Abdurahman Maarouf
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Online hate speech is responsible for violent attacks such as, e.g., the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting in 2018, thereby posing a significant threat to vulnerable groups and society in general. However, little is known about what makes hate speech on social media go viral. In this paper, we collect N = 25,219 cascades with 65,946 retweets from X (formerly known as Twitter) and classify them as hateful vs. normal. Using a generalized linear regression, we then estimate differences in the spread of hateful vs. normal content based on author and content variables. We thereby identify important determinants that explain differences in the spreading of hateful vs. normal content. For example, hateful content authored by verified users is disproportionally more likely to go viral than hateful content from non-verified ones: hateful content from a verified user (as opposed to normal content) has a 3.5 times larger cascade size, a 3.2 times longer cascade lifetime, and a 1.2 times larger structural virality. Altogether, we offer novel insights into the virality of hate speech on social media.
- Michael Olusegun Akinwande, Hussaini Garba Dikko, and Agboola Samson. 2015. Variance inflation factor: As a condition for the inclusion of suppressor variable(s) in regression analysis. Open Journal of Statistics, Vol. 5, 7 (2015), 754--767.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Nuha Albadi, Maram Kurdi, and Shivakant Mishra. 2019. Hateful people or hateful bots? Detection and characterization of bots spreading religious hatred in Arabic social media. In CSCW.Google Scholar
- Gordon Willard Allport. 1954. The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Eytan Bakshy, Jake M. Hofman, Winter A. Mason, and Duncan J. Watts. 2011. Everyone's an influencer: Quantifying influence on Twitter. In WSDM.Google Scholar
- Dominik B"ar, Nicolas Pröllochs, and Stefan Feuerriegel. 2023. New threats to society from free-speech social media platforms. Commun. ACM, Vol. 66, 10 (2023), 37--40.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Reuben M. Baron and David A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator--mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, 6 (1986), 1173--1182.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Roy F. Baumeister, Ellen Bratslavsky, Catrin Finkenauer, and Kathleen D. Vohs. 2001. Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, Vol. 5, 4 (2001), 323--370.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michał Bilewicz and Wiktor Soral. 2020. Hate speech epidemic. The dynamic effects of derogatory language on intergroup relations and political radicalization. Political Psychology , Vol. 41 (2020), 3--33.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Leo Breiman. 2001. Statistical modeling: The two cultures. Statist. Sci. , Vol. 16, 3 (2001), 199--231.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mohit Chandra, Manvith Reddy, Shradha Sehgal, Saurabh Gupta, Arun Balaji Buduru, and Ponnurangam Kumaraguru. 2021. textquotedblA Virus Has No Religiontextquotedbl: Analyzing Islamophobia on Twitter During the COVID-19 Outbreak. In ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Justin Cheng, Lada Adamic, P. Alex Dow, Jon Michael Kleinberg, and Jure Leskovec. 2014. Can cascades be predicted?. In WWW.Google Scholar
- Carlos Cinelli and Chad Hazlett. 2020. Making Sense of Sensitivity: Extending Omitted Variable Bias. J. R. Stat. Soc. B, Vol. 82, 1 (2020), 39--67.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Riley Crane and Didier Sornette. 2008. Robust dynamic classes revealed by measuring the response function of a social system. PNAS, Vol. 105, 41 (2008), 15649--15653.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Saloni Dash, Rynaa Grover, Gazal Shekhawat, Sukhnidh Kaur, Dibyendu Mishra, and Joyojeet Pal. 2022. Insights Into Incitement: A Computational Perspective on Dangerous Speech on Twitter in India. In ACM SIGCAS/SIGCHI Conference on Computing and Sustainable Societies (COMPASS).Google Scholar
- Mai ElSherief, Vivek Kulkarni, Dana Nguyen, William Yang Wang, and Elizabeth Belding. 2018a. Hate lingo: A target-based linguistic analysis of hate speech in social media. In ICWSM.Google Scholar
- Mai ElSherief, Shirin Nilizadeh, Dana Nguyen, Giovanni Vigna, and Elizabeth Belding. 2018b. Peer to peer hate: Hate speech instigators and their targets. In ICWSM.Google Scholar
- Antigoni Maria Founta, Constantinos Djouvas, Despoina Chatzakou, Ilias Leontiadis, Jeremy Blackburn, Gianluca Stringhini, Athena Vakali, Michael Sirivianos, and Nicolas Kourtellis. 2018. Large scale crowdsourcing and characterization of Twitter abusive behavior. In ICWSM.Google Scholar
- Patricia A. Frazier, Andrew P. Tix, and Kenneth E. Barron. 2004. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 51, 1 (2004), 115--134.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sharad Goel, Ashton Anderson, Jake Hofman, and Duncan J. Watts. 2016. The structural virality of online diffusion. Management Science, Vol. 62, 1 (2016), 180--196.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sharad Goel, Duncan J. Watts, and Daniel G. Goldstein. 2012. The structure of online diffusion networks. In ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce.Google Scholar
- Nir Halevy, Gary Bornstein, and Lilach Sagiv. 2008. “In-group love” and “out-group hate” as motives for individual participation in intergroup conflict: a new game paradigm. Psychological Science, Vol. 19, 4 (2008), 405--411.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dominik Hangartner, Gloria Gennaro, Sary Alasiri, Nicholas Bahrich, Alexandra Bornhoft, Joseph Boucher, Buket Buse Demirci, Laurenz Derksen, Aldo Hall, Matthias Jochum, Maria Murias Munoz, Marc Richter, Franziska Vogel, Salomé Wittwer, Felix Wüthrich, Fabrizio Gilardi, and Karsten Donnay. 2021. Empathy-based counterspeech can reduce racist hate speech in a social media field experiment. PNAS, Vol. 118, 50 (2021), e2116310118.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yiqing Hua, Mor Naaman, and Thomas Ristenpart. 2020. Characterizing Twitter users who engage in adversarial interactions against political candidates. In CHI.Google Scholar
- Farhan Ahmad Jafri, Mohammad Aman Siddiqui, Surendrabikram Thapa, Kritesh Rauniyar, Usman Naseem, and Imran Razzak. 2023. Uncovering Political Hate Speech During Indian Election Campaign: A New Low-Resource Dataset and Baselines. In ICWSM Workshop (MEDIATE).Google Scholar
- Jonas L. Juul and Johan Ugander. 2021. Comparing information diffusion mechanisms by matching on cascade size. PNAS, Vol. 118, 46 (2021), e2100786118.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ugur Kursuncu, Manas Gaur, Carlos Castillo, Amanuel Alambo, Krishnaprasad Thirunarayan, Valerie Shalin, Dilshod Achilov, I Budak Arpinar, and Amit Sheth. 2019. Modeling islamist extremist communications on social media using contextual dimensions: religion, ideology, and hate. In CSCW.Google Scholar
- Ken-Yu Lin, Roy Ka-Wei Lee, Wei Gao, and Wen-Chih Peng. 2021. Early prediction of hate speech propagation. In International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sofus Macskassy and Matthew Michelson. 2011. Why do people retweet? Anti-homophily wins the day!. In ICWSM.Google Scholar
- Binny Mathew, Ritam Dutt, Pawan Goyal, and Animesh Mukherjee. 2019. Spread of hate speech in online social media. In WebSci.Google Scholar
- Binny Mathew, Anurag Illendula, Punyajoy Saha, Soumya Sarkar, Pawan Goyal, and Animesh Mukherjee. 2020. Hate begets hate: A temporal study of hate speech. In CSCW.Google Scholar
- Swapnil Mishra, Marian-Andrei Rizoiu, and Lexing Xie. 2016. Feature driven and point process approaches for popularity prediction. In CIKM.Google Scholar
- Meredith Ringel Morris, Scott Counts, Asta Roseway, Aaron Hoff, and Julia Schwarz. 2012. Tweeting is believing?. In CSCW.Google Scholar
- Paul Mozur. 2018. A genocide incited on Facebook, with posts from Myanmar's military. The New York Times (2018). https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.htmlGoogle Scholar
- Karsten Müller and Carlo Schwarz. 2021. Fanning the flames of hate: Social media and hate crime. Journal of the European Economic Association, Vol. 19, 4 (2021), 2131--2167.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Seth A. Myers and Jure Leskovec. 2014. The bursty dynamics of the Twitter information network. In WWW.Google Scholar
- Christof Naumzik and Stefan Feuerriegel. 2022. Detecting false rumors from retweet dynamics on social media. In WWW.Google Scholar
- John A. Nelder and Robert W. M. Wedderburn. 1972. Generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), Vol. 135, 3 (1972), 370--384.Google ScholarCross Ref
- James W. Pennebaker, Ryan L. Boyd, Kayla Jordan, and Kate Blackburn. 2015. The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015.Google Scholar
- Robert Plutchik. 2001. The nature of emotions: Human emotions have deep evolutionary roots, a fact that may explain their complexity and provide tools for clinical practice. American Scientist , Vol. 89 (2001), 344--350.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nicolas Pröllochs, Dominik B"ar, and Stefan Feuerriegel. 2021a. Emotions explain differences in the diffusion of true vs. false social media rumors. Scientific Reports, Vol. 11, 1 (2021), 22721.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nicolas Pröllochs, Dominik B"ar, and Stefan Feuerriegel. 2021b. Emotions in online rumor diffusion. EPJ Data Science, Vol. 10, 1 (2021), 51.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nicolas Pröllochs and Stefan Feuerriegel. 2023. Mechanisms of true and false rumor sharing in social media: Collective intelligence or herd behavior?. In CSCW.Google Scholar
- Manoel Horta Ribeiro, Pedro H. Calais, Yuri A. Santos, Virgílio A. F. Almeida, and Wagner Meira Jr. 2018. Characterizing and detecting hateful users on Twitter. In ICWSM.Google Scholar
- Caitlin M. Rivers and Bryan L. Lewis. 2014. Ethical research standards in a world of big data. F1000Research (2014).Google Scholar
- Claire E Robertson, Nicolas Pröllochs, Kaoru Schwarzenegger, Philip P"arnamets, Jay J Van Bavel, and Stefan Feuerriegel. 2023. Negativity drives online news consumption. Nature Human Behaviour, Vol. 7, 5 (2023), 812--822.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kevin Roose. 2018. On Gab, an extremist-friendly site, Pittsburgh shooting suspect aired his hatred in full. The New York Times (2018). https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/us/gab-robert-bowers-pittsburgh-synagogue-shootings.htmlGoogle Scholar
- Koustuv Saha, Eshwar Chandrasekharan, and Munmun de Choudhury. 2019. Prevalence and psychological effects of hateful speech in online college communities. In WebSci.Google Scholar
- Punyajoy Saha, Binny Mathew, Kiran Garimella, and Animesh Mukherjee. 2021. textquotedblShort is the Road that Leads from Fear to Hatetextquotedbl: Fear Speech in Indian WhatsApp Groups. In WWW.Google Scholar
- Patrick E. Shrout and Niall Bolger. 2002. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, Vol. 7, 4 (2002), 422--445.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alexandra A. Siegel and Vivienne Badaan. 2020. #No2Sectarianism: Experimental approaches to reducing sectarian hate speech online. American Political Science Review, Vol. 114, 3 (2020), 837--855.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kirill Solovev and Nicolas Pröllochs. 2022. Hate speech in the political discourse on social media: Disparities across parties, gender, and ethnicity. In WWW.Google Scholar
- Kirill Solovev and Nicolas Pröllochs. 2023. Moralized language predicts hate speech on social media. PNAS Nexus, Vol. 2, 1 (2023), pgac281.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stefan Stieglitz and Linh Dang-Xuan. 2013. Emotions and information diffusion in social media: Sentiment of microblogs and sharing behavior. Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 29, 4 (2013), 217--248.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Karthik Subbian, B. Aditya Prakash, and Lada Adamic. 2017. Detecting large reshare cascades in social networks. In WWW.Google Scholar
- Bongwon Suh, Lichan Hong, Peter Pirolli, and Ed H. Chi. 2010. Want to be retweeted? Large scale analytics on factors impacting retweet in Twitter network. In International Conference on Social Computing.Google Scholar
- Amanda Taub and Max Fisher. 2018. Where countries are tinderboxes and Facebook is a match. The New York Times (2018). https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/21/world/asia/facebook-sri-lanka-riots.htmlGoogle Scholar
- Io Taxidou and Peter M. Fischer. 2014. Online analysis of information diffusion in Twitter. In WWW Companion.Google Scholar
- Emily A. Vogels. 2021. The state of online harassment. Pew Research Center (2021). https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/01/13/the-state-of-online-harassment/Google Scholar
- Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy, and Sinan Aral. 2018. The spread of true and false news online. Science, Vol. 359, 6380 (2018), 1146--1151.Google Scholar
- Christian Wigand. 2020. The Code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online. The European Commission (2020). https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_20_1135Google Scholar
- Tauhid Zaman, Emily B. Fox, and Eric T. Bradlow. 2014. A Bayesian approach for predicting the popularity of tweets. The Annals of Applied Statistics, Vol. 8, 3 (2014), 1583--1611.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chengxi Zang, Peng Cui, Chaoming Song, Christos Faloutsos, and Wenwu Zhu. 2017. Quantifying structural patterns of information cascades. In WWW Companion.Google Scholar
- Qingyuan Zhao, Murat A. Erdogdu, Hera Y. He, Anand Rajaraman, and Jure Leskovec. 2015. SEISMIC: A self-exciting point process model for predicting tweet popularity. In KDD. ioGoogle ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- The Virality of Hate Speech on Social Media
Recommendations
Spread of Hate Speech in Online Social Media
WebSci '19: Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web ScienceHate speech is considered to be one of the major issues currently plaguing the online social media. With online hate speech culminating in gruesome scenarios like the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, anti-Muslim mob violence in Sri Lanka, and the ...
A Measurement Study of Hate Speech in Social Media
HT '17: Proceedings of the 28th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social MediaSocial media platforms provide an inexpensive communication medium that allows anyone to quickly reach millions of users. Consequently, in these platforms anyone can publish content and anyone interested in the content can obtain it, representing a ...
Believability and Harmfulness Shape the Virality of Misleading Social Media Posts
WWW '23: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023Misinformation on social media presents a major threat to modern societies. While previous research has analyzed the virality across true and false social media posts, not every misleading post is necessarily equally viral. Rather, misinformation has ...
Comments