Hate speech on social media directed at the candidates Margarida Salomão, Marília Campos, and Elisa Araújo in the 2020 elections

Based on the content that users prefer to follow, they are presented with similar content, which they may like. Thus, they can interact with individuals whose mindsets are similar to theirs. The users who cannot socialize in real life due to the COVID-19 pandemic and thus consider social media as an escape point think that they can produce unlimited and uncontrolled hatred in a synergistic environment consisting of people who produce similar contents to what they produce. This study focuses on hate speech on social media and analyzes the hate, discriminative, and derogatory speech regarding men within the “dunyaerkeklergunu” hashtag on Twitter based on symbolic interaction theory using the content analysis method. Within the scope of the “dunyaerkeklergunu” hashtag, 500 shares were analyzed. The study aims to raise awareness of the fact that hate speech can be made even on international men's day and that hate speech is not only directed towards women but is also made regarding men.

With the rapid growth of Information technology and Computer Science, communication and presenting ideologies became easier than early decades. Since Social Media are available globally through the web, anyone can easily target a person or a group who belongs to a different culture or a different belief. Though everyone has a right to express his or her own ideas, it should not be harmful, as everyone has a right to be prevented from any kind of hate speeches. In Social Media, there are no automatic methods to detect a hate speech, so anyone can easily be targeted. Since social media service providers do not have good linguistic knowledge on some languages such as Sinhala, they may take a couple of days to remove hate related comments from the content once they noticed. Therefore, hate speech detection in Sinhala language is an urgent and important work to address. We propose lexicon based and machine learning based approaches to automatically detect Sinhala hate and offensive speeches that are being shared through Social Media. In our study, lexicon based approach was initiated with the lexicon generating process and corpus based lexicon gave 76.3% of accuracy for hate, offensive and neutral speech detection. Machine learning approach was begun with building a 3000 comments corpus which is evenly distributed among hate, offensive and neutral speeches. Using this comment corpus, we were able to identify best fitting feature groups and models for Sinhala hate speech detection. According to our experiments, character trigram with Multinomial Naive Bayes gave the highest recall value as 0.84 with 92.33% accuracy.

The internet has become an everyday tool to communicate and network with people around the globe, but its perceived anonymity, availability, and instant access have made it an environment conducive to spreading hateful content and connecting to like-minded individuals with similar hateful ideologies. Hate speech and other prejudice-motivated behavior, however, need to be considered on a continuum of victimization, and "like other social processes, [be seen as] dynamic and in a state of constant movement and change, rather than static and fixed" (Bowling, 1993, p. 238). It is a social process that is marked by multiple, repeat, and constant victimization (Bowling, 1993), with victims no longer distinguishing between specific hateful events, and rather normalizing experiences of hateful conduct "as an everyday, unwanted but routine reality of being 'different'" (Chakraborti, 2016, p. 581). Understanding hateful behavior and victimization as a process allows us to connect "low-level" incidents of hateful behavior to the more serious and life-threatening incidents at the more extreme end of the spectrum (Bowling & Phillips, 2002). The Christchurch attacks in New Zealand and their link to hateful communication on the online platform 8chan is only one such example of how online hate speech and cyberhate can escalate to "in real life" attacks, leaving the online sphere and spilling into the offline world. As per Allport's (1954) scale of prejudice, more extreme forms of prejudice-motivated violence are founded on "lower level" acts of prejudice and bias, therefore, hateful content online should not be ignored. Intervening online to interrupt or counter hateful behavior already at the lower end of the scale of prejudice becomes important; online interventions which are to be identified and synthesized through this systematic review. Allport's (1954) scale of prejudice will be the basis for this systematic review. Early on, Allport (1954) asserted that individuals with negative attitudes toward groups are likely to act out on these prejudices "somehow, somewhere" (p. 14), and that the more intense such negative attitudes are, the more hostile the action will be. Allport (1954) put forward a scale of acts of prejudice to illustrate different degrees of acting out negative attitudes, a scale that starts with antilocution (or what we call hate speech), described as explicitly expressing prejudices through negative verbal remarks to either friends or strangers (Allport, 1954). Avoidance is the next level on the scale of prejudice, with people avoiding members of certain groups, followed by discrimination, where distinctions are made between people based on prejudices, which leads to the active exclusion of members from certain groups (Allport, 1954). This level of acting on prejudices is routed in institutional or systemic prejudices, for example, in the differential treatment of people within employment or education practices, but also within the criminal justice system, or through social exclusion of certain minority group members. Physical attack is the next level on the scale of prejudice, which includes violence against members of certain groups by physically acting on negative attitudes or prejudices. The last level is extermination, which is the ultimate act of violence against members of specific groups, an expression of prejudice that systematically eradicates an entire group of people (e.g., genocide or lynchings; Allport, 1954). Allport's (1954) scale of prejudice makes it clear how hate speech/cyberhate is connected to more extreme forms of violence motivated by specific prejudices and biases, with hate speech (or antilocutions) being only the starting point on a 5-point continuum (Bilewicz & Soral, 2020). The importance of this scale of prejudice is not only that it clearly illustrates a range of different ways and intensity levels to act out prejudices, but also the "progression from verbal aggression to physical violence or, in other words, the performative potential of hate speech" (Allport, 1954; Kopytowska & Baider, 2017, p. 138). This is where interventions at the lower level of the scale of prejudices, interventions targeting hate speech/cyberhate, become important. There is no universal definition of hateful conduct online, but there is some consensus that hate speech targets disadvantaged social groups (Jacobs & Potter, 1998). Bakalis (2018) more narrowly defines cyberhate as "any use of technology to express hatred towards a person or persons because of a protected characteristic—namely race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity" (p. 87). Another definition that also points out the ambiguity and challenges involved with identifying more subtle forms of hate speech, and also making reference to the potential threat of hate speech escalating to offline violence, is that put forward by Fortuna and Nunes (2018), who analyzed various definitions of hate speech "Hate speech is language that attacks or diminishes, that incites violence or hate against groups, based on specific characteristics such as physical appearance, religion, descent, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or other, and it can occur with different linguistic styles, even in subtle forms or when humour is used" (p. 5). In this systematic review, we also distinguish hate speech/cyberhate specifically from other forms of harmful online activity, such as cyber-bullying, harassment, trolling or flaming, as perpetrators of such online behavior repeatedly and systematically target specific individuals to cause upset, to seek out negative reactions, or to create discord on the internet. In contrast, hate speech/cyberhate is more general and does not necessarily target a specific individual (Al-Hassan & Al-Dossari, 2019), instead hate speech/cyberhate heavily features prejudice, bias and intolerance toward certain groups within society. With the majority of hate speech happening online, interventions that take place online are an important way to challenge prejudice and bias, potentially reaching masses of people across the globe. The unique feature of the internet is that such individual negative attitudes toward minority groups and more extreme hateful ideology can find its way onto certain platforms and can instantly connect people sharing similar prejudices. By closing the social and spatial distance, the internet creates a form of collective identity (Perry, 2000, p. 123) and can convince individuals with even the most extreme ideologies that others out there share their views (Gerstenfeld et al., 2003). In addition, the enormous frequency of hate speech/cyberhate within online environments creates a sense of normativity to hatred and the potential for acts of intergroup violence or political radicalization (Bilewicz & Soral, 2020, p. 9). It is, therefore, important to challenge this hate speech epidemic (Bilewicz & Soral, 2020), especially since hate movements have increasingly crossed into the mainstream (Perry, 2000). With hate speech/cyberhate posing a threat to the social order by violating social norms (Soral et al., 2018), perceptions of social norms as either supporting or opposing prejudice has been found to have an influence on how individuals react online (Hsueh et al., 2015). Seeing other people post prejudiced (opposed to antiprejudiced) comments online can lead to the adoption of an online group's biases and can influence an individual's own perceptions and feelings toward the targeted stigmatized group (Hsueh et al., 2015). In addition, research around desensitization also suggests that being exposed to hate speech leads to desensitization, which further leads to an increase in outgroup prejudice toward groups targeted by such speech (Soral et al., 2018). With society increasingly recognizing that it is inappropriate to express prejudices in public settings, many interventions will include some form of social norms nudging to reduce such prejudices; interventions that "nudge behavior in the desired direction" (Titley et al., 2014, p. 60). Therefore, hate speech not only affects minority group members, but also has an influence on opinions of majority group members (Soral et al., 2018), which makes strategies that can elicit change in people's prejudice-related attitudes crucial (see, e.g., Zitek & Hebl, 2007). Governments around the world face increased demand for understanding and countering hateful ideology and violent extremism both online and offline (e.g., the Christchurch Call in New Zealand). The U.S. Government's 2011 CVE Strategy highlights the importance of ongoing research and analysis, the sharing of knowledge and best practices internationally, and the countering of hateful ideologies and propaganda (see also Department of Homeland Security, 2016, 2019). The goal of this systematic review is to use an integrated and interdisciplinary approach to examine the effectiveness of online campaigns and strategies for reducing hate speech and cyberhate. The internet also provides an opportunity to reach masses of people who have been exposed to hateful content and ideology online, therefore, this systematic review will focus on online interventions addressing online hate speech and cyberhate. The specific settings where we would expect to see the online interventions deployed will be on websites, text messaging applications, and online and social media platforms including, but not limited to, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, Google, YouTube, and Snapchat. As mentioned previously, many online interventions will be based on social norm nudges to reduce online hate. These interventions aim to change people's online behavior and encourage individuals or groups to conform to established social norms. The communication of social norms can happen through establishing community standards on online platforms themselves (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc.), through more formal online training courses, or through anti-hate speech/anti-cyberhate campaigns teaching people to recognize hate, embrace diversity, and stand up to bias. Such prevention campaigns are designed to challenge bias and build ally behaviors by supplying people with constructive responses to combat, for example, antisemitism racism, and homophobia, as well as provide resources to help people explore and critically reflect on current events. Other interventions may add messages to hateful online comments, counter hateful content or extremist ideology, or redirect people to more credible sources. Both peers and parents have been found to foster racial consciousness and identity development, define interracial relationships and cultivate ethnic heritage and culture (Hagerman, 2016). Socialization influences how children understand their group's social position and their membership within that group by providing an understanding of racial, religious, and sexual privilege (Bowman & Howard, 1985). Socialization often reflects peers' and parents' experiences with racism, discrimination, and their ideological perspectives about race, religion, or sexuality (Umaña-Taylor & Fine, 2004). This is important because peers and parents who feel discriminated against or believe that the "other" is a threat may impart their prejudices to their children or friends, which could lead them to interpret the social world with similar discriminatory views and/or behavior. Individuals who feel socially alienated or rejected are especially vulnerable to such socialization practices as they feel that adopting these views will provide them with a sense of acceptance and belonging (Leiken, 2012). Regardless of how an individual develops certain racial, religious, or sexual biases, the online interventions under review are expected to target and reduce the production of original hateful content such as antisemitic Tweets and/or homophobic blog posts as well as the consumption of hate speech material (e.g., watching or reading hate speech videos or blogs). For example, some interventions take a rather broad messaging approach by implementing racial sensitivity and diversity training through Public Service Announcements, peer-to-peer dialogue workshops, or films that provide opportunities for youth and adults to self-reflect and learn about historical oppression, people of color, women, and the LGBTQIA+ community from credible sources. The factual understanding of diverse groups is often supplemented by experiences with people within the group. These educational programs often identify a cultural guide who is willing to introduce youth to new experiences and who can aid in processing thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. These interventions intend to dispute and contradict negative stereotypes associated with specific cultures, people, and institutions by sharing different points of view based on human rights values such as openness, respect for difference, freedom, and equality (Gomes, 2017). Moreover, such interventions tend to involve blanket bans on specific behaviors enforced through the public promotion of norms or individual sanctions enforced by moderators. Other interventions, such as the "Redirect Method," are narrower in their messaging. These interventions generate curated playlists and collections of authentic content that challenge hate speech/cyberhate narratives and propaganda (Helmus & Klein, 2018). For instance, people who are directly searching for extremist content online may be linked to videos and written content that confronts such claims. These videos are designed to be objective in appearance instead of containing material that explicitly counters extremist propaganda. The underlying goal of this type of interventions is to provide credible content that effectively undermines extremist messaging but does not overtly attack the source of propaganda. In addition to confronting hate speech narratives, these interventions provide users with links to numerous social services such as anger management training, drug and alcohol treatment, and mental health resources. Online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, have also started to employ a similar method, redirecting people who comment on or share "fake news" or conspiracy theories, which often are fraught with prejudicial undertones and are harmful to minority groups, to more credible content and news sources. The aforementioned interventions are designed to counter-balance these biased perceptions (e.g., unsupported claims of the Black community as criminal or the LGBTQIA+ community as pathologized) Blacks as criminals, LGBTQIA+ as pathologized) by blunting the occurrence of racist discourse and reducing the likelihood these individuals will internalize and normalize racial, religious, and/or sexual prejudices (Qian et al., 2019). Being in new situations is uncomfortable and often awakens fears and apprehensions that can block our experiential development. Acquiring information or being exposed to minority-run businesses, poverty, and writings from minority authors allows a person to understand the thoughts, hopes, fears, and aspirations of the people outside their racial perspective rather than from the perspective of the majority society (Dunham et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2017). Doing so, counters racist programming by challenging hegemonic beliefs, which can lead to the acceptance of tolerant attitudes and the reduction of hateful expressions online. Findings from the proposed review will enhance our understanding of the effectiveness of online anti-hate speech/anti-hate interventions, will help ensure that programming funds are dedicated to the most-effective efforts, and will play a critical role in helping individual programs improve the quality of service provisions. It will inform governments and policymakers of the current state of such online efforts, what works and which modes of interventions to implement, and help guide economically viable investments in nation-state security. Our search of the scholarly literature identified one review, Blaya (2019), as similar to the proposed topic. Blaya's (2019) review, however, focused on the prevalence, type, and characteristics of existing interventions for counteracting cyberhate and did not include a meta-analysis. Two other similar reviews focused on exposure to extremist online content (Hassan et al., 2018) and communication channels associated with cyber-racism (Bliuc et al., 2018). A search of the Campbell Library using key terms (hate OR radical*) returned two protocols and one review identified for further inspection to assess potential overlap. The protocols include "Psychosocial processes and intervention strategies behind Islamist deradicalization: A scoping review" by de Carvalho et al. (2019) and "Police programs that seek to increase community connectedness for reducing violent extremism behavior, attitudes and beliefs" by Mazerolle et al. (2020). A further review on a similar topic is a recently completed Campbell review (January 2020), "Counter-narratives for the prevention of violent radicalization: A systematic review of targeted interventions" by Carthy et al. (2018) at the National University of Ireland, Galway. Our proposed review is distinguished from the de Carvalho et al. (2019) review in that we are focusing on hate speech and cyberhate generally without delimiting our approach to a specific type of radicalization (e.g., Islamist). Furthermore, we are electing to complete a systematic review and meta-analysis. Likewise, the protocol by Mazerolle et al. (2020) focuses on interventions involving police officers either as initiators, recipients, or implementers of community connectedness interventions. Our review will focus specifically on any online intervention, which may or may not involve police, but police will not be the focus nor be the basis of the online intervention strategy. Judging from Carthy et al. (2018) protocol, we anticipate our review will also capture counter-narrative interventions, but will differ based on setting, timing, and scope of interventions. Specifically, we are interested in online interventions that extend beyond counter-messaging campaigns to include a broad array of interventions outlined above and extend beyond radicalization to include everyday hate and prejudice. In addition to conducting a meta-analysis, the proposed review would build on Blaya's (2019) work by expanding the population parameters to include both adolescents as well as adults. Blaya (2019) limited her search to include interventions aimed toward youth, young people, children, young adults, adolescents, children, and teenagers and did not focus on extremism. The main objective of this review is to synthesize the available evidence on the effectiveness of online interventions aimed at reducing the creation and/or consumption of online hate speech/cyberhate material. To what extent are online interventions effective in reducing online hate speech/cyberhate? How is effectiveness related to the type of online hate speech/cyberhate intervention used? How is effectiveness related to the characteristics of individuals experiencing the online hate speech/cyberhate intervention (e.g., age, gender, race/ethnicity, offense history, childhood trauma)? Both experimental and quasi-experimental quantitative studies will be included. These study designs will address research questions #1 to #3. Eligible quantitative study designs include the following: Eligible experimental designs must involve random assignment of participants to distinct treatment and control group(s). Designs that involve quasi-random assignment of participants such as alternate case assignment are also eligible and will be coded as experimental designs. All eligible quasi-experimental designs must include a comparison group of participants compared to participants in the treatment condition. Eligible studies include those that report matching procedures (individual- or group-level) and statistical procedures employed to achieve equivalency between groups. Statistical procedures may but are not limited to, analysis, and Furthermore, in of a limited quantitative evidence we will also include quasi-experimental studies with comparison groups that provide of for both groups. will also be included. Eligible include designs with a control group and designs with or without a control group than quasi-experimental designs include studies that a comparison group of participants who either to in the study or who in a but out to the of a Eligible comparison include other online interventions or in which participants not or an online Both youth and participants of any gender sexual orientation, or will be eligible for this review. The eligible youth population will be study participants with a of through The eligible population will be study participants with a of and in which only a of the is eligible for example, a study in both online and offline hate speech be not anticipate studies based on as our will be and we will take to studies that only online interventions. will of the of a study for through and be we will elicit the of a the of and studies will be these studies will be they will be and be in the and any related Blaya's (2019) of intervention strategies to the potential of eligible interventions. The intervention is the of responses to hate speech/cyberhate, which includes the countering of violent extremism and to address online interventions that are eligible range from hateful content online specific (e.g., of social media to to online hate using targeted strategies (e.g., through hateful of studies focusing on online include the and of online and content online content and & 2018), hateful online comments to comments et al., 2018), and to users out of online are also interested in interventions such as the of 8chan this online platform linked to "in real life" attacks in New Zealand and the and interventions that further hateful online content and radicalization similar events. hateful content online such has up speech as well as around online users and hateful groups on to other online to hateful content online using targeted strategies therefore, been as an effective online include using the from & 2020), the use of to online responses to in online where hate speech has been (Qian et al., 2019), and redirecting online users to videos for example, Our systematic review will include a range of online interventions, many of which have only recently Two other strategies identified by Blaya (2019) are the and of hate speech/cyberhate using technology as well as the creation of online and These interventions include online counter-narrative the and/or use of online counter online interventions, online training, and online narrowly to address extremist ideologies and hate speech that incites targeted violence and In such interventions seek to or the occurrence of violent extremism or the of hate speech and extremist by channels and opportunities to such groups. The and intervention eligible for this systematic review educational programs for example, provide people with online and challenge 2019). will include online programs with an online (e.g., and and educational and online interventions. of these interventions may by individuals no longer in the creation and/or consumption of cyberhate and extremist material online. These online interventions may be by and internet service or or in the case of interventions. The comparison may be routine exposure and to hate speech/cyberhate or online The of is the creation and/or consumption of hateful content online. By we to the production and of original hateful content such as antisemitic racist and/or homophobic blog The consumption of hate speech material may include or being a of a hate watching or reading hate speech videos or being a target of online hate speech/cyberhate, or hate speech material. of include and of study participants such as and attitudes toward hate Eligible studies must report a or (or to be included. There will be no exclusion on the source of for the and can be from any institutional or completed by will include any of from strategies to increase the scale of of potentially effective anti-hate speech and interventions for These could include to or to the creation of and behaviors. can also include such as a of hate speech/cyberhate to other platforms instead of a reduction of hate All described in eligible studies will be in the will focus on the between and the current The starting with the when the internet to a and community et al., are for an approach in the lower end of our search to the may be it is hate speech/cyberhate online through or and some studies may capture Our population of studies will also be limited to studies in and but of studies completed in any as we are focused on online content that can be and across and nation-state The language parameters reflect the language of the review Our will where studies the of study in will be between the members of the review These will be and as a from the protocol in the review. In the of a change in we will search online OR OR internet OR Twitter OR OR 8chan OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR speech" OR cyberhate OR OR OR OR OR speech OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR peer-to-peer OR OR OR

Online hate speech and violent extremism knows no borders, no political boundaries, no remorse. Researchers face an uphill battle to collect hate speech data in volumes and topical diversity suitable for training state-of-the-art content-moderation systems. Neural language models ushered in a new era of synthetic data generation in use across various businesses, all despite calls for research to protect against unintended toxic output. We present a method for radicalising pre-trained neural language models to identify real hate speech and highlight the risks of AI which could undermine our trust in social media. We present Prompt-GAN, a prompt-tuning adversarial approach with three achievements. Namely, we demonstrate prompt-tuning’s ability to generate realistic types of hate and non-hate speech which mimics political extremist discourse. Prompt-GAN’s architecture offers a twofold reduction in memory and runtime requirements compared to fine-tuning. Prompt-GAN improves hate speech classification F1-scores by up to 10.1% and sets a new record in neural language simulation compared to the current state-of-the-art across three benchmark social media datasets.

Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube: Against Online Hate Speech.

The Current State of Hate Speech and Related Legislations in Korea

PurposeHate speech in recent times has become a troubling development. It has different meanings to different people in different cultures. The anonymity and ubiquity of the social media provides a breeding ground for hate speech and makes combating it seems like a lost battle. However, what may constitute a hate speech in a cultural or religious neutral society may not be perceived as such in a polarized multi-cultural and multi-religious society like Nigeria. Defining hate speech, therefore, may be contextual. Hate speech in Nigeria may be perceived along ethnic, religious and political boundaries. The purpose of this paper is to check for the presence of hate speech in social media platforms like Twitter, and to what degree is hate speech permissible, if available? It also intends to find out what monitoring mechanisms the social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter have put in place to combat hate speech. Lexalytics is a term coined by the authors from the words lexical analytics for the purpose of opinion mining unstructured texts like tweets.Design/methodology/approachThis research developed a Python software called polarized opinions sentiment analyzer (POSA), adopting an ego social network analytics technique in which an individual’s behavior is mined and described. POSA uses a customized Python N-Gram dictionary of local context-based terms that may be considered as hate terms. It then applied the Twitter API to stream tweets from popular and trending Nigerian Twitter handles in politics, ethnicity, religion, social activism, racism, etc., and filtered the tweets against the custom dictionary using unsupervised classification of the texts as either positive or negative sentiments. The outcome is visualized using tables, pie charts and word clouds. A similar implementation was also carried out using R-Studio codes and both results are compared and a t-test was applied to determine if there was a significant difference in the results. The research methodology can be classified as both qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative in terms of data classification, and quantitative in terms of being able to identify the results as either negative or positive from the computation of text to vector.FindingsThe findings from two sets of experiments on POSA and R are as follows: in the first experiment, the POSA software found that the Twitter handles analyzed contained between 33 and 55 percent hate contents, while the R results show hate contents ranging from 38 to 62 percent. Performing a t-test on both positive and negative scores for both POSA and R-studio, results reveal p-values of 0.389 and 0.289, respectively, on an α value of 0.05, implying that there is no significant difference in the results from POSA and R. During the second experiment performed on 11 local handles with 1,207 tweets, the authors deduce as follows: that the percentage of hate contents classified by POSA is 40 percent, while the percentage of hate contents classified by R is 51 percent. That the accuracy of hate speech classification predicted by POSA is 87 percent, while free speech is 86 percent. And the accuracy of hate speech classification predicted by R is 65 percent, while free speech is 74 percent. This study reveals that neither Twitter nor Facebook has an automated monitoring system for hate speech, and no benchmark is set to decide the level of hate contents allowed in a text. The monitoring is rather done by humans whose assessment is usually subjective and sometimes inconsistent.Research limitations/implicationsThis study establishes the fact that hate speech is on the increase on social media. It also shows that hate mongers can actually be pinned down, with the contents of their messages. The POSA system can be used as a plug-in by Twitter to detect and stop hate speech on its platform. The study was limited to public Twitter handles only. N-grams are effective features for word-sense disambiguation, but when using N-grams, the feature vector could take on enormous proportions and in turn increasing sparsity of the feature vectors.Practical implicationsThe findings of this study show that if urgent measures are not taken to combat hate speech there could be dare consequences, especially in highly polarized societies that are always heated up along religious and ethnic sentiments. On daily basis tempers are flaring in the social media over comments made by participants. This study has also demonstrated that it is possible to implement a technology that can track and terminate hate speech in a micro-blog like Twitter. This can also be extended to other social media platforms.Social implicationsThis study will help to promote a more positive society, ensuring the social media is positively utilized to the benefit of mankind.Originality/valueThe findings can be used by social media companies to monitor user behaviors, and pin hate crimes to specific persons. Governments and law enforcement bodies can also use the POSA application to track down hate peddlers.

Online hate has emerged as a rapidly growing issue worldwide, often stemming from differences in opinion. It is crucial to use appropriate language and words on social media platforms, as inappropriate communication can negatively impact others. Consequently, detecting hate speech is of significant importance. While manual methods are commonly employed to identify hate and offensive content on social media, they are time-consuming, labor-intensive, and prone to errors. Therefore, AI-based approaches are increasingly being adopted for the effective classification of hate and offensive speech. The proposed model incorporates various text preprocessing techniques, such as removing extraneous elements like URLs, emojis, and blank spaces. Following preprocessing, tokenization is applied to break down the text into smaller components or tokens. The tokenization technique utilized in this study is TF-IDF (Term Frequency–Inverse Document Frequency). After tokenization, the model performs the classification of hate and offensive speech using the proposed BiLSTM-based SM-CJ (Scalable Multi-Channel Joint) framework. The BiLSTM-based SM-CJ model is particularly effective in detecting hate, offensive, and neutral tweets due to its ability to capture both forward and backward contexts within a given text. Detecting hate speech requires a comprehensive understanding of the text and the identification of patterns spanning across multiple words or phrases. To achieve this, the LSTM component of the BiLSTM model is designed to capture long-term dependencies by utilizing information from earlier parts of the text. The proposed SM-CJ framework further aligns the input sequence lengths fetched from the input layer, enabling the model to focus on specific segments of the input sequence that are most relevant for hate speech detection. This approach allows the model to accurately capture derogatory language, and subtle nuances present in hate speech. Finally, the performance of the proposed framework is evaluated using various metrics, including accuracy, recall, F1-score, and precision. The results are compared with state-of-the-art approaches, demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed model. Doi: 10.28991/ESJ-2025-09-01-03 Full Text: PDF

The aim of the study is to review automatic and advanced techniques for investigating hate and offensive speech from social media (SM) platforms. Finding hateful speech from social media is a text classification problem. In the proposed paper explains the methodology of automatic text classification through the medium of traditional machine learning and advanced deep learning algorithms. On social media, people share their opinion and different content, but some users post hateful and offensive content. Detecting and classifying hate speech from social sites is not a small challenge. There are simply five steps that are collecting the data, data cleaning and pre-processing, applying feature extraction techniques, training and testing data in the classification algorithm, and comparative analysis of the algorithm's performance. This review, analyzes the performance of the confusing metrics concepts using four metrics precision (Pr), recall (Re), F1-score, and accuracy (A). Role of this study is to update the researchers and readers on the state-of-the-art model and technology for hateful speech classification. In the last of, this review paper explains some challenges and research gaps for identifying the hate speech in existing models.

The growth of online communities and social media has led to a growing need for methods, concepts, and tools for researching online cultures. Particular attention should be paid to polarizing online discussion cultures and dynamics that increase inequality in online environments. Social media has enormous potential to create good, but in order to unlock its full potential, we also need to examine the mechanisms keeping these spaces monotonous, homogenous, and even hostile toward some groups. With this need in mind, I have developed the concept and theory of othering online discourse (OOD). This chapter introduces and defines the concept of OOD and explains the key characteristics and different attributes of OOD in relation to other concepts that deal with disruptive and discriminatory behavior in online spaces. The attributes of OOD are demonstrated drawing on examples gathered from the Finnish Suomi24 (Finland24) forum.

Along with the times, especially in the era of the development of information and communication technology. The development of information technology is very sophisticated, fast and easy so that it becomes a lifestyle for people around the world, including Indonesia. The public is free to express their opinions, either through oral, written, print or electronic media (online). Often the delivery of opinions or opinions freely is misused by some people to express their opinions in an uncultured and unethical manner which will bring legal consequences for the perpetrators, one of which is expressing displeasure or making hate speech. Hate speech is an act of communication carried out by an individual or group in the form of provocation, incitement, or insult to another individual or group in terms of various aspects such as race, skin color, gender, disability, sexual orientation, nationality, religion. , and others. This hate speech crime can be carried out through various media, including in campaign speeches, social media networks, public presentations (demonstrations), religious lectures and other electronic media. This study aims to see how the differences in the tendency to do hate speech between men and women. The method used in this study is a qualitative descriptive method. This method is used to see and describe the tendency to do hate speech between men and women. This research was conducted on 4 teenagers (2 boys and 2 girls; average age 19 years; student status) through in-depth interviews. The data were analyzed using an interactive model consisting of three steps including data reduction, data presentation and drawing conclusions. The results of the study indicate that there are differences in the forms of hate speech between men and women, where differences in women's hate speech are more provocation to everyone against people who are given hate speech than hate speech committed by men. Therefore, as good Indonesian citizens and upholding unity, in expressing opinions and criticisms, we should use wise and kind sentences, so that our opinions can be accepted and do not cause misunderstandings to other social media users. When using social media services to express opinions and criticisms, we should use wise and kind sentences, so that our opinions can be accepted and do not cause misunderstandings to other social media users. It is better in laws and regulations relating to insults and hate speech, both on social media and in public, a further article is made that explains the intent of hate speech itself, such as dirty sentences, animal names and speech without valid data. If it is used, it will be subject to the ITE article regarding hate speech itself. Counselors/BK teachers also have an important role to shape student behavior in schools so as not to do hate speech. Not only that, the creativity of a Counselor/BK teacher is also required so that all ways can be taken to avoid students being involved with hate speech behavior by providing information services and providing group guidance services. For students who have been involved with hate speech actions, coaching can be done through individual counseling, group counseling and group guidance.

Hate speech is a contextual phenomenon. What offends or inflames in one context may differ from what incites violence in a different time, place, and cultural landscape. Theories of hate speech, especially Susan Benesch’s concept of “dangerous speech” (hateful speech that incites violence), have focused on the factors that cut across these paradigms. However, the existing scholarship is narrowly focused on situations of mass violence or societal unrest in America or Europe. This paper discusses how online hate speech may operate differently in a postcolonial context. While hate speech impacts all societies, the global South—Africa in particular—has been sorely understudied. I posit that in postcolonial circumstances, the interaction of multiple cultural contexts and social meanings form concurrent layers of interpretation that are often inaccessible to outsiders. This study expands the concept of online harms by examining the political, social, and cultural dimensions of data-intensive technologies. The paper’s theories are informed by fieldwork that local partners and I conducted in Kasese, Uganda in 2019–2020, focusing on social unrest and lethal violence in the region following the 2016 elections. The research, completed with assistance from the Berkeley Human Rights Clinic, included examining the background and circumstances of the conflict; investigating social media’s role in the conflict; designing a curriculum around hate speech and disinformation for Ugandan audiences; creating a community-sourced lexicon of hateful terms; and incorporating community-based feedback on proposed strategies for mitigating hate speech and disinformation. I begin this with a literature review of legal theory around hate speech, with a particular focus on Africa, and then turn to the legal context around hate speech and social media use in Uganda, examining how the social media landscape fueled past conflicts. Then I explain my Kasese fieldwork and the study’s methodology, before describing initial results. I follow with a discussion of applications to industry, specifically how hate speech is defined and treated by Meta’s Facebook, the dominant social media provider in Kasese. It progresses to a discussion of the implications of the study results and legal and policy recommendations for technology companies stemming from these findings. Importantly, I apply the research findings to expand existing scholarship by proposing a new sixth “hallmark of dangerous speech” to augment Benesch’s paradigm. Adding “calls for geographic exclusion” as a new qualifier for dangerous speech stems from the particular characteristics embodied by postcolonial hate speech. Examples from the Kasese study illustrate how this phenomenon upends platforms’ expectations of hate speech—which may not consider “Coca-Cola bottle” to be an epithet. The application of this new hallmark will create a more inclusive understanding of hate speech in localized contexts. This paper’s conclusions and questions may challenge platforms that must address hate speech and content moderation at a global scope and scale. It will examine the prevalence and role of social media platforms in Africa, and how these platforms have provided resources and engagement with civil society in these regions.

The easily accessibility of different online platform allows every individuals people to express their ideas and share experiences easily without any restriction because of freedom of speech. Since social media don't have general framework to identify hate and neutral speech this results anonymity. However, the propagation of hate speech on social media distresses the society in many aspects, such as affecting the mental health of targeted audiences, affects social interaction and distraction of properties. This research proposed the SVM with TF-IDF, N-gram, and W2vec feature extraction to construct dataset which is binary classifier to detect hate speech for Afaan Oromoo language. To construct dataset for this study first we crawl data from Facebook posts and comments by using Face pager and scrap storm API. After we collect we labeled the collected data to two class hate and neutral class. The general objective of this research is to design a framework which classify hate and neutral speech. Furthermore, when we compare the results of different Machine Learning algorithms. The experiment is evaluated based on accuracy, F-score, recall and precision measurements. The framework based on SVM with n-gram combination with TF-IDF achieve 96% in all metrics.

Hate speech on social media may spread quickly through online users and subsequently, may even escalate into local vile violence and heinous crimes. This paper proposes a hate speech detection model by means of machine learning and text mining feature extraction techniques. In this study, the authors collected the hate speech of English-Odia code mixed data from a Facebook public page and manually organized them into three classes. In order to build binary and ternary datasets, the data are further converted into binary classes. The modeling of hate speech employs the combination of a machine learning algorithm and features extraction. Support vector machine (SVM), naïve Bayes (NB) and random forest (RF) models were trained using the whole dataset, with the extracted feature based on word unigram, bigram, trigram, combined n-grams, term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF), combined n-grams weighted by TF-IDF and word2vec for both the datasets. Using the two datasets, we developed two kinds of models with each feature—binary models and ternary models. The models based on SVM with word2vec achieved better performance than the NB and RF models for both the binary and ternary categories. The result reveals that the ternary models achieved less confusion between hate and non-hate speech than the binary models.

Hate speech detection is a critical aspect of online content moderation, ensuring that digital platforms remain safe and inclusive. With the exponential rise of social media, harmful content such as hate speech and offensive language has increased, necessitating automated solutions for effective moderation. This project employs Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning (ML) techniques to classify tweets into three categories: Hate Speech, Offensive Speech, and No Hate or Offensive Speech. By leveraging a Decision Tree Classifier, the system efficiently detects and categorizes harmful content while reducing manual intervention. The methodology involves data preprocessing, feature extraction using CountVectorizer, and training a classification model to achieve high accuracy. The proposed system overcomes the limitations of traditional keyword-based filtering by improving context awareness and scalability. The implementation is designed to process large volumes of data, making it highly suitable for real-world applications. This approach enhances digital safety, minimizes human effort in moderation, and ensures compliance with ethical standards. Future improvements may include the integration of deep learning models like LSTMs or Transformers and real-time social media API monitoring to enhance accuracy further. This project contributes to the growing need for robust and automated hate speech detection solutions in the digital era.