research-article

The Virality of Hate Speech on Social Media

Authors:

Abdurahman Maarouf,

Nicolas Pröllochs,

Stefan FeuerriegelAuthors Info & Claims

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Volume 8, Issue CSCW1

Article No.: 186, Pages 1 - 22

https://doi.org/10.1145/3641025

Published: 26 April 2024 Publication History

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.

References

[1]

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.

[2]

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.

[3]

Gordon Willard Allport. 1954. The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, MA.

[4]

Eytan Bakshy, Jake M. Hofman, Winter A. Mason, and Duncan J. Watts. 2011. Everyone's an influencer: Quantifying influence on Twitter. In WSDM.

[5]

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.

Digital Library

[6]

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.

[7]

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.

[8]

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.

[9]

Leo Breiman. 2001. Statistical modeling: The two cultures. Statist. Sci., Vol. 16, 3 (2001), 199--231.

[10]

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.

Digital Library

[11]

Justin Cheng, Lada Adamic, P. Alex Dow, Jon Michael Kleinberg, and Jure Leskovec. 2014. Can cascades be predicted?. In WWW.

[12]

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.

[13]

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.

[14]

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).

[15]

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.

[16]

Mai ElSherief, Shirin Nilizadeh, Dana Nguyen, Giovanni Vigna, and Elizabeth Belding. 2018b. Peer to peer hate: Hate speech instigators and their targets. In ICWSM.

[17]

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.

[18]

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.

[19]

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.

[20]

Sharad Goel, Duncan J. Watts, and Daniel G. Goldstein. 2012. The structure of online diffusion networks. In ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce.

[21]

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.

[22]

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.

[23]

Yiqing Hua, Mor Naaman, and Thomas Ristenpart. 2020. Characterizing Twitter users who engage in adversarial interactions against political candidates. In CHI.

[24]

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).

[25]

Jonas L. Juul and Johan Ugander. 2021. Comparing information diffusion mechanisms by matching on cascade size. PNAS, Vol. 118, 46 (2021), e2100786118.

[26]

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.

[27]

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).

[28]

Sofus Macskassy and Matthew Michelson. 2011. Why do people retweet? Anti-homophily wins the day!. In ICWSM.

[29]

Binny Mathew, Ritam Dutt, Pawan Goyal, and Animesh Mukherjee. 2019. Spread of hate speech in online social media. In WebSci.

[30]

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.

[31]

Swapnil Mishra, Marian-Andrei Rizoiu, and Lexing Xie. 2016. Feature driven and point process approaches for popularity prediction. In CIKM.

[32]

Meredith Ringel Morris, Scott Counts, Asta Roseway, Aaron Hoff, and Julia Schwarz. 2012. Tweeting is believing?. In CSCW.

[33]

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.html

[34]

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.

[35]

Seth A. Myers and Jure Leskovec. 2014. The bursty dynamics of the Twitter information network. In WWW.

[36]

Christof Naumzik and Stefan Feuerriegel. 2022. Detecting false rumors from retweet dynamics on social media. In WWW.

[37]

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.

[38]

James W. Pennebaker, Ryan L. Boyd, Kayla Jordan, and Kate Blackburn. 2015. The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015.

[39]

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.

[40]

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.

[41]

Nicolas Pröllochs, Dominik B"ar, and Stefan Feuerriegel. 2021b. Emotions in online rumor diffusion. EPJ Data Science, Vol. 10, 1 (2021), 51.

[42]

Nicolas Pröllochs and Stefan Feuerriegel. 2023. Mechanisms of true and false rumor sharing in social media: Collective intelligence or herd behavior?. In CSCW.

[43]

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.

[44]

Caitlin M. Rivers and Bryan L. Lewis. 2014. Ethical research standards in a world of big data. F1000Research (2014).

[45]

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.

[46]

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.html

[47]

Koustuv Saha, Eshwar Chandrasekharan, and Munmun de Choudhury. 2019. Prevalence and psychological effects of hateful speech in online college communities. In WebSci.

[48]

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.

[49]

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.

[50]

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.

[51]

Kirill Solovev and Nicolas Pröllochs. 2022. Hate speech in the political discourse on social media: Disparities across parties, gender, and ethnicity. In WWW.

[52]

Kirill Solovev and Nicolas Pröllochs. 2023. Moralized language predicts hate speech on social media. PNAS Nexus, Vol. 2, 1 (2023), pgac281.

[53]

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.

[54]

Karthik Subbian, B. Aditya Prakash, and Lada Adamic. 2017. Detecting large reshare cascades in social networks. In WWW.

[55]

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.

[56]

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.html

[57]

Io Taxidou and Peter M. Fischer. 2014. Online analysis of information diffusion in Twitter. In WWW Companion.

[58]

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/

[59]

Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy, and Sinan Aral. 2018. The spread of true and false news online. Science, Vol. 359, 6380 (2018), 1146--1151.

[60]

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_1135

[61]

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.

[62]

Chengxi Zang, Peng Cui, Chaoming Song, Christos Faloutsos, and Wenwu Zhu. 2017. Quantifying structural patterns of information cascades. In WWW Companion.

[63]

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. io

Digital Library

Cited By

Nikolaeva T(2024)Verbal aggression towards women in English-language online discoursePhilology. Theory & PracticeФилологические науки. Вопросы теории и практикиPhilology. Issues of Theory and PracticePhilology. Theory and Practice10.30853/phil2024053517:10(3785-3793)Online publication date: 30-Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.30853/phil20240535
Bashardoust AFeuerriegel SShrestha Y(2024)Comparing the Willingness to Share for Human-generated vs. AI-generated Fake NewsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36870288:CSCW2(1-21)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3687028
Verma AIslam SMoghaddam VAnwar A(2023)Encouraging Emotion Regulation in Social Media Conversations through Self-Reflection2023 IEEE Engineering Informatics10.1109/IEEECONF58110.2023.10520471(1-8)Online publication date: 22-Nov-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEECONF58110.2023.10520471

Index Terms

The Virality of Hate Speech on Social Media
1. Applied computing
  1. Law, social and behavioral sciences
    1. Sociology
2. Human-centered computing
  1. Collaborative and social computing
    1. Collaborative and social computing theory, concepts and paradigms
      1. Social media
    2. Empirical studies in collaborative and social computing

Recommendations

Spread of Hate Speech in Online Social Media
WebSci '19: Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science

Hate 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 Media

Social 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 2023

Misinformation 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

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction Volume 8, Issue CSCW1

CSCW

April 2024

6294 pages

EISSN:2573-0142

DOI:10.1145/3661497

Editor:
Jeff Nichols
Apple Inc., United States

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2024 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 26 April 2024

Published in PACMHCI Volume 8, Issue CSCW1

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

3
Total Citations
View Citations
219
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)219
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)48

Reflects downloads up to 07 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Nikolaeva T(2024)Verbal aggression towards women in English-language online discoursePhilology. Theory & PracticeФилологические науки. Вопросы теории и практикиPhilology. Issues of Theory and PracticePhilology. Theory and Practice10.30853/phil2024053517:10(3785-3793)Online publication date: 30-Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.30853/phil20240535
Bashardoust AFeuerriegel SShrestha Y(2024)Comparing the Willingness to Share for Human-generated vs. AI-generated Fake NewsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36870288:CSCW2(1-21)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3687028
Verma AIslam SMoghaddam VAnwar A(2023)Encouraging Emotion Regulation in Social Media Conversations through Self-Reflection2023 IEEE Engineering Informatics10.1109/IEEECONF58110.2023.10520471(1-8)Online publication date: 22-Nov-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEECONF58110.2023.10520471

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents