious statement should be prohibited. Freedom of expression protects political disagreement, journalism and criticism of government policy. The issue is whether platforms can identify and respond effectively to unlawful incitement, threats, the glorification of violence and coordinated deceptive activity, while protecting legitimate expression.
Technology companies must be part of the accountability conversation
Digital platforms are dual-use infrastructures. The same services that enable family communication, journalism, public debate and the documentation of human rights violations can also be exploited to broadcast killings, distribute terrorist propaganda and amplify incitement.
This creates a difficult but necessary question of responsibility.
The perpetrators remain responsible for their own conduct. Technology companies, however, make decisions about account security, livestreaming functions, content moderation, recommendation systems and the distribution of information. These decisions influence how easily their services can be exploited, how widely harmful material spreads and how quickly victims and their families can obtain protection or assistance.
Where companies exercise practical control over these systems, their responsibility cannot be assessed solely by whether they have published a policy prohibiting terrorist content. The relevant question is whether they have identified foreseeable human rights risks and taken effective, proportionate steps to prevent or mitigate them.
The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights provide an important foundation for this work. Yet significant questions remain about how corporate human rights due diligence should operate during armed conflict, mass violence and heightened terrorist threats — and how victims can obtain meaningful remedies when existing safeguards fail.
O7J’s submission calls for closer examination of the gap between the practical power exercised by technology companies and the accountability mechanisms available under international human rights law.
Ending impunity for digital violence cannot rest on technology companies alone. It requires a concerted response from all actors with the capacity and responsibility to prevent, address and remedy these harms. States must fulfil their obligations to protect human rights and ensure accountability; technology companies must exercise human rights due diligence and address the risks arising from their services; and non-state armed groups must be held accountable for exploiting digital technologies to facilitate, document and disseminate terrorist violence. Citizens, civil society organisations, academia and community leaders also have an important role in documenting abuses, challenging denial and disinformation, supporting victims and strengthening public awareness. These responsibilities are also explored in Yael Vias Gvirsman’s Social, Legal and Ethics Report, prepared for the European Commission-funded Nightingale Project.
Recognising the digital dimension of atrocities is therefore not simply a matter of improving content moderation. It is part of the wider pursuit of truth, justice, reparations and guarantees of non-repetition.
Five priorities for a stronger framework
O7J recommends that the Special Rapporteur place five issues at the centre of the mandate’s future work:
Address technology-facilitated terrorist violence. Examine how livestreaming, compromised accounts and cross-platform distribution can be exploited to facilitate and amplify violence, and identify appropriate technical and governance safeguards.
Strengthen corporate accountability and human rights due diligence. Clarify how technology companies should identify, prevent and mitigate foreseeable risks arising from their services, and examine avenues for accountability and remedies for victims.
Respond to incitement, identity-based hatred and coordinated disinformation. Address dehumanisation, atrocity denial, calls for violence, fake accounts and coordinated manipulation while safeguarding legitimate political expression.
Improve emergency responses, transparency and access to remedies. Promote rapid escalation procedures, effective account security measures, preservation of relevant evidence, and accessible reporting and remedy mechanisms for victims and their families.
Protect freedom of expression, opinion and privacy. Ensure that responses to terrorist propaganda distinguish threats and incitement from journalism, human rights documentation, counterspeech and evidence preservation, with safeguards against both inadequate enforcement and indiscriminate censorship.
These priorities are interconnected. Effective protection requires more than removing individual pieces of content after harm has occurred. It requires examining the systems that enable violent material to spread, the risks that companies can reasonably anticipate, and the mechanisms through which victims can seek protection and accountability.
Bringing digital victims into the pursuit of justice
At October 7 Justice Without Borders, our work begins with the rights and needs of victims. Digital harms must be understood in this context: the invasion of privacy when a victim’s account is commandeered; the psychological distress caused by encountering footage of a loved one’s killing; the continuing intimidation associated with hostage videos; and the consequences of coordinated campaigns that deny or distort documented atrocities.
Recognising these harms means developing a more rigorous framework that distinguishes perpetrators’ conduct from corporate responsibilities, evaluates evidence and applicable law, and ensures that victims’ experiences inform the policies designed to protect them.
Victims of terrorism must also be recognised as victims of the digital harms connected to these crimes. Their rights should include recognition of the harm suffered, access to information and appropriate support, protection of their privacy and dignity, and access to effective remedies. Such remedies must respond not only to the original acts of violence, but also to the continuing harms caused by the circulation of abusive material, the misuse of victims’ accounts and the denial or distortion of atrocities.
Justice must address not only what happens at the crime scene, but also the ways technology can extend the harm — and the responsibilities of those with the power to prevent it.
Read O7J’s full submission and accompanying report to the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression:
If you or your organisation are working on this topic and would like to speak with us, you are very welcome to contact us here.
תגובות