Pedro Sánchez I wonder that standing in the middle of a “cloud of hate and polarization” in social circles.
They claim to do so with the HODIO tool, which is presented as democratic progress in the face of a toxic digital ecosystem.
The stated goal is noble: to reduce harm, verbal violence, and conversations that incite aggression against minorities and the vulnerable.
But the chosen instrument, as it is deployed, opens the door to the power of surveillance and political signaling incompatible with freedom of speech and attitude.
According to the government, HODIO will “systematically assess” the presence, evolution and significance of hate speech on platforms, combining quantitative analysis with “expert judgment” to “ensure accuracy and representation”.
The results will be shared with the public everywhere “Everything in the world separates the one who stops the hate, the one who looks the other way, and the one who negotiates with it.”.
The metaphor addressed is the “carbon hull”: just as companies find ways to contaminate, platforms, and by extension those who express themselves on them, must be called out for their contribution to hate.
The comparison is not innocent. From an ecological point of view, the carbon shade served to legitimate new duties, taxes, restrictions and controls.
Translated into the realm of speech, it is logical to suggest that the Executive Council reserves the right to transfer the index based on future sanctions, additional regulations and stigmatization campaigns against platforms, media and inconvenient voices.
HODIO’s problem is not clearly expressed if it is driven by this design and this control.
1. First, for the flexibility of the concept.
The government has yet to offer a legally accepted definition of “hate speech”, other than general references to “violent or degrading” statements and “polarisation”.
In an environment as charged as español, where harsh criticism is easily confused with “hate,” this váguedad is dangerous. The broader the category, the more tempting it will be to include satire, sarcasm, or blunt condemnation of political power: the very forms of expression that liberal culture most carefully protects.
2. Second, for an apparent conflict of interest.
HODIO was born in the heart of the government through the Spanish Observatory of Racism and Xenophobia and is raised from a forum where the President accuses the Derecho of “buying hate speech” and of making this hatred “the main electoral issue”.
It is clear that the executive, which for years used the label “hate” to delegitimize the opposition, is now positioning itself as the architect of a semi-official traffic light of hate.
There is no independent regulator, no autonomous authority to guarantee that the index will no longer become a weapon in the cultural blockade war.
3. Third, for the perverse incentives it introduces.
Sánchez said he wants to “publicly expose” who will stop the hatred, who is on the other side and who must negotiate with him.
Es decir, it aspires to work out according to your taste a moral governmental order over the platforms and of course over the content that alojan.
Before this benefit to the good reputation of the technology company and many media outlets predictably endure giving filters and preventive waste. The result will be mild censorship, difficult to narrow down but devastating for plurality: fewer uncomfortable topics, fewer unpleasant voices, fewer successes.
Everything is superimposed on a very demanding European brand. The Ley de Servicios Digitales obliges major platforms to assess and mitigate systemic risks, including hate speech and disinformation, low oversight by the Commission and severe penalties.
What HODIO is no longer guaranteed until a national level of political and symbolic vigilance reverses the disturbing trend: that governments are used to mediating, classifying and moderating digital public conversation.
The contradictions of its own executive body make these suspicions even worse. Sánchez says “that we suffer more than love and less than hate”, but his institutional communication and that of his ministers has been characterized by insult, personal devaluation and systemic polarization of the opponent.
Of course, classroom conversation studies show that government questions generate very high returns and adverse reactions. one of the great poles of conflict in the ecosystem now said to want to detox.
It is difficult to claim the moral authority to mediate hatred when one is the main source of it.
None of this detracts from the basic diagnosis: reds have intensified forms of accommodation and hostility that damage lives and degrade public reasoning.
Give platforms due diligence, transparency and strict compliance with the law.
But there is a wide space between inaction and governmental hatred that includes better judicial administration, civic education, robust self-regulation of media and platforms, and a clear political compromise with verbal de-escalation conspicuous by its absence today.
HODIO, as it is, it seems to be a thermometer made for the man who controls the stove. And there is nothing more difficult for a word this leaves climate control in the hands of those who live to fan the storm.
Leave a Reply