Analyzing User Characteristics of Hate Speech Spreaders on Social Media
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Hate speech on social media threatens the mental and physical well-being of individuals and contributes to real-world violence. Resharing is an important driver behind the spread of hate speech on social media. Yet, little is known about who reshares hate speech and what their characteristics are. In this paper, we analyze the role of user characteristics in hate speech resharing across different types of hate speech (e.g., political hate). For this, we proceed as follows: First, we cluster hate speech posts using large language models to identify different types of hate speech. Then we model the effects of user attributes on users' probability to reshare hate speech using an explainable machine learning model. To do so, we apply debiasing to control for selection bias in our observational social media data and further control for the latent vulnerability of users to hate speech. We find that, all else equal, users with fewer followers, fewer friends, fewer posts, and older accounts share more hate speech. This shows that users with little social influence tend to share more hate speech. Further, we find substantial heterogeneity across different types of hate speech. For example, racist and misogynistic hate is spread mostly by users with little social influence. In contrast, political anti-Trump and anti-right-wing hate is reshared by users with larger social influence. Overall, understanding the factors that drive users to share hate speech is crucial for detecting individuals at risk of engaging in harmful behavior and for designing effective mitigation strategies.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 59 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Oct 2023.
Builds on
24 of 59 references.
References · 24
- 2017Automated Hate Speech Detection and the Problem of Offensive Languagecited by 724
- 2020TweetEval: Unified Benchmark and Comparative Evaluation for Tweet Classificationcited by 414
- 2020Neural Additive Models: Interpretable Machine Learning with Neural Netscited by 318
- 2018Large Scale Crowdsourcing and Characterization of Twitter Abusive Behaviorcited by 265
- 2016Recommendations as Treatments: Debiasing Learning and Evaluationcited by 246
- 2019InterpretML: A Unified Framework for Machine Learning Interpretabilitycited by 243
- 2017Deep Learning for Hate Speech Detection in Tweetscited by 180
- 2016Unbiased Learning-to-Rank with Biased Feedbackcited by 155
- 2019A BERT-Based Transfer Learning Approach for Hate Speech Detection in Online Social Mediacited by 95
- 2017Causal Embeddings for Recommendationcited by 79
- 2017The spread of low-credibility content by social botscited by 73
- 2018Spread of hate speech in online social mediacited by 59
12 more
- 2018Characterizing and Detecting Hateful Users on Twittercited by 55
- 2018Peer to Peer Hate: Hate Speech Instigators and Their Targetscited by 30
- 2019Enhancing Explainability of Neural Networks through Architecture Constraintscited by 29
- 2020Causal Understanding of Fake News Dissemination on Social Mediacited by 27
- 2023Sharp Bounds for Generalized Causal Sensitivity Analysiscited by 24
- 2022Russian propaganda on social media during the 2022 invasion of Ukrainecited by 15
- 2013A Bayesian approach for predicting the popularity of tweetscited by 12
- 2020Characterizing Twitter Users Who Engage in Adversarial Interactions against Political Candidatescited by 6
- 2022The Virality of Hate Speech on Social Mediacited by 6
- 2021Retweet communities reveal the main sources of hate speechcited by 5
- 2022Mechanisms of True and False Rumor Sharing in Social Media: Collective Intelligence or Herd Behavior?cited by 5
- 2023Hatemongers ride on echo chambers to escalate hate speech diffusioncited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.