What is the matter with Hate Speech and Online Social Networks?
The advent of Online Social Networks has deeply transformed the way people communicate with each other in the contemporary world. Some of these platforms are very popular and aggregate millions of users that, on a daily basis, generate and publish a massive (and growing) amount of data, and even though much of the content produced every day consists of funny and interesting cat videos, some of it is not so cute. This would be the case of Hate Speech.
But why is it important to address this issue?
Firstly, it is important to consider that spreading Hate Speech is prohibited by law in many countries in which Online Social Networks operate. One interesting example would be Germany, that recently adopted rigid norms aiming to control the spread of Hate Speech, including the possibility of applying expressive fines to Social Media Companies.
Secondly, it’s known that Social Media usually profit from publicity and marketing and, most certainly, companies do not want their ads to be associated with Hate Speech, which could easily happen by mistake.
Thirdly, due to the massive amount of content generated by users every day, it is desirable that the process of detecting (and deleting) Hate Speech is somewhat automated, with the aid of modern available techniques.
The purpose of this article is to introduce the challenges associated with the characterization and detection of this phenomenon, and to present some initial results our research group obtained in collaboration with researchers from Berkman Klein’s Center for Internet and Society.
Please be aware that this text contains racial slurs and foul language, so viewer discretion is advised.
But what is, precisely, Hate Speech and how do we find it?
One may believe that Hate Speech is a very easy and natural concept to understand and detect. In fact, some sentences targeting minority or vulnerable groups are very straight forward and, therefore, should be easily considered hateful by pretty much anyone with some common sense. For example, an user in an Online Social Network proclaiming “I hate Latinos” or “Latinas should die” will be considered hateful by practically any criteria, as in the United States people from Latin America are a minority that have historically suffered discrimination.
However, Hate Speech is not always obvious, which makes the task of automatically detecting and characterizing it very challenging.
Initially, it is necessary to consider that the very conception of Hate Speech is quite loose, and hardly agreed upon. For instance, even some very straight forward “ I hate…” sentences are not considered Hate Speech by many if they are directed at groups of people in positions of power, such as, men or white people: in these cases, some definitions only recognize Hate Speech if the target is a minority or vulnerable group.
Another problem arises from the fact that text in Online Social Networks is noisy, often sarcastic, associated with hyperlinks or images, and often doesn’t contain the entire meaning of a situation. On Twitter, for instance, a Tweet may seem hateful when analyzed in isolation but not when seen in the context of a larger conversation. A good example here is the use of racial slurs: whereas used depreciatively by outgroups, ingroups sometimes use them as terms of camaraderie or community.
These examples capture two aspects in which the detection and characterization of Hate Speech is more complicated than, for instance, the detection of spam or the detection of adult content (which are also desired in most social networks).
The first aspect to be considered is that Hate Speech relies heavily on context. This doesn’t mean that context hasn’t been used before in the detection of online misbehavior. It has. For example, the Internet Service Provider associated with an email is a key feature to detect whether it is spam or a legitimate message, and has nothing to do with the message itself. However, with Hate Speech, the context on which a message is sent defines whether it is hateful or not.
The second is that there is no consensus in the definition of Hate Speech and, unlike traditional machine learning tasks like object recognition, on which human performance is considered optimal (or a proxy for optimal), people consistently disagree on what may be considered Hate Speech, and algorithms must be trained acknowledging these different interpretations, which may cause high disagreement among human annotators.
Many of these findings stemmed from the Natural Language Processing (NLP) community, which has broadly discussed how hard it is to separate offensive speech from hate speech, the problems of annotating hate speech and the difficulties of analyzing code words used.
Given that the problem of automatically detecting and characterizing hateful content in Online Social Networks has to consider these two aspects, our group shifted the focus of the process from the content itself to the users who spread it, therefore moving from “how to detect Hate Speech?” to “how to detect users that spread Hate Speech?”.
By adopting this approach, we believe it is possible to mitigate the problem of context during the automated detection process. In that sense, an account previously flagged as a possible Hate Speech “spreader” should be worth some attention by the moderation mechanisms. Noticeably this shift alone doesn’t address the problem of consensus, we are currently working on some ideas for that, but for the remainder of this article, let us focus on how we can characterize users, given that identifying hateful users provides us better context.
How do we find hateful users?
Now that we decided that we want to work on a different granularity than most previous work — dealing with users rather than content, we have a problem: how can we find these users? They are certainly not prevalent and we still have the problem of how to define hate speech. Our approach was the following:
We chose Twitter as the platform to conduct our research and Twitter’s own Hateful Conduct Policy as our source of a Hate Speech definition.
Then, we ran an algorithm to randomly collect data from 100,386 from english speaking accounts, including their last 200 tweets, using Twitter’s API (Application Programming Interface). Notice that as some users have less than 200 tweets, so in total we have 19,536,788 tweets (approximately 194 tweets per person). We also collect the interactions between these accounts, keeping track on how they retweeted each other, as depicted in **Figure 1.
Initially, we identified accounts that used words or expressions that are very unlikely to be used in a context that does not characterize Hate Speech, like holohoax, racial treason and white genocide. Such words and expressions were chosen from two widely recognized databases in the literature (Hatebase.org and ADL’s hate symbol database).
Then we collected the users nearby these hate-related lexicon. The nearby part is specially important, as we do not want to limit our sample only to accounts that specifically tweeted the chosen hateful words, as they are more likely to be labeled as Hate Speech spreaders. We needed a diverse sample, because we didn’t want to be restricted to vocabulary that can be obviously characterized as hateful. Note: More technically, we find these nearby users by using something called a diffusion model, where we define a mathematical process through which users “influence” their neighborhood, so you become a bit more “nearby” to the users you retweeted, and if they happen to have used one of the words in our lexicon, you get up a bit of it for yourself. This is better explained in the original paper.
The final result was a sample of 4,972 users, alongside their 200 tweets. Notice that this actually represents approximately 964 thousand tweets! Which is quite a significant sample.
Figure 1. Network of 100,386 user accounts from Twitter. Shades of red depict the closeness of an user to others who employed words in our selected lexicon.
Then, we used Crowdflower’s, a service to crowdsource tasks to human annotators, to classify those users as “hateful” or “not hateful”. Each annotator was given a link to the webpage of a Twitter’s user profile (selected among the 4,972 previously selected) containing the 200 tweets that were collected. They were asked:
Does this account endorse content that is humiliating, derogatory or insulting towards some group of individuals (gender, religion, race, nationality) or support narratives associated with hate groups (white genocide, holocaust denial, jewish conspiracy, racial superiority)?
They were also asked to consider the whole context of the webpage rather then only individual publications or isolate words. As a result, annotators classified 544 out of 4,972 users as hateful.
Some examples of tweets by users considered to be hateful include antisemitism, where the use of echoes is a reference to jews (notice that the phrases were slightly modified for anonymity):
Our (((enemies))) have used drugs, alcohol, porn, bad food and degenerate culture to enslave us. How do we win? Stop consuming their garbage.
Racism and racial segregation — often in the narrative of ethnostates, made “mainstream” by white supremacists like Richard Spencer:
I agree 100%. Stop the hate. Let’s separate. Each race can have its own ethnostates (whites, blacks, mestizos, etc)
A general hatred towards females — often blaming them for economical and political problems:
There Are 2.6 Million Ukrainian Refugees, how much do you want to bet those women with the ““welcome”” signs would protest them coming here?
An interesting detail is that several of the accounts annotators considered to be hateful had the following image of a cartooned frog — a variation of the infamous Pepe — as a profile picture. The pictures where often customized, including different sets of clothes and facial hair — often alluding to some historical/political character.
Figure 2. “Groyper”, an illustration of Pepe the Frog which was present in several profiles considered to be hateful by annotators, often in some variation.
Among users that weren’t considered to be hateful by annotators, we highlight instances of anti-immigration stances:
The Danes must be pleased, it shall boost their commitment to diversity & multi-culturalism. Just like the Swedes next door: misguided.
And also foul language/offenses:
For real? Seriously? I am speechless! You will really? Dumb stupid bitch. (image of pro-immigration woman holding a banner)
After isolating the final sample of 544 hateful accounts, we tried to characterize them, in contrast with “normal” accounts. What we wanted was to see if there are any singularities when it comes to their network activity and language.
In addition, since we have the entire network, as depicted in Figure 1, we also look at the neighborhood of the users who were considered hateful — notice that, in practice, this means looking at users who retweeted hateful or normal users. The idea behind this is to understand the locality of the characteristics we analyze for hateful and normal users:
given a certain characteristic, are hateful and normal users inserted in neighborhoods of the network where this characteristic is prevalent?
As we will see soon, it is often the case. Additionally, due to homophily, we argue for the robustness of our results, as they are often observed not only in our limited (although significant) annotated sample, but also in the neighborhood of this sample, which is likely to share characteristics as birds of a feather flock together in social networks of all kinds.
Figure 3. Average values for several activity-related statistics for hateful users, normal users, and users in the neighborhood of those. avg(interval) was calculated on the 200 tweets extracted for each user. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.
We find that hateful users are power users, as depicted in Figure 3. They are posts more statuses per day, follow more people per day, favorite more tweets per day and tweet in shorter intervals. However they get, in average, significantly less followers each day. Notice that the same analysis holds if we compare their neighborhood in the graph (the users who retweeted the hateful users)! This suggests strong homophily, or in other words, that the users who retweet hateful users are pretty similar to hateful users themselves!
Figure 4. Median values for network centrality measures that capture the importance a user account has in the network of tweets. Hateful users are not in the periphery of the network.
Furthermore, another aspect we want to analyze is how important these users are! In Network Analysis, we have a set of metrics used for that purpose that we call “network centrality” metrics. They measure how important a node is in a network — using intuitions such as, is this node close to all other nodes in the network. When we analyzed such commonly-used measures of network centrality, we found that the median hateful user and hateful neighbor are more central in the network than their normal counterparts. This is a quite counter intuitive finding, considering that hateful users are usually seen as “lone wolves” and anti-social people. This is depicted in Figure 4.
Figure 5. Lexical analysis results using EMPATH. The idea here is to see how prevalent are words in determined categories (work, love, shame, politics, etc) in tweets by hateful accounts, normal accounts and their neighborhoods in the influence network.
Another intriguing finding came from lexical comparison between tweets posted by hateful users and their neighborhood and those posted by normal users and their neighborhood. Our results suggest that the first ones uses less words related to hate, anger, shame, terrorism, violence and sadness, contradicting what common sense may actually think happens when it comes to Hate Speech. Perhaps even more intriguingly, hateful users’ and their neighbor users’ tweets are more associated with the feeling of love than those of normal users, according to our lexical analysis. This results, presented in Figure 5, show how important it is to develop detection mechanisms that don’t rely solely on vocabulary. Some hypothesis our group came up for this is that the use of code-words and images play a strong role in the activity of these users.
What is next
Following on the idea that detecting hateful accounts is easier than classifying hateful content, we would like to develop mechanisms for the automated detection of Hate Speech in Online Social Networks based on this paradigm. Our future goal is to develop techniques that will help content moderator teams to flag Hate Speech, in such a way as to assist them quickly identify and take the necessary measures against hateful profiles. In that sense, we intend to develop human-machine collaboration-based techniques for detecting Hate Speech in different environments.
Another interesting direction is to work on the dimension of consensus, most approaches towards the moderation of hate speech are centered around regulatory entities (often the own Online Social Network). However, well designed systems may use the wisdom of the crowd (even polarized crowds) to curate the content in a decentralized and efficient fashion, as is the case with Wikipedia. Creating mechanisms that allow the community itself to moderate the content in Online Social Networks would be a great step towards a better and safer web.
For more on hate speech check out our paper on arxiv. This work will be presented at the MIS2 workshop @ WSDM’2018.