Hate speech in the Internet context: Unpacking the roles of Internet penetration,online legal regulation,and online opinion polarization from a transnational perspective

Abstract

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.

Keywords

hate speech Internet context panel data legal regulation opinion polarization

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Avdieieva

(2021) Emojis, not words: Hate, bullying and harassment. Centre for Democracy and rule of law. Available at: https://cedem.org.ua/en/analytics/emojis-not-words-hate-bullying-and-harassment/ (accessed 3 October 2022).

Becker

Byers

Jipson

(2000) The contentious American debate: The first amendment and internet-based hate speech. International Review of Law, Computers, & Technology 14(1): 33–41.

Benard

Doan

(2011) The conflict – cohesion hypothesis: Past, present, and possible futures. In: Thye

Lawler

(eds) Advances in Group Processes. Vol. 28. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.189–225.

Bertram

(2016) Terrorism, the internet and the social networks advantage: Exploring how terrorist organizations exploit aspects of the internet, social media and how these same platforms could be used to counter-violent extremism. Journal for Deradicalization 7: 225–252.

Blaya

(2019) Cyberhate: A review and content analysis of intervention strategies. Aggression and Violent Behavior 45: 163–172.

Bobo

(1999) Prejudice as group position: Micro foundations of a sociological approach to racism and race relations. Journal of Social Issues 55(3): 445–472.

Bobo

Tuan

(2006) Prejudice in politics: Group position, public opinion, and the Wisconsin treaty rights dispute. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Boyle

(2001) Hate speech--the United States versus the rest of the world. Maine Law Review 53: 487.

Brown

(2017) What is hate speech? Law and Philosophy 36(4): 419–468. http://doi.10.1007/s10982-017-9297-1.

10.

Brown

(2018) What is so special about online (as compared to offline) hate speech? Ethnicities 18(3): 297–326.

11.

Burch

(2001) Censoring hate speech in cyberspace: A new debate in a new America. North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology 3(1): 175–192.

12.

Burnstein

Vinokur

Trope

(1973) Interpersonal comparison versus persuasive argumentation: A more direct test of alternative explanations for group-induced shifts in individual choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 9(3): 236–245.

13.

Castaño-Pulgarín

Suárez-Betancur

Vega

LMT

, et al. (2021) Internet, social media and online hate speech. Systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior 58: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2021.101608.

14.

Chahal K (2017) Supporting victims of hate crime: A practitioner guide. Bristol: Policy Press.

15.

Chatfield

Reddick

Brajawidagda

(2015) Tweeting propaganda, radicalization and recruitment: Islamic state supporters multi-sided twitter networks. In: Zhang

Kim

(eds) Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Digital Government and Wicked Problems: Climate Change, Urbanization, and Inequality. New York, United States: ACM, pp.239–249.

16.

Chetty

Alathur

(2018) Hate speech review in the context of online social networks. Aggression and Violent Behavior 40: 108–118.

17.

Citron

(2014) Hate crimes in cyberspace. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

18.

Citron

Norton

(2011) Intermediaries and hate speech: Fostering digital citizenship for our information age. Boston University Law Review 91: 1435–1484.

19.

Clark

Linzer

(2015) Should I use fixed or random effects? Political Science Research and Methods 3(2): 399–408.

20.

Cohen-Almagor

(2015) Confronting the Internet’s dark side: Moral and social responsibility on the free highway. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

21.

Conover

Ratkiewicz

Francisco

, et al. (2011) Political polarization on twitter. In: Fifth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media, Barcelona, Spain, July 2011, PP.89-96. Available at: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/issue/view/277 (accessed 7 October 2022).

22.

Coppedge

Gerring

Knutsen

, et al. (2019) V-Dem codebook v9. Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project.

23.

Coppedge

Gerring

Knutsen

, et al. (2022) V-Dem codebook v12. Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project.

24.

Cortese

AJP

(2006) Opposing hate speech. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

25.

Council of Europe (2017) WE CAN! Taking action against hate speech through counter and alternative narratives. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/wecan-eng-final-23052017-web/168071ba08 (accessed 19 November 2022).

26.

Council of Europe (2020) BOOKMARKS: A manual for combating hate speech online through human rights education. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/bookmarksen2020-web2/16809e5789 (accessed 19 November 2022).

27.

Curran

(2012) Reinterpreting the internet. In: Curran

Fonton

Freedman

(eds) Misunderstanding the Internet. London: Routledge, pp.3–33.

28.

Daniels

(2013) Race and racism in internet studies: A review and critique. New Media & Society 15(5): 695–719. http://doi.10.1177/1461444812462849.

29.

Derzsy

(2019) The dynamics of online hate. Nature 573: 203–204.

30.

Dragiewicz

Burgess

Matamoros-Fernandez

, et al. (2018) Technology facilitated coercive control: Domestic violence and the competing roles of digital media platforms. Feminist Media Studies 18(4): 609–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2018.1447341.

31.

Estellés

Castellví

(2020) The educational implications of populism, emotions and digital hate speech: A dialogue with scholars from Canada, Chile, Spain, the UK, and the US. Sustainability 12(15): 6034.

32.

Fiorina

Abrams

(2008) Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science 11: 563–588.

33.

Foxman

Wolf

(2013) Viral hate: Containing its spread on the Internet. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

34.

Gagliardone

Gal

Alves

, et al. (2015) Countering online hate speech. Paris: Unesco Publishing.

35.

Gruzd

Roy

(2014) Investigating political polarization on Twitter: A Canadian perspective. Policy & Internet 6(1): 28–45.

36.

Hawdon

Oksanen

Räsänen

(2017) Exposure to online hate in four nations: A cross-national consideration. Deviant Behavior 38(3): 254–266.

37.

Henry

(2009) Social deviance. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

38.

Heyman

(1996) Hate speech and the Constitution. London, UK: Routledge.

39.

Heyman

(2008) Free speech and human dignity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

40.

Hong

Kim

(2016) Political polarization on Twitter: Implications for the use of social media in digital governments. Government Information Quarterly 33(4): 777–782.

41.

Jacobson

Schlink

(2012) Hate speech and self-restraint. In: Herz

Molnar

(eds) The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.217–241.

42.

Jamieson

Cappella

(2008) Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

43.

Johnson

Leahy

Restrepo

, et al. (2019) Hidden resilience and adaptive dynamics of the global online hate ecology. Nature 573(7773): 261–265. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1494-7.

44.

Kaakinen

Oksanen

Rasanen

(2018) Did the risk of exposure to online hate increase after the November 2015 Paris attacks? A group relations approach. Computers in Human Behavior 78(1): 90–97.

45.

Kaylor

(2019) Likes, retweets, and polarization. Review & Expositor 116(2): 183–192.

46.

Keipi

Nsi

Oksanen

, et al. (2017) Online hate and harmful content: Cross-national perspectives. London: Routledge.

47.

Koudenburg

Kiers

HAL

Kashima

(2021) A new opinion polarization index developed by integrating expert judgments. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.738258.

48.

Kubin

von Sikorski

(2021) The role of (social) media in political polarization: A systematic review. Annals of the International Communication Association 45(3): 188–206.

49.

Kwok

Wang

(2013) Locate the hate: Detecting tweets against blacks. In: Twenty-seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 14–18 July 2013. Palo Alto: AAAI Press, pp. 1621–1622.

50.

Lea

Spears

(1991) Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group decision making. Special issue: Computer-supported cooperative work and groupware. International Journal of Man Machine Studies 34: 283–301.

51.

Lea

Spears

(1995) Love at first byte? Building personal relationships over computer networks. In Wood

Duck

(eds) Under-studied Relationships: Off the Beaten Track. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 197–233.

52.

Leets

(2001) Response to internet hate sites: Is speech too free in cyberspace? Communication Law & Policy 6(3): 287–317. https://doi.10.1207/S15326926CLP0602_2.

53.

Levendusky

(2013) How partisan media polarize America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

54.

Lu J and Luo C (2020) Development consensus in the internet context: Penetration, freedom, and participation in 38 countries. Information Development 36(2): 288–300.

55.

Lu J and Yu X (2020) Does the internet make us more intolerant? A contextual analysis in 33 countries. Information, Communication & Society 23(2): 252–266.

56.

Matamoros-Fernández

Farkas

(2021) Racism, hate speech, and social media: A systematic review and critique. Television & New Media 22(2): 205–224.

57.

McLuhan

(1964) Understanding Media: The extensions of man. New York: Mentor. pp. 22-32.

58.

McPherson

Smith-Lovin

Cook

(2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27(1): 415–444.

59.

Meza

Vincze

Mogos

(2018) Targets of online hate speech in context: A comparative digital social science analysis of comments on public Facebook pages from Romania and Hungary. Intersections. East European Journal of Society and Politics 4(4): 26–50. https://doi.org/10.17356/ieejsp.v4i4.503.

60.

Ofcom (2019) Adults’ media use and attitudes report. Available at: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/149124/adults-media-use-and-attitudes-report.pdf (accessed 7 October 2022).

61.

Oliveres

(2018) Tackling online disability hate. Available at: https://social.shorthand.com/VictriaVic/ngRFHeHj3x/tackling-online-disability-hate (accessed 7 October 2022).

62.

Osaki

(2016) Diet passes Japan's first law to curb hate speech. Available at: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/05/24/national/social-issues/diet-passes-japans-first-law-curb-hate-speech/#.WgX0MmT81QI (accessed 7 October 2022).

63.

Papacharissi

(2004) Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society 6: 259–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444.

64.

Parekh

(2012) “Is there a case for banning hate speech?” Herz Molnar (eds.) The Content and Context of Hate Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 37–56.

65.

Park

(2021) Why so many young men in South Korea hate feminism. Available at: https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/06/23/young-south-korean-men-hate-liberals-feminists/ (accessed 7 October 2022).

66.

Paz

Montero-Díaz

Moreno-Delgado

(2020) Hate speech: A systematized review. SAGE Open 10(4): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020973022.

67.

Perry

Olsson

(2009) Cyberhate: The globalization of hate. Information & Communications Technology Law 18(2): 185–199. http://doi.10.1080/13600830902814984.

68.

Plümper

Troeger

(2019) Not so harmless after all: The fixed-effects model. Political Analysis 27(1): 21–45.

69.

Poland

(2016) Haters: Harassment, abuse, and violence. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

70.

Posner

(2002) The speech market and the legacy of Schenck. In: Bollinger

Stone

(eds) Eternally Vigilant: Free Speech in the Modern era. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp.120–151.

71.

Post

Hare

Weinstein

(2009) Hate speech. In: Hare

Weinstein

(eds) Extreme Speech and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.123–138.

72.

Postman

(1970) What is media ecology? Available at: https://www.media-ecology.org/What-Is-Media-Ecology (accessed 7 October 2022).

73.

Proctor

Linley

Maltby

(2009) Youth life satisfaction: A review of the literature. Journal of Happiness Studies 10(5): 583–630. http://doi.10.1007/s10902-008-9110-9.

74.

Rabe-Hesketh

Skrondal

(2012) Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata (Volume I: Continuous responses). College Station: Stata Press.

75.

Seglow

(2016) Hate speech, dignity, and self-respect. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19(2): 1103–1116.

76.

Sherif

(1966) In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

77.

Shin

Thorson

(2017) Partisan selective sharing: The biased diffusion of fact-checking messages on social media. Journal of Communication 67(2): 233–255.

78.

Shmargad

Sanchez

(2020) Social media influence and electoral competition. Social Science Computer Review 40(1): 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439320906803.

79.

Sorial

(2015) Hate speech and distorted communication: Rethinking the limits of incitement. Law and Philosophy 34(3): 299–324.

80.

Strate

(2008) Studying media as media: McLuhan and the media ecology approach. Media Tropes eJournal 1: 127–142.

81.

Strossen

(2018) Hate: Why we should resist it with free speech, not censorship. New York: Oxford University Press.

82.

Stroud

(2010) Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication 60(3): 556–576.

83.

Sunstein

(2001) Republic.com. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

84.

Sunstein

(2007) Republic.com 2.0. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

85.

Sunstein

(2009) Going to extremes: How like minds unite and divide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

86.

Tsesis

(2001) Hate in cyberspace: Regulating hate speech on the internet. San Diego Law Review 38: 817–874.

87.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2019) Human development report 2019: Beyond income, beyond averages, beyond today: Inequalities in human development in the 21st century. Report, UNDP, New York, NY. December.

88.

Uyheng

Carley

(2020) Bots and online hate during the COVID-19 pandemic: Case studies in the United States and the Philippines. Journal of Computational Social Science 3(2): 445–468.

89.

Waldron

(2012) The harm in hate speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

90.

Williams

(2019) Hatred behind the screens: A report on the rise of online hate speech. Report, Cardiff University and Mishcon de Reya.

91.

Wojcieszak

Garrett

(2018) Social identity, selective exposure, and affective polarization: How priming national identity shapes attitudes toward immigrants via news selection. Human Communication Research 44(3): 247–273.

92.

Wojcieszak

Sobkowicz

, et al. (2022) What information drives political polarization? Comparing the effects of in-group praise, out-group derogation, and evidence-based communications on polarization. The International Journal of Press/Politics 27(2): 325–352.

93.

Zhu

(2013) Panel data analysis in public administration: Substantive and statistical consideration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23(2): 395–428.