New Dissertations

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.

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.

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.

Online hate speech (OHS) poses a significant threat to young people’s online experiences due to its potential to cause adverse outcomes regarding their mental health and well-being. This brief report provides an overview of recent research investigating OHS, including its prevalence, definitional issues, theoretical frameworks, and correlates and outcomes of OHS involvement. While several definitions of OHS exist, initial attempts to elaborate an evidence-based definition have been made in recent years. However, the distinct aspects of OHS included in existing definitions may be challenging to assess. Regarding OHS assessment, an additional limitation lies in adopting single-item measures, which entails reliability and validity issues. Moreover, previous findings are mainly cross-sectional, limiting our understanding of OHS’s predictors and outcomes. Despite these limitations, the extant literature builds on solid theoretical frameworks while investigating several protective and risk factors, including moral disengagement, self-efficacy, and parental mediation. Nevertheless, much remains to be done in terms of defining OHS based on bottom-up approaches and in terms of translating knowledge into evidence-based prevention. Moving beyond current approaches, future programs are encouraged to prevent OHS through counterspeech while adopting a multicomponent approach. The chapter outlines suggestions for future research directions and recommendations for practitioners working with adolescents.

We are living in the era of technology and internet is gift of technology. The advantage of internet is blessings but misuse of internet results into the headache. Online hate speech is one of the issues of the modern era. The legal mechanism is also going through big challenge regarding the protection of online hate speech in India. Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act, 2002, was struck down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it created challenge for the protection of online hate speech. We have seen number of incidence where fake news/objectionable materials/hate speech/rumors are put through computer resources and communication devices. It had spread hate and violence in the large number of cases. The researcher put light on the notion of hate speech and discuss in detail the international law, domestic law and judicial pronouncements. Civilized Society is facing enormous crisis to deal with online hate speech. The researcher is examining the existing legal mechanism on online hate speech with the relevant provisions of the law and judgments. Electronic evidence is vital to judge the online hate speech. The legal mechanism and judicial pronouncements on the electronic evidence are scrutinized in

A large share of online users has already witnessed online hate speech. Because targets tend to interpret such bystanders’ lack of reaction as agreement with the hate speech, bystander intervention in online hate speech is crucial as it can help alleviate negative consequences. Despite evidence regarding online bystander intervention, however, whether bystanders evaluate online hate speech targeting different social groups as equally uncivil and, thereby, equally worthy of intervention remains largely unclear. Thus, we conducted an online experiment systematically varying the type of online hate speech as homophobia, racism, and misogyny. The results demonstrate that, although all three forms were perceived as uncivil, homophobic hate speech was perceived to be less uncivil than hate speech against women. Consequently, misogynist hate speech, compared to homophobic hate speech, increased feelings of personal responsibility and, in turn, boosted willingness to confront.

Hate speech has plagued human societies for decades and severely influenced the whole world. By analyzing a balanced panel dataset covering 167 countries and 19 years derived from the V-Dem project, the relationships between critical Internet context indicators and online hate speech were disentangled, casting light on how to tackle the hate speech problem on a global scale. We found that Internet penetration was positively associated with online hate speech in general, confirming Internet's technological affordances have the potential to facilitate hate speech expression. Online legal regulation was negatively related to online hate speech but had no significant moderating effect between Internet penetration and online hate speech, reflecting an underlying tension among legal approaches’ comprehensive effects. Online opinion polarization was positively related to online hate speech and significantly moderated the relationship between Internet penetration and online hate speech, which indicated that a polarized opinion atmosphere might exacerbate hate speech and intensify intergroup conflicts. Our findings’ theoretical contributions and policy implications are further discussed.

Hate speech, a societal scourge, has found a potent conduit in modern technology, exacerbating its reach and impact. Adolescents are particularly vulnerable to the pernicious effects of online hate speech, which threaten their well-being and social cohesion. Addressing this critical issue, the current study uses a quasi-experimental design to evaluate the efficacy of “HateLess. Together Against Hatred” in reducing adolescents' online hate speech perpetration and victimization and increasing their online hate speech countering. A sample of 820 adolescents aged 12 to 16 (M = 13.27, SD = 1.04) from 11 German schools was divided into an intervention group (n = 567), who underwent the one-week anti-hate speech program, and a control group (n = 253). Utilizing multilevel mediation analysis, the study revealed that program participation significantly reduced online hate speech perpetration and victimization while enhancing countering hate speech. Notably, the intervention's success was partially mediated by increased empathy, which, in turn, predicted a decrease in hate speech perpetration and an increase in counter-speech, and by increased self-efficacy, which, in turn, was linked to reduced victimization and heightened countering hate speech. These promising outcomes suggest that HateLess could be a viable strategy for mitigating hate speech engagement and fostering a more respectful online discourse among adolescents.

‘Governance’ of online hate speech (OHS) has become a buzzword in social media research and practice. Inputs from a plethora of stakeholders, international organisations, platforms, governments, and NGOs are discussed by academics, (social) media executives and lawmakers around the globe. In these discussions, the opinions of users remain underexplored, and data on their experiences and perceptions is scarce. The present paper focuses on five case studies of model OHS postings in the context of the Austrian OHS governance system. For these case studies, 157 respondents assessed in an online survey whether a posting should be deleted according to their own ethical standards, whether they believed that this posting was currently punishable under Austrian criminal law, and whether it should be punishable. Furthermore, respondents indicated how they deal with OHS in their daily lives when confronted with it on digital platforms. Using social sciences, human rights, and criminal law approaches, we found that OHS-awareness among our respondent group was high and that there is a preference for state regulation, i.e., punishability under national criminal law, and for the deletion of OHS postings. Simultaneously, readiness for counter-speech and reporting of postings for deletion remains relatively low. Thus, OHS postings are hardly ever answered directly or forwarded to specialised organisations and/or the police. If OHS postings are reported, it is mostly done via the channels of the respective platform.

Internet, social media and online hate speech. Systematic review

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.

In an era where digital interactions are increasingly prevalent, the challenge of effectively regulating online hate speech has emerged as a crucial societal concern. Balancing the regulation of such speech with the preservation of online freedom of expression is a delicate task, requiring broad consensus among internet users. This study delves into the various factors shaping public attitudes towards the regulation of online hate speech in South Korea. An online survey of 1,000 Internet users provided the data for a structural equation model. Our findings reveal that experiences of victimization by hate speech, online activity such as content uploading, assessment of social harm caused by online hate speech, and assessment on the effectiveness of regulatory measures all play significant roles in garnering support for regulation. Notably, online activity correlates strongly with increased encounters with hate speech. This, in turn, leads to a more profound understanding of its social harm and, consequently, a heightened inclination to support regulatory measures. These insights underscore the growing urgency to address online hate speech, especially as online activity continue to intensify. This study contributes to the discourse on online hate speech regulation by highlighting the complex interplay of personal experience, perceived harm, and efficacy of regulation in shaping public consensus.

Countries cumulate very different experiences on welfare state development and change and the process dominant in one context may not be consistent over time. How welfare states develop and change has partly to do with changes in the need and demand for social protections as well as those in political attitudes and preferences that dictate policy actions and decisions. An integral component of how welfare states change can also be ethnic heterogeneity as it can affect both the economic contexts of needs and demands and the political contexts of attitudes and preferences. Yet, while the existing theories of the welfare state underscore these political and economic contexts of social protection, they fail to adequately link welfare state developments and changes with the changes in ethnic heterogeneity. Given the major changes in welfare state policy provisions and practices, coupled by a landscape of growing ethnic heterogeneity in high-income countries, it is important to examine if this form of social heterogeneity can be a significant factor in thinking about the needs and demands as well as the political attitudes and preferences, which help shape and reshape welfare state policies.