PROTOCOL: Online interventions for reducing hate speech and cyberhate: A systematic review

Abstract

The internet has become an everyday tool to communicate and network with people around the globe, but its perceived anonymity, availability, and instant access have made it an environment conducive to spreading hateful content and connecting to like-minded individuals with similar hateful ideologies. Hate speech and other prejudice-motivated behavior, however, need to be considered on a continuum of victimization, and “like other social processes, [be seen as] dynamic and in a state of constant movement and change, rather than static and fixed” (Bowling, 1993, p. 238). It is a social process that is marked by multiple, repeat, and constant victimization (Bowling, 1993), with victims no longer distinguishing between specific hateful events, and rather normalizing experiences of hateful conduct “as an everyday, unwanted but routine reality of being 'different'” (Chakraborti, 2016, p. 581). Understanding hateful behavior and victimization as a process allows us to connect “low-level” incidents of hateful behavior to the more serious and life-threatening incidents at the more extreme end of the spectrum (Bowling & Phillips, 2002). The Christchurch attacks in New Zealand and their link to hateful communication on the online platform 8chan is only one such example of how online hate speech and cyberhate can escalate to “in real life” attacks, leaving the online sphere and spilling into the offline world. As per Allport's (1954) scale of prejudice, more extreme forms of prejudice-motivated violence are founded on “lower level” acts of prejudice and bias, therefore, hateful content online should not be ignored. Intervening online to interrupt or counter hateful behavior already at the lower end of the scale of prejudice becomes important; online interventions which are to be identified and synthesized through this systematic review. Allport's (1954) scale of prejudice will be the basis for this systematic review. Early on, Allport (1954) asserted that individuals with negative attitudes toward groups are likely to act out on these prejudices “somehow, somewhere” (p. 14), and that the more intense such negative attitudes are, the more hostile the action will be. Allport (1954) put forward a scale of acts of prejudice to illustrate different degrees of acting out negative attitudes, a scale that starts with antilocution (or what we call hate speech), described as explicitly expressing prejudices through negative verbal remarks to either friends or strangers (Allport, 1954). Avoidance is the next level on the scale of prejudice, with people avoiding members of certain groups, followed by discrimination, where distinctions are made between people based on prejudices, which leads to the active exclusion of members from certain groups (Allport, 1954). This level of acting on prejudices is routed in institutional or systemic prejudices, for example, in the differential treatment of people within employment or education practices, but also within the criminal justice system, or through social exclusion of certain minority group members. Physical attack is the next level on the scale of prejudice, which includes violence against members of certain groups by physically acting on negative attitudes or prejudices. The last level is extermination, which is the ultimate act of violence against members of specific groups, an expression of prejudice that systematically eradicates an entire group of people (e.g., genocide or lynchings; Allport, 1954). Allport's (1954) scale of prejudice makes it clear how hate speech/cyberhate is connected to more extreme forms of violence motivated by specific prejudices and biases, with hate speech (or antilocutions) being only the starting point on a 5-point continuum (Bilewicz & Soral, 2020). The importance of this scale of prejudice is not only that it clearly illustrates a range of different ways and intensity levels to act out prejudices, but also the “progression from verbal aggression to physical violence or, in other words, the performative potential of hate speech” (Allport, 1954; Kopytowska & Baider, 2017, p. 138). This is where interventions at the lower level of the scale of prejudices, interventions targeting hate speech/cyberhate, become important. There is no universal definition of hateful conduct online, but there is some consensus that hate speech targets disadvantaged social groups (Jacobs & Potter, 1998). Bakalis (2018) more narrowly defines cyberhate as “any use of technology to express hatred towards a person or persons because of a protected characteristic—namely race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity” (p. 87). Another definition that also points out the ambiguity and challenges involved with identifying more subtle forms of hate speech, and also making reference to the potential threat of hate speech escalating to offline violence, is that put forward by Fortuna and Nunes (2018), who analyzed various definitions of hate speech “Hate speech is language that attacks or diminishes, that incites violence or hate against groups, based on specific characteristics such as physical appearance, religion, descent, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or other, and it can occur with different linguistic styles, even in subtle forms or when humour is used” (p. 5). In this systematic review, we also distinguish hate speech/cyberhate specifically from other forms of harmful online activity, such as cyber-bullying, harassment, trolling or flaming, as perpetrators of such online behavior repeatedly and systematically target specific individuals to cause upset, to seek out negative reactions, or to create discord on the internet. In contrast, hate speech/cyberhate is more general and does not necessarily target a specific individual (Al-Hassan & Al-Dossari, 2019), instead hate speech/cyberhate heavily features prejudice, bias and intolerance toward certain groups within society. With the majority of hate speech happening online, interventions that take place online are an important way to challenge prejudice and bias, potentially reaching masses of people across the globe. The unique feature of the internet is that such individual negative attitudes toward minority groups and more extreme hateful ideology can find its way onto certain platforms and can instantly connect people sharing similar prejudices. By closing the social and spatial distance, the internet creates a form of collective identity (Perry, 2000, p. 123) and can convince individuals with even the most extreme ideologies that others out there share their views (Gerstenfeld et al., 2003). In addition, the enormous frequency of hate speech/cyberhate within online environments creates a sense of normativity to hatred and the potential for acts of intergroup violence or political radicalization (Bilewicz & Soral, 2020, p. 9). It is, therefore, important to challenge this hate speech epidemic (Bilewicz & Soral, 2020), especially since hate movements have increasingly crossed into the mainstream (Perry, 2000). With hate speech/cyberhate posing a threat to the social order by violating social norms (Soral et al., 2018), perceptions of social norms as either supporting or opposing prejudice has been found to have an influence on how individuals react online (Hsueh et al., 2015). Seeing other people post prejudiced (opposed to antiprejudiced) comments online can lead to the adoption of an online group's biases and can influence an individual's own perceptions and feelings toward the targeted stigmatized group (Hsueh et al., 2015). In addition, research around desensitization also suggests that being exposed to hate speech leads to desensitization, which further leads to an increase in outgroup prejudice toward groups targeted by such speech (Soral et al., 2018). With society increasingly recognizing that it is inappropriate to express prejudices in public settings, many interventions will include some form of social norms nudging to reduce such prejudices; interventions that “nudge behavior in the desired direction” (Titley et al., 2014, p. 60). Therefore, hate speech not only affects minority group members, but also has an influence on opinions of majority group members (Soral et al., 2018), which makes strategies that can elicit change in people's prejudice-related attitudes crucial (see, e.g., Zitek & Hebl, 2007). Governments around the world face increased demand for understanding and countering hateful ideology and violent extremism both online and offline (e.g., the Christchurch Call in New Zealand). The U.S. Government's 2011 CVE Strategy highlights the importance of ongoing research and analysis, the sharing of knowledge and best practices internationally, and the countering of hateful ideologies and propaganda (see also Department of Homeland Security, 2016, 2019). The goal of this systematic review is to use an integrated and interdisciplinary approach to examine the effectiveness of online campaigns and strategies for reducing hate speech and cyberhate. The internet also provides an opportunity to reach masses of people who have been exposed to hateful content and ideology online, therefore, this systematic review will focus on online interventions addressing online hate speech and cyberhate. The specific settings where we would expect to see the online interventions deployed will be on websites, text messaging applications, and online and social media platforms including, but not limited to, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, Google, YouTube, and Snapchat. As mentioned previously, many online interventions will be based on social norm nudges to reduce online hate. These interventions aim to change people's online behavior and encourage individuals or groups to conform to established social norms. The communication of social norms can happen through establishing community standards on online platforms themselves (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc.), through more formal online training courses, or through anti-hate speech/anti-cyberhate campaigns teaching people to recognize hate, embrace diversity, and stand up to bias. Such prevention campaigns are designed to challenge bias and build ally behaviors by supplying people with constructive responses to combat, for example, antisemitism racism, and homophobia, as well as provide resources to help people explore and critically reflect on current events. Other interventions may add messages to hateful online comments, counter hateful content or extremist ideology, or redirect people to more credible sources. Both peers and parents have been found to foster racial consciousness and identity development, define and ethnic and how their group's social and their within that group by an understanding of and sexual & and experiences with racism, discrimination, and their race, religion, or & This is important because peers and parents who against or that the is a threat may their prejudices to their or which lead to the social world with similar views who or are especially to such practices as that these views will provide with a sense of and of how an individual certain or sexual biases, the online interventions review are to target and reduce the of hateful content such as as well as the of hate speech (e.g., or hate speech or example, some interventions take a rather messaging approach by racial and training through or that provide for and to and people of and the community from credible sources. The understanding of groups is by experiences with people within the These a who is to to experiences and who can in and These interventions to and negative with specific and by sharing different points of based on such as for and such interventions to on specific behaviors through the public of norms or individual by Other such as the are in their These interventions and of content that challenge hate speech/cyberhate and propaganda & 2018). people who are for extremist content online may be to and content that such These are designed to be in instead of that explicitly extremist The goal of this of interventions is to provide credible content that extremist messaging but does not attack the of In to hate speech these interventions provide with to social such as and and such as and Facebook, have also to a similar people who on or share or which are with and are harmful to minority groups, to more credible content and sources. The interventions are designed to these perceptions (e.g., of the community as criminal or the community as as as by the of and reducing the these individuals will and sexual prejudices et al., 2019). in is and and that can or being exposed to and from minority allows a person to the and of the people their racial rather than from the of the majority society et al., et al., by which can lead to the of attitudes and the of hateful from the review will understanding of the effectiveness of online anti-hate will help that are to the and will a in individual the of It will and of the current state of such online what and which of interventions to and help in of the identified one review, as similar to the review, however, on the and characteristics of interventions for cyberhate and not include a other similar on to extremist online content et al., and communication with et al., 2018). of the and one review identified for further to potential The include and strategies by et and that seek to increase community for reducing violent extremism behavior, attitudes and by et further review on a similar is a review 2020), for the prevention of violent systematic review of targeted by et (2018) at the of review is from the et review in that we are on hate speech and cyberhate approach to a specific of radicalization (e.g., we are to a systematic review and the by et on interventions either as or of community review will focus specifically on online which may or may not but will not be the focus be the basis of the online from et (2018) we review will also but will based on and of we are in online interventions that campaigns to include a of interventions and radicalization to include everyday hate and In to a the review would build on by the to include both as well as limited to include interventions toward and and not focus on The of this review is to the on the effectiveness of online interventions at reducing the of online hate speech/cyberhate what are online interventions in reducing online hate is effectiveness to the of online hate speech/cyberhate is effectiveness to the characteristics of individuals the online hate speech/cyberhate (e.g., gender, Both and will be These will research to include the of to treatment and that of such as are also and will be as include a group of to in the treatment include that or and to between may but are not limited to, analysis, and in of a limited we will also include with groups that provide of for both will also be include with a group and with or a group than include that a group of who either to in the or who in a but out to the of a include other online interventions or in which not or an online Both and of gender sexual orientation, or will be for this review. The will be with a of through The will be with a of and in which only a of the is for example, a in both online and offline hate speech be not based on as will be and we will take to that only online will of the of a for through and be we will elicit the of a the of and will be these will be will be and be in the and of strategies to the potential of The is the of responses to hate speech/cyberhate, which includes the countering of violent extremism and to online interventions that are range from hateful content online specific (e.g., of social media to to online hate targeted strategies (e.g., through hateful of on online include the and of online and content online content and & 2018), hateful online comments to comments et al., 2018), and to out of online are also in interventions such as the of 8chan this online platform to “in real life” attacks in New Zealand and the and interventions that further hateful online content and radicalization similar events. hateful content online such has up speech as well as around online and hateful groups on to other online to hateful content online targeted strategies therefore, been as an online include the from & 2020), the use of to online responses to in online where hate speech has been et al., 2019), and online to for example, systematic review will include a range of online many of which have only other strategies identified by are the and of hate speech/cyberhate technology as well as the of online and These interventions include online the use of online counter online online and online narrowly to extremist ideologies and hate speech that incites targeted violence and In such interventions seek to or the of violent extremism or the of hate speech and extremist by and to such The and for this systematic review for example, provide people with online and challenge 2019). will include online with an online (e.g., and and and online of these interventions may by individuals no longer in the of cyberhate and extremist These online interventions may be by and internet or or in the of The may be routine and to hate speech/cyberhate or online The of is the of hateful content By we to the and of hateful content such as The of hate speech may include or being a of a hate or hate speech or being a target of online hate speech/cyberhate, or hate speech of include and of such as and attitudes toward hate a or (or to be There will be no exclusion on the of for the and can be from institutional or by will include of from strategies to increase the scale of of potentially anti-hate speech and interventions for These include to or to the of and can also include such as a of hate speech/cyberhate to other platforms instead of a of hate described in will be in the will focus on the between and the current The starting with the when the internet to a and community et al., are for an approach in the lower end of to the may be it is hate speech/cyberhate online through or and some may of will also be limited to in and but of in as we are on online content that can be and across and The language reflect the language of the review will where the of in will be between the members of the review These will be and as a from the in the review. In the of a change in we will online internet 8chan speech” cyberhate speech hate language The described will be to the which as well as includes and will also forward and or reference of we across in in to and (e.g., et al., & et al., and will the reference of from will forward and for that from the for and the of Hate as the content from these with the review we will and of for to that may be in will of the process in to and This will include a of and at which the the is more than from the for the review, we will and will the for the of and platform or to the and the for the forward is we will use because the will both and The that range from to and research has on to on of current social & 2018), to reduce hate speech online & 2020), as well as on to online and has been to distinguish between hateful and comments on social media network to hateful online comments to comments, have been to as well as through and et al., 2018). The for the of online interventions on content and of hate speech/cyberhate or extremist and will on and at point (e.g., will explore on and across different of or (e.g., online or These will the of by with the in to by et to the of that will need to be in this review. may on for this will be to to but only one for a provides for an we will the as The of is where from the research will be as unique only the does not include involved in other or from the will be as a In these the with the most will be the and the will be with a will as a and use to for for that at we will and or the in or the between and the an the include an online the hate on the will the the an online prevention or with an on online hate speech/cyberhate or and where have to the will be through to of the of the these and will be these to limited within the and these will also be through to feature will from that have or and will the likely to be in the systematic review which allows for a and are potentially at the and will be for to the and the will be is the of the text the of a will be review also to or will from the This will be in a form that will be of the review. between will be by consensus or a forms will be and online (see and for specific will be described as a and in a characteristics we will and with standards and of As of we will the of in the review. is from we will to such and of bias will be as is for and will of bias the of bias In for we will focus the of bias on bias from the process and bias in of the et al., 2019). we will focus the of bias on bias in the of and of bias in et al., et al., the we will for the of and based on (e.g., for of bias will be and of bias. In with will be in a of for the of may be a as platforms or may hateful This may lead to bias or the end of the we how we bias. the we use the bias in the of the in and to of bias to may be in the form of or not as will be and we will take to the of the of and we will and by with a to provide the and by making and based on a and are not we will not we will either a or on the of will the of within individual in the of described in the for of will be followed for with more than or to of in the & where active will be and against or this is not a of will be for The of such a will be by review who will be to The for this review is content and of hate speech/cyberhate, extremist and online the of for this will be As the of for this review will be the In the of with for the from a will be as the with the we will use the for and the by to it to the & The will be a with for the and its The will be and specifically the to use in the of interventions and where we will by (e.g., and will also for by these as in a et al., also see et al., different are we will that for have the for we will the of and when to is we will for from are we will these to we are at the we will to the of the and will into based on (e.g., political etc.), and characteristics to will be in with and that a of are for this review, we not in and it is that we will have a of to conduct a As we will group to are or we will for groups are the and the from the group from the from the explore we will use the of for a to or we will use will be a the may have an on the and will a the of the (e.g., and the focus of the (e.g., antisemitism general racism, homophobia, will explore the between other features and and the review of not have to the review we not expect to that will be for bias will be in will the from and will include and other such as and will be considered to bias and we will use the bias, and in This review will not include has knowledge on violence, and has knowledge on hate hate speech, racism, and review has in has one on and the other on of and have in and have systematic on various and and for review. This review is by the and and the and is an for the and within the will in the review of this and the systematic review. This review will be and it will be the of that

Topics & Concepts