Download full text
(external source)
Citation Suggestion
Please use the following Persistent Identifier (PID) to cite this document:
https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v11i2.6465
Exports for your reference manager
Accountability Issues, Online Covert Hate Speech, and the Efficacy of Counter‐Speech
[journal article]
Abstract Concerning individual or institutional accountability for online hate speech, research has revealed that most such speech is covert (veiled or camouflaged expressions of hate) and cannot be addressed with existing measures (e.g., deletion of messages, prosecution of the perpetrator). Therefore, in t... view more
Concerning individual or institutional accountability for online hate speech, research has revealed that most such speech is covert (veiled or camouflaged expressions of hate) and cannot be addressed with existing measures (e.g., deletion of messages, prosecution of the perpetrator). Therefore, in this article, we examine another way to respond to and possibly deflect hate speech: counter-speech. Counter-narratives aim to influence those who write hate speech, to encourage them to rethink their message, and to offer to all who read hate speech a critical deconstruction of it. We created a unique set of parameters to analyze the strategies used in counter-speech and their impact. Upon analysis of our database (manual annotations of 15,000 Twitter and YouTube comments), we identified the rhetoric most used in counter-speech, the general impact of the various counter-narrative strategies, and their specific impact concerning several topics. The impact was defined by noting the number of answers triggered by the comment and the tone of the answers (negative, positive, or neutral). Our data reveal an overwhelming use of argumentative strategies in counter-speech, most involving reasoning, history, statistics, and examples. However, most of these argumentative strategies are written in a hostile tone and most dialogues triggered are negative. We also found that affective strategies (based on displaying positive emotions, for instance) led to a positive outcome, although in most cases these narratives do not receive responses. We recommend that education or training - even machine learning such as empathetic bots - should focus on strategies that are positive in tone, acknowledging grievances especially.... view less
Keywords
responsibility; hate; language usage; argumentation; social media; counterstatement; dialogue
Classification
Media Contents, Content Analysis
Interactive, electronic Media
Political Process, Elections, Political Sociology, Political Culture
Free Keywords
accountability; argumentative strategies; counter‐speech; covert hate speech; emotional appeal
Document language
English
Publication Year
2023
Page/Pages
p. 249-260
Journal
Politics and Governance, 11 (2023) 2
Issue topic
Hate Speech, Demonization, Polarization, and Political Social Responsibility
ISSN
2183-2463
Status
Published Version; peer reviewed