Internet jako przestrzeń debaty na temat pluralizmu kulturowego

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.

Drawing on the insights from Media Proximization Approach (MPA), the present chapter explores the dynamics of the online construction of the Other in the context of current refugee crisis and the phenomenon of hate speech within cyberspace. While content- and theme-wise, it takes under scrutiny online refugee-related discourses, on the theoretical and methodological level it presents a new approach to mediated construction of social reality based on the notion of distance and Self/Other or Us/Them dichotomy. Coached within (Cognitive) Critical Discourse Analysis, such an approach calls for an integration of corpus linguistics methods and tools. The chapter addresses the following questions: (1) How do the structural and functional features of online communication facilitate the spread of hateful and radical messages? (2) What is the perception of hate speech targeted at refugees and immigrants among Polish people (aged 18–35)? (3) What are the recurrent linguistic means, as well as the underlying cognitive and discursive mechanisms, of representing refugees as the Other? (4) How are salience and conceptualisation, related to representation of the Other and proximization strategies, manifested in keywords and word co-occurrence patterns? (5) What is the interface between othering and hate speech? Some of the findings presented in this chapter are based on the analyses conducted within the European project C.O.N.T.A.C.T., which focuses on exploration of various aspects of hate speech and hate crime in ten EU countries.

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

Hate crime and hate speech are extreme examples of negative intergroup relations. It is thought that it would be very useful to analyze the variables that lead up to for dealing with hate speech and crimes that have many physical and psychological destructive consequences for the exposed group members. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to address some of the social psychological variables associated with hate speech and hate crimes and to suggest solutions to reduce hate speech and hate crimes in this context. For this purpose, first of all, hate speech and hate crimes were defined and various examples were presented in this direction. Later, hate crimes and hate speech were examined in terms of social identity identification, social dominance orientation, system justification, realistic and symbolic threat perception, frustration and scapegoat concepts. The relationship between hate speech and crimes of this concept has been embodied with research findings and examples from various regions in Turkey and the world. Finally, some solution suggestions have been presented by making use of this theoretical knowledge in terms of combating hate crimes and hate speeches. Keywords: Hate crime, hate speech, intergroup relations, social psychology

Online hate speech is a matter of concern for social media platforms, regulators, researchers, and the public. Despite its widespread prevalence and contentious nature, little research has been done on the perception of hate speech and its psychosocial predictors. To address this gap, we conducted a study on the perception of hate speech toward migrants in online comments, analyzing the differences between a public group (NPublic = 649) and an expert group (NExperts = 27) and exploring the correlation between the proposed hate speech indicators and perceived hate speech in both groups. Additionally, we explored various predictors of hate speech perception, including demographic and psychological variables such as human values, prejudice, aggression, impulsiveness, social media behavior, attitudes toward migrants and migration, and trust in institutions. Our results show that the public and experts have differing sensitivities toward hate speech, with the expert group perceiving comments as more hateful and emotionally harmful compared with the general population, who tend to agree more with antimigrant hateful comments. The proposed hate speech indicators and especially their total scores have a strong correlation with both groups' perceptions of hate speech. Psychological predictors, such as the human values of universalism, tradition, security, and subjective social distance, were significant predictors of online hate speech sensitivity. Our findings emphasize the need for public and scholarly discussions, more robust educational policies, and intervention programs with specific measures to counter hate speech online.

Hate speech, or intentional derogatory expressions about people based on assigned group characteristics, has been studied primarily in online contexts. Less is known about the occurrence of this phenomenon in schools. As it has negative consequences for victims, perpetrators, and those who witness it, it is crucial to characterize the occurrence of offline (i.e., in the school) and online hate speech to describe similarities and differences between these two socialization contexts. The present study aimed to investigate the prevalence of hate speech witnessing, victimization, and perpetration, in a sample of 3,620 7–9th graders (51% self-identified as female) from 42 schools in Germany and Switzerland. We found that 67% of the students witnessed hate speech in their school, and 65% witnessed online hate speech at least once in the past 12 months. Approximately 21% of the students self-identified as offline perpetrators and 33% as offline victims, whereas these percentages were lower for online hate speech (13 and 20%, respectively). In both settings, skin color and origin were the most common group references for hate speech (50% offline and 63% online). Offline hate speech mainly came from classmates (88%), unknown sources (e.g., graffiti; 19%), or teachers (12%), whereas online hate speech mostly came from unknown persons (77%). The most frequent forms of offline hate speech were offensive jokes (94%) and the spread of lies and rumors about the members of a specific social group (84%). Significant differences by country, gender, and migration background were observed. Girls reported more offline victimization experiences, less perpetration, and a greater frequency of witnessing hate speech. This difference was larger in magnitude in the online setting. Students in Switzerland reported being exposed to hate speech more often than students in Germany. Students with a migration background reported higher hate speech victimization based on skin color and origin than students without a migration background. The high prevalence of hate speech highlights the need for school-based prevention programs. Our findings are discussed in terms of the practical implications.

Adolescents around the globe are increasingly exposed to online hate speech (OHS). And yet little is known about the varying roles of involvement and the determinants of adolescents' hate speech perpetration. Building on previous research, this study aims to test the cycle of violence hypothesis for OHS and to analyze whether moral disengagement (MD) and empathy moderate the victim-to-perpetrator relationship. The sample consists of 3,560 seventh to ninth graders (52.1 percent girls), recruited from 40 schools across Germany and Switzerland. Self-report questionnaires were administered to assess OHS involvement, MD, and empathy. Multilevel analyses revealed that victims of OHS were more likely to report OHS perpetration. In addition, victims of OHS were more likely to report OHS perpetration when they reported higher levels of MD than those with lower levels of MD. Finally, victims of OHS were less likely to report OHS perpetration when they reported higher levels of empathy than those with lower levels of empathy. The findings extend the cycle of violence hypothesis to OHS and highlight the need to address MD and empathy in hate speech prevention. Implications for future research will be discussed.

There is a growing body of literature on whether or not online hate speech, or cyberhate, might be special compared to offline hate speech. This article aims to both critique and augment that literature by emphasising a distinctive feature of the Internet and of cyberhate that, unlike other features, such as ease of access, size of audience, and anonymity, is often overlooked: namely, instantaneousness. This article also asks whether there is anything special about online (as compared to offline) hate speech that might warrant governments and intergovernmental organisations contracting out, so to speak, the responsibility for tackling online hate speech to the very Internet companies which provide the websites and services that hate speakers utilise.

We inquire into different perspectives and patterns of problematizing online hate speech within the social sciences from a systems-theoretical perspective. Our results identify five different research perspectives adopted by studies on the issue: (1) systematic perspectives on problems of operationalizing (online) hate speech; (2) intentionalist perspectives on actors and their motives; (3) consequentialist perspectives on victims of online hate speech; (4) perspectives on media affordances, infrastructures, and strategies of online hate speech; and finally, (5) normative perspectives on the consequences of online hate speech. Additionally, we want to propose a functionalist perspective on hate communication and, for this purpose, develop a systems-theoretical and media-sociological framework for analyzing online hate speech. A systems-theoretical perspective connects to a process-oriented paradigm of doing hate speech. Instead of asking what hate speech is, a systems-theoretical framework focuses on how different communicative contextures empirically produce different understandings of hate communication. We will make four research proposals: We will (1) conceptualize hate as hate communication, then proceed to (2) analyze different communicative contextures, (3) develop media archeology of negation and conflict communication, and finally (4) focus on the function of conflict and hate communication for the emergence of (counter-)publics.

Hate speech is a global issue that is also prevalent among adolescents and requires an educational response. Teachers handle hate speech as part of their professional role. To date, we know little about their beliefs in relation to the early stages of their interventional actions, specifically to their perception of hate speech in school. Thus, this study examined associations between teachers’ social dominance orientation, their pluralist attitude, and their hate speech perception in school. A sample of 471 secondary school teachers from 38 schools (Germany: n = 251; Switzerland: n = 220) participated in a self-report survey from December 2020 to April 2021 (MAge = 42.8 years; 57.7% females; 21.0% with migration status). Data from a total of 3,560 students from grades 7–9 (Germany: n = 1,841; Switzerland: n = 1,719) were matched with teachers’ data to control for students’ hate speech perception in school. Fixed effects multilevel regressions were run, including covariates (teachers’ age, gender, migration status, students’ hate speech perception), teachers’ social dominance orientation, pluralist attitude, and their hate speech perception in school. Teachers perceived a higher frequency of offline hate speech than online hate speech. Contrary to the hypotheses, social dominance orientation was positively associated with offline and online hate speech perception. As predicted, teachers’ pluralist attitude was positively linked to their off- and online hate speech perception. Further research must now clarify how the investigated beliefs and attitudes and teachers’ hate speech perception in school relate to other aspects of their professional competence.

Social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook have connected billions of people and given the opportunity to the users to share their ideas and opinions instantly. That being said, there are several negative consequences as well such as online harassment, trolling, cyber-bullying, fake news, and hate speech. Out of these, hate speech presents a unique challenge as it is deeply engraved into our society and is often linked with offline violence. Social media platforms rely on human moderators to identify hate speech and take necessary action. However, with the increase in online hate speech, these platforms are turning toward automated hate speech detection and mitigation systems. This shift brings several challenges to the plate, and hence, is an important avenue to explore for the computation social science community.

Kasper, Kai/Gräßer, Lars/Riffi, Aycha (Hrsg.) (2017). ­Online Hate Speech. Perspektiven auf eine neue Form des Hasses. München: kopaed. 200 S., 18,80 €. Eine niedrigere Hemmschwelle zur Herabsetzung von Mitmenschen zeigt sich nicht nur in der realen Lebenswelt. Auch im Netz machen Diffamierung und Diffusion der Sprache, gestützt und genährt von Anonymität und Passivität der Userinnen und User, zunehmend von sich Reden – eine explosive Mischung, die Hasskommentare zutage befördert hat und zunehmend organisierte Trolle, Flaming und Cybermobbing auf den Plan ruft. Es handelt sich dabei um ein Alltagsphänomen, das nicht neu ist und sowohl im analogen wie auch im digitalen Raum, je nach Kultur, unterschiedliche Ausprägungen annimmt. Dennoch ist eine neue virale Qualität des Hasses und der Ressentiments zu verzeichnen, die zugleich mit einem verstärkten Maß einer scheinbar etablierten ‚Umgangsform‘ – der Verdrängung – einhergeht. Wenn jedoch das Netz als öffentlicher Raum angesehen werden soll, dann sollte es vor Hetzerinnen und Hetzern, vor Terror-Propagandistinnen und -Propagandisten und vor Trollen verteidigt sowie die Würde der Andersdenkenden gesichert werden, so das Heraus­geberteam der Publikation Online Hate Speech. Der vierte Band der Schriftenreihe zur Digitalen Gesellschaft NRW betrachtet aus diesem Grund in einem interdisziplinären Ansatz Hassreden im Netz aus unterschiedlichsten Perspektiven. Mit einem multiperspektivisch differenzierten Blick und durch die Bündelung unterschiedlicher fachlicher Zugänge soll ein tieferes Verständnis für das Phänomen gefördert werden, um Hate Speech den Nährboden für die Verbreitung von Fehlinformationen und extremistischen Botschaften zu entziehen und eine Polarisierung oder gar Spaltung unserer Gesellschaft zu verhindern. Online Hate Speech nähert sich dem Gegenstand zunächst aus der zeitgeschichtlichen sowie politischen und juristischen Perspektive, wonach im Anschluss mit vorwiegend psychologischem und journalistischem Blick auf die Akteurinnen und Akteure des Hate Speech geschaut wird. Analysiert werden Verbreitungsmotivationen, Motive und Gründe für Hassattacken der Täterinnen und Täter, aber auch Strategien zur Verarbeitung durch die Opfer. Unter den Täterinnen und Tätern finden sich darüber hinaus nicht nur Einzelpersonen, die aus angestautem Ärger oder Machtgefühlen heraus agieren, sondern auch organisierte Auftragstrolle und Social Bots, welche automatisiert auf Basis von Empfehlungsalgorithmen für die Verbreitung von Cyberhate sorgen. Im fließenden Übergang beschäftigt sich das folgende Kapitel mit den Bereichen des Auftretens von Hate Speech und schließt dabei auch eine wirtschaftliche Perspektive mit Folgen von Negativ­kommunikation in Unternehmen ein. Aus Sicht der Community-Nutzerinnen und -Nutzer wird sich außerdem mit Attacken im Computerspiel-Bereich auseinandergesetzt. Hier treten auch Flamerinnen und Flamer auf die Bildfläche und es gilt, sich mit einem hohen Maß an sexistischem Sprachgebrauch auseinanderzusetzen.Um mögliche Umgangsformen und Gegenstrategien für die Lesenden zu bieten, stellt Online Hate Speech im letzten Kapitel Praxisprojekte wie BRICkS und #denk_net vor, die Anregungen zur Konzeption und Durchführung von Workshops mit Jugendlichen geben und sich auch mit der irrational emotionalen Ebene von Hassreden befassen. Arbeitsergebnisse der Initiative Netzkodex zur Erarbeitung eines Kodexes sowie eine Sammlung an Kampagnen und Aktivitäten gegen Online Hate Speech runden schließlich den praxisorientierten Abschnitt gelungen ab. Im Vergleich zu den bisherigen Veröffentlichungen der Schriftenreihe zur digitalen Gesellschaft NRW fügt sich das Thema nahtlos in die aktuellen Diskurse und Herausforderungen der Medienbildung ein. Während Social Web und Senio­ren (2013) ­Rezipierende über 60 fokussiert, Einfach fern­sehen? (2013) Medienmacherinnen und -macher sowie Fernsehnutzende ­anspricht und Big Data und Medienbildung (2015) medien­pädagogische Fachkräfte hinsichtlich der Vermittlung einer informatischen Perspektive bedient, richtet sich der aktuelle Band mit seinem Schwerpunkt der destruktiven Medieninhalte innerhalb der digi­talen Interaktion an die Allgemeinheit. Diese profitiert von einem schlüssigen Aufbau, der sowohl ­Theorie- als auch Praxisanteile liefert, um sich dem Phänomen anzunehmen. Die wirklich gelungen umgesetzte Interdisziplinarität mit Pers­pektiven aus Politik, Wirtschaft, Recht, (Sozial-)Psychologie, Journalismus, Soziologie, Wissenschaft und Forschung sowie Medien­bildung erfüllt dabei Vorbildcharakter. Etwas geschmälert wird dieser Eindruck durch den im Theorieteil stark vertretenen und zum Teil sehr trocken anmutenden Fachjargon, der zuweilen gespickt ist mit für die allgemeine Leser­schaft schwer zugänglichen ­Fachtermini oder schwergängigen ­Formulierungen, wie sie sich beispielsweise im juris­tischen Beitrag wiederfinden. Mithilfe eingestreuter Interviews und der Darlegung von Fallbeispielen ab dem zweiten Kapitel wird die inhaltliche Aufbereitung aber zunehmend aufgelockert und zeigt eine höhere lebensweltliche Nähe, durch die das Phänomen auch außerhalb der dominanten journalistischen und psycholo­gischen ­Perspektive greifbarer wird. Insbesondere hilfreich für (medien-)pädagogische Praktikerinnen und Praktiker, Sozialarbeiterinnen und -arbeiter, aber auch für Eltern und Studierende wäre eine stärkere Variation an Inhaltsformen, die mit grafischen oder tabellarischen Aufbereitungen noch bereichert werden könnten. Die Verzahnung zwischen Theorie- und Praxisanteilen sowie die hohe Interdisziplinarität garantieren jedoch die Ansprache eines breiten Zielpublikums, dass das vielschichtige und bisher nur schwer handhabbare Phänomen des Online Hate Speech klarer umreißt und zugleich ­wichtige, innovative und wirklich lesenswerte Anstöße für die medienpäda­gogische Praxisarbeit liefert.

This article aims to address two questions: how does hate speech manifest on North American white supremacist websites; and is there a connection between online hate speech and hate crime? Firstly, hate speech is defined and the research methodology upon which the article is based is explained. The ways that ‘hate’ groups utilise the Internet and their purposes in doing so are then analysed, with the content and the functions of their websites as well as their agenda examined. Finally, the article explores the connection between hate speech and hate crime. I argue that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that speech can and does inspire crime. The article is based in the main on primary sources: a study of many ‘hate’ websites; and interviews and discussions with experts in the field.

Citizen-generated counter speech is a promising way to fight hate speech and promote peaceful, non-polarized discourse. However, there is a lack of large-scale longitudinal studies of its effectiveness for reducing hate speech. To this end, we perform an exploratory analysis of the effectiveness of counter speech using several different macro- and micro-level measures to analyze 131,366 political conversations that took place on German Twitter over four years. We report on the dynamic interactions of hate and counter speech over time and provide insights into whether, as in ‘classic’ bullying situations, organized efforts are more effective than independent individuals in steering online discourse. Taken together, our results build a multifaceted picture of the dynamics of hate and counter speech online. While we make no causal claims due to the complexity of discourse dynamics, our findings suggest that organized hate speech is associated with changes in public discourse and that counter speech—especially when organized—may help curb hateful rhetoric in online discourse.

Hate speech is plaguing the cyberspace along with user-generated content. Adding counter speech has become an effective way to combat hate speech online. Existing datasets and models target either (a) hate speech or (b) hate and counter speech but disregard the context. This paper investigates the role of context in the annotation and detection of online hate and counter speech, where context is defined as the preceding comment in a conversation thread. We created a context-aware dataset for a 3-way classification task on Reddit comments: hate speech, counter speech, or neutral. Our analyses indicate that context is critical to identify hate and counter speech: human judgments change for most comments depending on whether we show annotators the context. A linguistic analysis draws insights into the language people use to express hate and counter speech. Experimental results show that neural networks obtain significantly better results if context is taken into account. We also present qualitative error analyses shedding light into (a) when and why context is beneficial and (b) the remaining errors made by our best model when context is taken into account.