Scribd Logo
Unggah

Selamat datang di Scribd!

  • Counterspeech On Twitter: A Field Study

    Diunggah oleh

    Dangerous Speech Project
    9K tayangan39 halaman
    As hateful and extremist content proliferates online, ‘counterspeech’ is gaining currency as a means of diminishing it.1 No wonder: counterspeech doesn’t impinge on freedom of expression and can be practiced by almost anyone, requiring neither law nor institutions. The idea that ‘more speech’ is a remedy for harmful speech has been familiar in liberal democratic thought at least since U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis declared it in 1927.2 We are still without evidence, however, that counterspeech actually diminishes harmful speech or its effects. This would be very hard to measure offline but is a bit easier online, where speech and responses to it are recorded. In this paper we make a modest start. Specifically we ask: in what forms and circumstances does counterspeech ­ which we define as a direct response to hateful or dangerous speech ­ favorably influence discourse and perhaps even behavior? To our knowledge, this is the first study of Internet users (not a government or organization) counterspeaking spontaneously on a public platform like Twitter. Our findings are qualitative and anecdotal, since reliable quantitative detection of hateful speech or counterspeech is a problem yet to be fully solved due to the wide variations in language employed, although we made progress, as reported in an earlier paper that was part of this project (Saleem, Dillon, Benesch, & Ruths, 2016). We have identified four categories or “vectors” in each of which counterspeech functions quite differently, as hateful speech also does: one­to­one exchanges, many­to­one, one­to­many, and many­to­many. We also present a set of counterspeech strategies extrapolated from our data, with examples of tweets that illustrate those strategies at work, and suggestions for which ones may be successful.

    Judul Asli

    Counterspeech on Twitter: A Field Study

    Hak Cipta

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Format Tersedia

    PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd

    Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

    Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

    Laporkan Dokumen Ini
    As hateful and extremist content proliferates online, ‘counterspeech’ is gaining currency as a means of diminishing it.1 No wonder: counterspeech doesn’t impinge on freedom of expression and can be practiced by almost anyone, requiring neither law nor institutions. The idea that ‘more speech’ is a remedy for harmful speech has been familiar in liberal democratic thought at least since U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis declared it in 1927.2 We are still without evidence, however, that counterspeech actually diminishes harmful speech or its effects. This would be very hard to measure offline but is a bit easier online, where speech and responses to it are recorded. In this paper we make a modest start. Specifically we ask: in what forms and circumstances does counterspeech ­ which we define as a direct response to hateful or dangerous speech ­ favorably influence discourse and perhaps even behavior? To our knowledge, this is the first study of Internet users (not a government or organization) counterspeaking spontaneously on a public platform like Twitter. Our findings are qualitative and anecdotal, since reliable quantitative detection of hateful speech or counterspeech is a problem yet to be fully solved due to the wide variations in language employed, although we made progress, as reported in an earlier paper that was part of this project (Saleem, Dillon, Benesch, & Ruths, 2016). We have identified four categories or “vectors” in each of which counterspeech functions quite differently, as hateful speech also does: one­to­one exchanges, many­to­one, one­to­many, and many­to­many. We also present a set of counterspeech strategies extrapolated from our data, with examples of tweets that illustrate those strategies at work, and suggestions for which ones may be successful.

    Hak Cipta:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Unduh sebagai PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    9K tayangan39 halaman

    Counterspeech On Twitter: A Field Study

    Diunggah oleh

    Dangerous Speech Project
    As hateful and extremist content proliferates online, ‘counterspeech’ is gaining currency as a means of diminishing it.1 No wonder: counterspeech doesn’t impinge on freedom of expression and can be practiced by almost anyone, requiring neither law nor institutions. The idea that ‘more speech’ is a remedy for harmful speech has been familiar in liberal democratic thought at least since U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis declared it in 1927.2 We are still without evidence, however, that counterspeech actually diminishes harmful speech or its effects. This would be very hard to measure offline but is a bit easier online, where speech and responses to it are recorded. In this paper we make a modest start. Specifically we ask: in what forms and circumstances does counterspeech ­ which we define as a direct response to hateful or dangerous speech ­ favorably influence discourse and perhaps even behavior? To our knowledge, this is the first study of Internet users (not a government or organization) counterspeaking spontaneously on a public platform like Twitter. Our findings are qualitative and anecdotal, since reliable quantitative detection of hateful speech or counterspeech is a problem yet to be fully solved due to the wide variations in language employed, although we made progress, as reported in an earlier paper that was part of this project (Saleem, Dillon, Benesch, & Ruths, 2016). We have identified four categories or “vectors” in each of which counterspeech functions quite differently, as hateful speech also does: one­to­one exchanges, many­to­one, one­to­many, and many­to­many. We also present a set of counterspeech strategies extrapolated from our data, with examples of tweets that illustrate those strategies at work, and suggestions for which ones may be successful.

    Hak Cipta:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Unduh sebagai PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    dari 39

    CounterspeechonTwitter:AFieldStudy

    AreportforPublicSafetyCanadaundertheKanishkaProjectby

    SusanBenesch1,4,DerekRuths2,KellyPDillon3,HajiMohammadSaleem2,andLucasWright4

    BerkmanKleinCenterforInternet&Society,HarvardUniversity,Massachusetts
    SchoolofComputerScience,McGillUniversity,Montreal
    3
    SchoolofCommunication,TheOhioStateUniversity,Ohio
    4
    DangerousSpeechProject,WashingtonD.C.

    Contactauthors:
    SusanBeneschsbenesch@cyber.law.harvard.edu

    DerekRuthsderek.ruths@mcgill.ca

    TableofContents
    Introduction

    ReviewofExistingResearch

    HateSpeechResearch

    CounterspeechResearch

    Findings

    Methods

    Coding

    11

    MethodologicalChallenges

    11

    Definitions

    13

    Vectors

    14

    OnetoOne

    14

    OnetoMany

    16

    ManytoOne

    16

    ManytoMany

    17

    Taxonomyofcounterspeech

    18

    Presentingfactstocorrectmisstatementsormisperceptions

    18

    Pointingouthypocrisyorcontradictions

    20

    Warningofofflineoronlineconsequences

    20

    Affiliation

    22

    Denouncinghatefulordangerousspeech

    24

    Visualcommunication

    25

    Humor

    27

    Tone

    30

    TypesofResponses

    31

    Apologyorrecanting

    31

    Deletion

    32

    Morehatefulspeech

    32

    Civilconversation

    32

    Morecounterspeech

    33

    ConclusionsandIdeasforFutureResearch

    33

    WorksCited

    35

    Introduction
    Ashatefulandextremistcontentproliferatesonline,counterspeechisgainingcurrencyasa
    meansofdiminishingit.1Nowonder:counterspeechdoesntimpingeonfreedomof
    expressionandcanbepracticedbyalmostanyone,requiringneitherlawnorinstitutions.The
    ideathatmorespeechisaremedyforharmfulspeechhasbeenfamiliarinliberal
    democraticthoughtatleastsinceU.S.SupremeCourtJusticeLouisBrandeisdeclareditin
    1927.2Wearestillwithoutevidence,however,thatcounterspeechactuallydiminishes
    harmfulspeechoritseffects.Thiswouldbeveryhardtomeasureofflinebutisabiteasier
    online,wherespeechandresponsestoitarerecorded.Inthispaperwemakeamodeststart.
    Specificallyweask:inwhatformsandcircumstancesdoescounterspeechwhichwedefine
    asadirectresponsetohatefulordangerousspeechfavorablyinfluencediscourseand
    perhapsevenbehavior?
    Toourknowledge,thisisthefirststudyofInternetusers(notagovernmentororganization)
    counterspeakingspontaneouslyonapublicplatformlikeTwitter.Ourfindingsarequalitative
    andanecdotal,sincereliablequantitativedetectionofhatefulspeechorcounterspeechisa
    problemyettobefullysolvedduetothewidevariationsinlanguageemployed,althoughwe
    madeprogress,asreportedinanearlierpaperthatwaspartofthisproject(Saleem,Dillon,
    Benesch,&Ruths,2016).
    Wehaveidentifiedfourcategoriesorvectorsineachofwhichcounterspeechfunctions
    quitedifferently,ashatefulspeechalsodoes:onetooneexchanges,manytoone,
    onetomany,andmanytomany.Wealsopresentasetofcounterspeechstrategies
    extrapolatedfromourdata,withexamplesoftweetsthatillustratethosestrategiesatwork,
    andsuggestionsforwhichonesmaybesuccessful.

    ReviewofExistingResearch
    Herewereviewpreviousstudiesofonlinecounterspeechandalsoofthespeechitisintended
    tocounter.Bothfieldsarestillyoung,soliteratureislimited.Hatespeechandextremist
    speechonlinehavebothbeenstudiedbymultipleauthors.3Asweandothershavenoted
    elsewhere,hatespeechisawidelyusedtermbutthereisnoconsensusonitsdefinition,in
    laworthesocialsciences(Benesch,2014Mendel,2012).Ingeneralitmeansdenigratinga
    personorpeoplebasedonhis/her/theirmembershipinagroup,butstudiesofhatespeech,
    likelaws,haveemployedavarietyofdefinitions.Inourownstudy,weavoidedtheterm
    1

    ForexampleFacebooksCOOSherylSandbergsaidinaJanuary2016speechattheWorldEconomicForumin
    Davos,Switzerland,Thebestantidotetobadspeechisgoodspeech.Thebestantidotetohateistolerance.
    Amplifyingcounterspeechtothespeechthatsperpetratinghateis,wethink,byfarthebestanswer.
    http://www.recode.net/2016/1/21/11588986/wanttocombathatespeechonfacebooktryalikeattacksaysco
    o
    2
    JusticeBrandeisassertedinhisconcurringopinioninWhitneyvCaliforniathattoexposefalsehoodand
    fallaciesandtoaverttheevil,theremedyismorespeech,notenforcedsilence(WhitneyvCalifornia,
    1927,U.S.SupremeCourt,p.377)
    3
    Cyberbullyingalsohasanextensiveliterature,butisoutsidethescopeofthisproject.

    becauseofitsambiguityandthedifficultyincodingconsistentlyforit,insteadusinghateful
    speechanddangerousspeech,asexplainedbelow.
    HateSpeechResearch
    Thereissubstantialliteraturedescribingandanalyzinghatespeech,onlineandoffline.
    Withinit,wehavedrawnonrecentanalyticalstudiessuchasTheContentandContextof
    HateSpeech(Herz&Molnar,2012)andDanielleCitronsHateCrimesinCyberspace
    (2014),e.g.forideasonhowtodrawdefinitionalboundaries.Otherworksusefullydescribe
    thebreadthandvarietyofhatespeechonline,includingViralHate(Foxman&Wolf,2013),
    ClickHeretoEndHate(2014)bythehumanrightsorganizationMuslimAdvocates,and
    IntermediariesandHateSpeech:FosteringDigitalCitizenshipforOurInformationAge
    (Citron&Norton,2011).
    Anotherlineofresearchonhatespeechconsistsofeffortstodetectitautomatically,online.
    Thisismuchmoredifficultthanitmightatfirstseem,notonlybecauseofthedefinitional
    problem,butbecauseofthewidevarietyofwaysinwhichpeopleexpresshatredand
    contempt:theydonotalwaysuseslurs,anddonotalwaysuseslurshatefully.Onestudy
    attemptedtocodeforracismusingaNaiveBayesclassifier(Kwok&Wang,2013).This
    workconfirmedthedefinitionalchallengeofhatespeechbyshowingannotatorscouldagree
    only33%ofthetimeonwhethertextscontainedhatespeech.Anotherconsideredthe
    problemofdetectingantiSemiticcommentsinYahoonewsgroupsusingsupportvector
    machines(Warner&Hirschberg,2012).Notably,thetrainingdataforthisclassifierwere
    handcoded.Manuallyannotatingtrainingdataisthemostfamiliarwaytoproduceadataset
    fortraining,butitadmitsthepotentialforhardtotracebiasinthespeechultimatelydetected.
    Athirdstudyusedalinguisticrulebasedapproachontweetsthathadbeencollectedusing
    offensivekeywords(Xiangetal.,2012).Likemanuallyannotateddata,keywordbaseddata
    hassignificantbiasingeffectsaswell.
    Dinakar,Reichart,andLieberman(2011)exploredthedetectionofharassing(notnecessarily
    hatespeech)commentsonYouTube.Theyidentifiedsexuality,race&culture,and
    intelligenceasthethreemajorthemesinuserharassment.Fromtheperformanceof
    classificationsystemsthatincludenaiveBayesandSVM,theyconcludedthatlabelspecific
    classifiersaremoreeffectivethanmulticlassclassifiersatdetectingharassment.Theyfurther
    observedthatblatantharassmentiseasiertomodelthanexpressionsinvolvingsarcasmand
    euphemismwhichoftenappearinhatespeechaswell.Theauthorshadtoperformmanual
    codingtogeneratesmalltrainingandtestingdatasets.
    Inanothereffortatautomatedcodingofhatespeech,theFloatingSheepscholarscollective,
    whichspecializesinmappinggeolocateddata,publishedamapin2013,identifyingthe
    ostensiblymosthatefulplacesintheUnitedStateswithgeolocatedtweetsthatusedoffensive
    words(Stevens,2013b).Theblogwascriticizedforextrapolatingbroadlyfromasmalland
    arguablyskewedsample(tweetsarenotallgeolocated,notallhatredisexpressedwithslurs,
    andsomeformsofhate,suchasmisogyny,wereomitted).Somereaderswereoffended,also,

    thattheblogpublishedthehatefultermsforwhichtheysearched.Theresearchersresponded
    byclarifyingtheirgoalsandmethods(Stevens,2013a).InanotheronlineeffortaCanadian
    NGO,theSentinelProject,launchedasitein2013calledHateBase,whichinvitesInternet
    userstoaddtoalistofslursandinsultingwordsinmanylanguages.HateBasedoesnot,as
    farasweknow,attemptcodingordetection.
    Althoughwedidnotfocusonextremistorterroristspeechinthisproject,wedrewon
    relevantliteraturesuchasWhoMattersOnline:MeasuringInfluence,EvaluatingContent
    andCounteringViolentExtremisminOnlineSocialNetworks(Berger&Strathearn,2013),
    TheISISTwitterCensus:DefiningandDescribingthePopulationofISISSupporterson
    Twitter(Berger&Morgan,2015),andTheIslamicState(Barrett,2014).
    CounterspeechResearch
    Thereisasmallbodyofexistingresearchoncounterspeechwhichissummarizedinsome
    detailhereasitshouldbeausefulcontributionnootherreviewseemstobeavailable.Nearly
    alloftheworksofarfocusesoncounteringeitherhatefulspeechorextremistspeech.Many
    authorsobserve,aswedo,thatcounterspeechvariesgreatly,intoneandincommunicative
    strategies,andseveralpapersoffercategoriesofcounterspeech,providingusefulframeworks
    forobservationandfurtherstudy.Itisimportanttonote,though,thatsomeauthorsusethe
    termcounterspeechbroadly,torefertoanycontentthatcountersorcontradictshatefulor
    extremistcontentgenerallynotnecessarilyinresponsetoanyparticularstatementorspeech
    act.Weusecounterspeechtoreferonlytoaresponse.Forexpressionthatcountersanother
    narrativeorviewingeneralamuchbroadercategorythatcouldincludeformsofeducation,
    propaganda,andpublicinformationweusethetermcounternarrative.
    Theliteraturethusfarcontainsverylimitedevidencethatcounterspeech(oranyparticular
    varietyofit)iseffectiveinchangingthought,onlinespeech,orofflinebehavior.Nonetheless,
    someauthorsoffersuggestionsonwhichformsofcounterspeechmaybemostusefulfor
    counteringhatredand/orextremism.
    Amongfeaturesortechniquesofcounterspeechthatotherresearchershaveidentified,the
    U.S.basedAntiDefamationLeagueidentifiesthreeinitsBestPracticesforRespondingto
    Cyberhate(2014).Theyare:respondingtotheoriginalspeaker(theuserwhoproducedthe
    hatefulordangerousspeech),usingcomedyorsatire,andcorrectingfalsehoods.Inastudyof
    counterspeechonFacebook,theBritishthinktankDemosdistinguishesamongconstructive
    counterspeechandnonconstructivecounterhate(respondinghatefullytohatred),fact
    checking,constructivediscussion,satiricaloppositionalpages,andseriousoppositionalpages
    (Bartlett&KrasodomskiJones,2015).TheDemosreportalsooffersthreetypesofmetrics
    formeasuringthesuccessofcounterspeech:quantitativemetrics,suchasuserengagement
    andthespreadofcounterspeechcontentmetrics,suchassentimentanalysisandrealworld
    metricsthatmeasurethelongtermimpactsofonlinecounterspeechonofflinebehavior.

    TheDemosreportalsousefullysoughttounderstandwhethercounterspeechreachespeople
    whodonotalreadyagreewithit,sinceifitdoesnot,itcannotbeeffectiveatchangingminds
    ordiscoursenorms.DemosfoundthatpopulistrightwingFacebookpagesgotmorelikesand
    commentsfrompeoplewhodidnotalreadylikethosepages,thanpagesthatcountered
    hatefulpopulistrightwingviews.(Bartlett&KrasodomskiJones,2015).Thissuggests
    populistrightwingcontentreachedabroaderaudience,andhighlightstheimportanceof
    disseminatingcounterspeechcontenttothosewhodonotalreadyagreewithit.
    Researchintotheusefulnessofcounterspeechagainsthatefulspeechhasalsofoundthatthe
    identityofthemessengerandthecontentofthemessagearecrucial.Theconflictprevention
    activistRachelBrown,inherDefusingHate:aStrategicCommunicationGuideto
    CounteractDangerousSpeech,highlightstheimportanceofthemediumorplatformfor
    determininghowandwhenacounterspeechmessagewillreachtheaudience.Brownalso
    notesthataparticularspeakercanmakeinformationseemmorereliable,andthecontentofa
    messagecaninfluencethebehavioroftheaudience(Brown,2016).Sherecommendsa
    centrallyplannedstrategywithacleargoalinwhichmedium,speaker,andcontentare
    carefullytailoredtothetargetaudience.
    Researchonusingspeechandnarrativetocounterviolentextremism(CVE)makesmany
    similarpoints.AreportongovernmentantiextremistprogramspublishedbytheInstitutefor
    StrategicDialogue(ISD),aLondonbasedthinktankthatstudiesviolentextremismand
    methodstodiminishit,identifiesfivepossiblemethodsforcounterspeakers:toerodethe
    originalspeakersintellectualframework,tomockorridicule,tohighlightthenegative
    impactofextremistspeech,todemonstrateinconsistenciesintheextremistarguments,andto
    questiontheeffectivenessofextremistsatachievingtheirgoals(Briggs&Feve,2013).The
    reportmakestheimportantpointthatthegoalforallofthesepossibilitiesisnottowinthe
    argumentbuttodelegitimizeextremistnarratives.Inawhitepaperonpreventingextremism,
    theQuilliamFoundation,aBritishcounterextremismthinktank,distinguishescounterspeech
    thattriestodiscreditextremistcontent,fromcounterspeechthatoffersalternative,more
    positivenarratives,andcounterspeechintendedtoinformandprovidetransparencyarounda
    topic(Saltman&Russell,2014).
    AnothercommoncontentioninCVEresearchisthatextremismcanbemoreeffectively
    underminedbyaddingfavorable,peacefulmessages(suchascounterspeech)thanbydeleting
    extremistcontent(Saltman&Russell,2014Hussain&Saltman,2014Bipartisan,2012).
    Forexample,suchresearchassertsthatattemptstoremove,monitor,orbanextremistcontent
    arestymiedbythechallengesofdefiningsuchcontent.Also,contentislikelytoreappear
    elsewhereontheInternetafterithasbeendeleted(Saltman&Russell,2014).Counterspeech
    andcounternarrativesseemtobemoreeffectivesincetheycanbetterreachaudiencesthatare
    vulnerabletoextremism.Onlinecounterspeechalsoallowsfortrackingviewership,and
    coordinatingwithofflinecounternarrativecampaigns(Hussain&Saltman,2014).Finally,

    counterspeechcanbeconductedbycivilsocietyorplatforms,whichareusuallymore
    credible,asspeakers,thangovernments.
    ThisleadstoanothercommonfeatureofCVEresearchthatisalsofoundintheantihate
    speechliteraturetheimportanceofthemessenger,message,andmessaging(tone)in
    constructingeffectivecounterspeech(Saltman&Russell,2014).TheISDreporton
    governmentantiextremistcounternarrativesassertsthattheidentityofthemessengeris
    criticalwhencounteringonlineextremistspeech(Briggs&Feve,2013).Accordingtothe
    authors,tobeaneffectivemessengeronemusthavebothcredibilityintheeyesofthe
    audienceandtheexpertisenecessarytomarketastrongnarrative(Briggs&Feve,2013).
    BergerandStrathearnfoundinastudyononlineextremistnarrativesthatwhitenationalist
    extremistsweremorelikelytoengagewithnewpeopleonlinewhoseemtobeconservative,
    thanwithliberals.Theauthorsthereforerecommendthatinterventionstoreachwhite
    nationalistextremistsbedirectedbyconservatives(Berger&Strathearn,2013).Similarly,a
    studyofonetooneinterventionswithindividualsconsideredsusceptibletoviolentextremist
    speechfoundthatthetoneandcontentoftheinterventionmessagessenttosuchindividuals
    greatlyinfluencedtheresponserate(Frenett&Dow,2015).Responseratestointerventions
    onlinewerehighestwhenthetoneofthemessagewascasualratherthanantagonisticandthe
    contentincludedoffersofassistanceandpersonalstoriesratherthanpersonalquestionsor
    attemptstohighlightthepossibleconsequencesofextremism.
    Thesepreviousstudiesoncounteringhatredorextremismonlinefocusontwoquitedifferent
    kindsofefforts:thoseintendedtoinfluenceindividuals,andthosethatseektoinfluence(or
    shiftthenormsof)groups.Inthefirstcategory,thereareseveraldocumentedprojectsto
    persuadeindividualstochangetheirviews,especiallyincaseswherethetargetisconsidered
    vulnerabletoextremistspeechandlikelytoengageinviolence.AsFrenettandDow(2015)
    demonstrate,suchcounterspeechisusuallydeliveredbyoneperson(evenwhenactingaspart
    ofalargereffort),directlyaddressinganotherindividual.Counternarrativecampaignsare
    alsoorganizedandplanned,buttheyattempttochangethenormsorbeliefsofalarger
    audiencethroughchangesinnarratives.Suchcampaignscanbeorchestratedbygovernments,
    civilsociety,privatecorporations,orindividuals.Theyusuallytakeplaceattheonetomany
    ormanytomanylevel.
    Nopreviouspublishedstudyseemstohavedonewhatweattemptinthepresentwork:to
    collectandexamineorganic,spontaneouscounterspeech,whichappearswhenInternetusers
    choose,foravarietyofreasonsandinavarietyofways,toreplytootheruserswhoexpress
    hatredorextremistviews.Spontaneouseffortsarevariedbutmuchmorenumerous,and
    thereforecanhavealarger,moresustainedimpactthanprogrammedinterventionsand
    counternarrativecampaigns.

    Findings
    ThisworkwasinspiredbyseveralexamplesofspontaneouscounterspeechonTwitterthat
    seemtohavebeensuccessful,inthesensethattheywerefollowedbyapologiesorother

    signsoffavorableimpactontheoriginalaccount(theaccounttowhichthecounterspeech
    responded).Weweresurprisedtocomeacrossthis,andresolvedtodiscoverandstudymore
    examples,hopingtolearnsomethingabouthowandwhytheyworked.Ineachoftheoriginal
    cases(observedamongTwitterusersinKenya,France,andtheUnitedStates)4,therewasa
    threestepprocesswhichweeventuallynicknamedagoldenconversation,sincewecameto
    seesuchaTwitterexchangeasavaluableprize.
    Thethreestepsarethese:oneaccountproducedatweetthatwashateful,racist,orthat
    includedathreattocommitviolence.Oneormoreaccountsapparentlyunknowntothe
    originaluserrepliedbyrebukingthatuser,whothenrecantedorapologized.Sucha
    responsewassurprising,andbeliedthefamiliarmaximdontfeedthetrolls.Iffeedingcan
    sometimesbesuccessful,whatwouldbethebestrhetoricalfood?
    CounterspeechsurgesonTwitter,wefound,whenpeoplewhodontknowoneanotherand
    whodisagreedeeplymeetandargueonline,oftenbecausetheyareinterestedinthesame
    offlineevent.Usuallypeopleofverydifferentconvictionsdonotexchangethemsince,like
    mostInternetusers,theyspendmostoftheirtimeinlikemindedsilos,readingcontentthey
    agreewithandremainingwiththeirowntribe(Conoveretal,2011,Lewandowskyetal.,
    2012,p.111,Zuckerman,2013,Anderson&Raine,2010,p.18).
    Wefoundbothextensivehatefulspeechandcounterspeechinresponsetocertaineventsthat
    provokedwidespreademotionalresponseanddebate,suchastheBaltimoreprotestsofApril
    2015,theJune2015U.S.SupremeCourtdecisiononsamesexmarriage,ortheNovember
    2015Parisnightclubmassacre.Ineachofthese,newhashtagswereformedandpeoplewith
    opposingviewsmetonthosehashtags.Insomecases,differenthashtagsexpressed
    opposingviews,suchas#lovewinsand#1m1wor#stopislamand#loveislam.Somepeople
    tweetedonthehashtagofanopposingopinion,apparentlyinordertoreachandengagewith
    thosewithopposingopinions,andinsomecases,peopletweetedusingtwoopposing
    hashtags.
    Someconversationsbetweenpeopleofopposingviewsarefarfromgolden,unfortunately.
    Notonlydotheyfailatimprovingdiscourseonline,butcounterspeechissometimesas
    vitriolicandhostileasthespeechtowhichitresponds.Stillworse,somerespondtohatefulor
    simplyoffensivespeechwiththreats,dogpiling(manypeoplesendinghostileresponsestoan
    individualinashortperiodoftime),andharassment.Thesearenottobeconfusedwith
    counterspeech.

    WefirstobservedsuccessfulcounterspeechonTwitterinKenya2013,duringaprojecttostudyhatefuland
    dangerousspeechonlineduringthemonthsleadingtoapresidentialelection.SeeiHubResearch,UmatiFinal
    Report,Sept.2012May2013availableathttp://research.ihub.co.ke/uploads/2013/june/1372415606__936.pdf.
    Subsequently,weworkedwithTwitterstafftofindotherexamplesofsuccessfulcounterspeech,includingin
    responsetotheselectionofNinaDavuluriasMissAmerica2014,andinresponsetohomophobiaonTwitterin
    France.

    Methods
    Alldatainthestudyaretweets,whenpossiblecapturedinconversations,ortweetsin
    whichuserstaggedotherusers,respondingtotheirtweets.Virtuallyallofourdataarein
    English,sincewerealizedthatcodingandanalysismustbedonebynativespeakerswhoare
    familiarwithconnotationsandculturalcontext.Thereareexceptionsamongourdata,suchas
    tweetswhosemeaningisconveyedalmostentirelywithimages.

    Figure1.Datacollectionworkflow
    Twitterisadynamicplatformwhereusersoftenreacttoofflineevents.Twitterallows
    researchersaccesstoaportionofpublictweetsthroughthesearchAPIandthestreaming
    API,andwedevelopeduserfriendlycommandlinetoolsforthosesearches.
    Bothtoolsrequireahashtagorkeywordtoinitiateasessionandthesearchtoolreturns
    relevanttweetsfromthepastweek,whilethestreamingtoolstartstherealtimecollectionof
    relevanttweetsfromthatpointforward.Theoutputofbothtoolsisacollectionoftweetsas
    JSONobjectsinatextfile.
    Wealsohavedevelopedadditionaltoolstoaidtheanalysisofthecollecteddata.They
    includeaparsingtoolthatconvertsthelistofJSONsinthetextfiletoanExcelfriendly
    tabularformatandahashtagtoolthatliststhemostfrequenthashtagsinthecollectionof
    tweets.Together,thiscanopyoftoolsallowedustoeffectivelycollecttweetsaroundevents
    astheywerehappeningandpresentthedatainaformatthatisconducivetoouranalysis.
    Weoftenfocusedonofflineeventsthatledtoconversationwithracist,sexist,orbigoted
    overtones,suchasterroristattacksinEurope(e.g.Paris,Brussels),protestsagainstU.S.
    police(e.g.Ferguson,Baltimore,McKinney,Waco),SouthCarolinasdisplayofthe
    Confederateflag,andsamesexmarriage.Relevanthashtagslike#baltimoreor#mizzou
    appearedonTwitter.Multiplehashtagscanappearinasingletweet,soeachtimewebegan
    collectingtweetswithahashtag,wealsosearchedforthetop10hashtagsinthatsetof
    tweets,oftenleadingustotherelevantsubconversations.
    ToillustratehowsubhashtagsgaveshapetoconversationsonTwitteronevents,aword
    cloudgeneratedfromtophashtagsin#stopislamdatasetappearsinFigure2.Tweets
    containing#stopislamwerecollectedforthreedayssinceitappearedasatophashtagin
    tweetscontaining#Brussels,aftertheterroristattacksthereinMarch2016.Userswere
    taggingtheirtweetswithhatefulhashtagslike#banislamor#muzzlemuzzies,andalsowith
    counterspeechhashtagslike#loveislamor#muslimsforpeace.Generally,tweetscontaining
    competinghashtagswereeitherhateful,#StopIslamdg#LoveIslamMAKEPEOPLEGET

    10

    RIDOFTHEMUSLIMFAITHETERNALHELL,ortheywerecounterspeechLet'smake
    #loveislamtrendingthen#stopislam.terrorismhasnoreligion!

    Figure2.Wordcloudillustratingtophashtagsin#stopislamdataset,March2016
    Datasetswerecategorizedbasedontopic,inanefforttoincludeavarietyofhateful,
    dangerous,andcounterspeechexamples(seeTable1).Withinthedatasets,weusedsortand
    filterfunctionstofindcounterspeech.SearchingTwitterswebsitebyusernames,phrases,or
    hashtagsalsoyieldedconversations.
    Oursearchtoolscapturedataembeddedintweetssuchasthenumberoffollowersauserhas,
    whetheratweetisaretweet,andhowmanytimesatweethasbeenseenatthetimeof
    collection.Sortingbyretweetstatus(yes/no)didnotyieldusefulinformationasitonly
    indicatedwhetheratweethadbeenretweeted.Retweetsdonotnecessarilymeanagreement
    withtheoriginalsentiment,astheRTfunctionisusedtoinform,commenton,validate,agree
    ordisagreewith,orreferothersto,theoriginaltweet(boyd,Golder,&Lotan,2010).Since
    retweetersintentwasoftenhardtodetermine,thisvariablewasnotparticularlyuseful.
    Ifatweetappearedtobecounterspeech,theoriginalconversationwassearchedforonthe
    usersTwitterfeed.Sortingbytweetdatewashelpfultoidentifytrendsonhashtags,or
    multipleretweets,orevenreclaimingofhashtags,asinthecaseof#KillAllMuslimsinthe
    wakeoftheJanuary2015CharlieHebdoshooting.Thelargestnumberoftweetsonthat
    hashtaginourdatawasonthedayofthemassacre,January7.Afterthatthenumberof
    tweetsdiminished,andthenroseagain,thistimedominatedbycounterspeech.

    Table1.Datasummary
    Topic

    No.ofdatasets

    No.oftweets

    Counterphrases(e.g.Imsorry)

    68,036

    LGBTQ(e.g.ObergefellvHodges,U.S.Supreme
    Courtrulingonsamesexmarriage)

    18

    55,234

    Islamophobia(e.g.BrusselsandParisattacks)

    23

    91,847

    Race(e.g.Baltimoreprotests)

    37

    305,273

    Refugee/immigration(e.g.Syrianrefugees,anti
    PEGIDAprotests)

    22,577

    11

    Transgender(e.g.NC,Targetbathrooms)

    13,341

    Misogyny(e.g.#getbackinthekitchen)

    4345

    Trump(i.e.U.S./Mexicowall,Pope,DavidDuke)

    23

    498,932

    Coding
    Apreliminarycodebookwasdevelopedtobetteridentifyhateful,dangerous,and
    counterspeech.Sixteenvariableswereincludedinthepreliminarycodebook:relevance,
    trend,direction,tone,hatespeech,dangerousspeech,counterspeech,defensivespeech,
    conciliatoryspeech,endorsementorreferenceofstereotypes,endorsementorreferenceof
    generalizations,counterspeecheducation,counterspeechramifications,hypocrisy,media,
    mediatype,anddeletedpost.
    Somevariableswereforreferenceororganizationalpurposes,likerelevance,trend,direction,
    media,mediatype(ifany),andwhetherthepostwasdeleted.Thedirectionalityofatweet
    (retweet,originaltext,andresponsive)helpeddeterminewhereconversationsmightbe
    hiding.Codingtweetsashateful,dangerous,defensive,orconciliatoryhelpedorganizethe
    dataquicklyforfurtherprobing.Theremainingvariablesinthecodebookassistedinshaping
    thecontextofthetweetsandhelpedframethediscussionofthestrategiesobserved.
    MethodologicalChallenges
    Usingtweetsastheunitofanalysis,itwasdifficulttodeterminewhichpartofaconversation
    atweetformed,ifany.Twitterexchangesareasynchronous,anduserscancomeuponatweet
    hours,days,ormonthsafterithasbeenposted.Partsofaconversationmayhavebeen
    deleted,oraccountssuspended,orrepliescouldappearoutoforderassideconversations
    developed.Counterspeechtweetsmaynotappearsequentiallylikeascriptedornatural
    conversation,whichcanmakeitdifficulttoreassembleconversations.Also,sincewehad
    accesstoastreamofonlyalimitedsamplingoftweets(usually10percent),wewereoften
    unabletofindallpartsofaconversation.However,someTwitterconversationsonhateful
    trendinghashtagswerethesubjectofnewsreportsonline(suchas#FuckPhyllisand
    #KillAllMuslims),whichmadefindingconversationsonthesehashtagsmucheasier.
    Lackofcontextoftenmadeitchallengingtoidentifybothhatefulandcounterspeechtweets
    bytheircontentalone.Forexample,thetweet@realDonaldTrumpweneedtostart
    catapultingillegalsbacktoMexico,Theyllstopcomingmighthavebeenpostedbya
    DonaldTrumpsupporteroranopponentsarcasticallyimitatingasupporter.Inthiscase,we
    checkedtheaccountandrealizedthatthetweetwasnotsarcastic.
    Itwasalsodifficulttofindhatefulanddangerousspeechtransmittedasweblinksorimages,
    sinceourtools,whicharetextbased,couldnotsearchthatcontent.Forexample,onetweet
    collectedinresponsetotheBrusselsattacks(March2016)containedonlyamentionof

    12

    anotheruserandalink.Thelinkledtoanothertweet,reproducingathirdone.Theimageis
    atFigure3.

    Figure3.Imageembeddedinatweet,illustratingdifficultyoftextonlyanalysis
    Interraterreliability(IRR),ortheextenttowhichcodersagreewhenclassifyingthesame
    content,isnotoriouslydifficulttoachieve.InsocialsciencesIRRisgenerallyacceptableif
    thealphaisabove.80,orthecodersagreeatleast80%ofthetime.ToimproveourIRR,we
    codedsetsof10tweetstogether.Then,totestapreliminarycodebook,100randomtweets
    fromthe#KillAllMuslimsdatasetwerecodedbyoneoftheauthorsandaresearchassistant,
    resultinginCohensalphasbetween.42and.85(eachvariablehasitsownreliabilityscore).
    Another33tweetscodedusingthesamecodebookproducedaCohensKappaof.37and.82.
    Itwasespeciallydifficulttoreachagreementonwhethertweetsinvolvedgeneralizationsor
    stereotypes,andwhethertheoveralltonewastoxic,hateful,ordangerous.Thedatacouldbe
    analyzedatvariouslevels:theconversations(affordingcontext),theindividualtweets(with
    givendata),orthecomponentsofthetweet(ifincludingvisuals,retweets,mentions,or
    combinations).Sincethecodebookwaspreliminary,broadcodingandresearchassistant
    trainingdidnotgofurther.Futureprojectsshoulddetermine(a)levelofanalysisand(b)a
    solidcodebookorqualitativememoingsystem(Glaser&Strauss,1967).
    Definitions
    Counterspeechisdefinedinthisstudyasaresponsethattakesissuewithhateful,harmful,or
    extremistcontent.Counterspeechisconsideredsuccessfulwhenitisfollowedbyafavorable
    responsefromtheInternetuseroruserstowhomthecounterspeechwasdirected.
    Threeclarifyingremarksareinorderhere.First,itisimpossibletobesure,inan
    observationalstudylikethisone,thatonlinecounterspeechwasinfacttheinspirationfora
    favorableresponsesuchasanapology.Second,afavorableresponsemayhavean
    unfavorableeffect,ultimately,whereusersfeeloverwhelmedbyangryorabundant

    13

    counterspeechandapologizeordeletetheiraccounts,simplytogetittostop.Third,
    counterspeechmayhaveapositiveimpactonInternetusersotherthantheoriginalspeaker,
    andwherethataudienceislargeasitoftenisonTwitter,theimpactofcounterspeechonthe
    audiencecanbemuchgreaterandmoreinfluential,thanononeoriginalaccount.This
    suggestsaseconddefinitionofsuccess:counterspeechthatfavorablyshiftstheexpression
    and/orbeliefsofInternetusers.Pastresearchhasfocusedoncounternarrativecampaignsasa
    necessaryvehicleforinfluencingalargeraudience,butwebelievethatnormscanbeshifted
    whenanaudiencewitnessespublic,direct,andorganiccounterspeechthattheywouldnot
    havebeenexposedtoifithadbeenpublishedaspartofacounternarrativecampaignor
    privatelyinapersonalintervention.Sincewedidnotattempttomeasuresuchaneffect,we
    definesuccessintermsofafavorableresponsefromtheoriginalaccount.Thatmayormay
    notindicateadurablechangeinspeechorbehaviorthisisdiscussedfurtherintheTypesof
    Responsessectionbelow.
    Asnotedabove,weavoidedthetermhatespeech.Itsdefinitionsspecifydifferenttypesof
    groupmarkers,including(ornot),religion,ethnicity,nationality,sexualorientation,
    disability,bodytype,age,orgender,amongothers.Wheretodrawthelinebetweenhate
    speechandspeechthatismerelyoffensivedependssomuchonprevailingsocialnorms,
    context,andindividualandcollectiveinterpretationthatitisverydifficulttocode
    consistently.Arecentstudydemonstratedamere33%agreementbetweencodersfrom
    differentraces,whenaskedtoidentifyracisttweets(Kwok&Wang,2013).Anadditional
    ambiguityinthetermhatespeechisinthewordhateitselfwhichmightrefertothe
    speaker/authorshatred,orhis/herdesiretomakethetargetsofthespeechfeelhated,or
    desiretomakeothershatethetarget(s),ortheapparentcapacityofthespeechtoincrease
    hatred.Mostoften,itimpliesthatthespeakerfeelsorintendshatred.
    Sinceitisdifficultorimpossibletoknowaspeakersintent,especiallyfromatweet,we
    proposethetermhatefulspeechtofocusontheexpressionofhate.Thisisanuancedbut
    usefuldistinctionsinceexpressioniseasiertodetectthanintent,andmorelikelytobelinked
    tolanguagescapacitytocauseharm.Hatefulspeech,then,isspeechwhichcontainsan
    expressionofhatredonthepartofthespeaker/author,againstapersonorpeople,basedon
    theirgroupidentity.Wesearchedforcounterspeechinresponsetothiskindofcontent,and
    alsoinresponsetotweetsthatconstitutedangerousspeech,whichwehavedefinedin
    previousworkasspeechthatcaninspireorcatalyzeintergroupviolence(Benesch,2014).
    Intenselyhatefulandevenviolentspeechisnothardtofindonline,includingonTwitter,but
    mostofoursuccessfulcounterspeechresponded,notsurprisingly,totweetsthatwerenot
    amongthemostvitriolic.
    Vectors
    Weobservedimportantdistinctionsincounterspeechconversations,accordingtothenumber
    ofparticipantsineachstageorsideofanexchange.Aconversationbetweentwopeopleis
    qualitativelydifferent,forexample,fromacaseinwhichmanypeoplerespondtoonetweet.

    14

    Notsurprisingly,theeffectivenessofcounterspeechstrategiesvarieswiththesedistinctions
    aswell.
    Weidentifiedfourtypesofcounterspeechexchanges,orvectors,apparentlyforthefirsttime
    intheliterature:onetoone,onetomany,manytoone,andmanytomany.Literatureand
    policydiscussionsonhatespeechusuallyconflatethesecategoriesalso,althoughthe
    distinctionsareequallyimportantinthatcontext:harassmentofanindividualbyagroupof
    people,forexample,isverydifferentinnatureandlikelyconsequences,fromhatreddirected
    byonepersonagainstanentireracialorethnicgroup.Below,wediscusseachofthefour
    vectorsinthecontextofcounterspeech.
    OnetoOne
    Someofthemoststrikingexamplesofgoldenconversations,orcasesinwhich
    counterspeechseemstoconvinceapersontostopspeakinghatefully,areconversations
    betweenonlytwopeople.Wefoundextendedexchangesbetweenanoriginalspeakeranda
    counterspeakerwhoengagesrepeatedly,eveninthefaceofapparentlyimplacableresistance
    andastreamofhatefultweets.
    Wheresomeoneseemsfirmlycommittednotonlytohatefulideologybuttodeclaringit
    publicly,wewouldnotexpectcounterspeechtoswaythatperson.Yetinsomecases,it
    apparentlyhasandhasevenhelpedtobringaboutlastingchangeinbeliefs,notonlyin
    speech.Inthesecases,weobservecounterspeechstrategiesincluding:anempathicand/or
    kindtone,theuseofimages,andtheuseofhumor.Thissuccessfulcounterspeechusually
    doesnotlabeltheoriginalspeakerashatefulorracist,butdoesidentifythespeechassuch.
    Asuccessfulcounterspeechconversation,inwhichnearlyallofthesestrategieswereused,
    tookplaceonJanuary19,2015,MartinLutherKingDayintheUnitedStates.Itbeganwith
    thistweet:
    InhonorofMLKdaytoday,I'mtakingavowtousetheword"nigger"asmanytimesas
    possibleandinthemostinappropriatetimes
    Awriterandactivist5discoveredthetweetandrespondedwithanantihatredquotefrom
    King:
    Letnomanpullyousolowastohatehim.MartinLutherKingJr.
    Theoriginalaccountrespondedohsoyou'reoneofthoseniggerloverstoo?towhichthe
    counterspeakerreplied,againcitingKing,hatedestroysthehater.
    Theoriginalspeakerrespondedwithegregiousracistattacksonthecounterspeaker(theonly
    fuckingfoolisyourinferiorniggerass)whorepliedwithquoteafterantihatredquotefrom
    5

    Weveerredonthesideofnotrevealingtheidentitiesofpeopleinthecaseswedescribeinorderto
    protectthemandtopreservetheirprivacy.Wevemadeexceptions,however,forpublicfigureslike
    DonaldTrumpand/orthosewhohavealreadychosentodiscussthecasepublicly.

    15

    MartinLutherKing,untilshewrote,Iwishyoupeaceandloveandfreedomfromthehatred
    thathurtsyourheart.Herinterlocutorreplied,whosthataquotefrom.
    [t]hatsme,thecounterspeakertweeted.Sendingloveandhopetoyou.Fromthere,the
    counterspeakerandherinterlocutorexchangedmorethanadozentweets,inwhichshe
    describedlynchingsandotherviolenceagainstAfricanAmericans,withphotographsasking,
    youmockthis?Theoriginalspeakerrepliedthathewas14yearsold.Thecounterspeaker
    askeddoesyourmomknowyouspendyourtimeontheInternettryingtohurtpeople
    pointingouttheharmfulconsequencesthathisTweetscouldinflictonmembersofthegroup
    hewasdenigrating.Intryingtomakehimfeelaccountabletohismother,thecounterspeaker
    seemstohaveunexpectedlymadeanemotionalconnectionwiththestrangerwhohadbeen
    continuallyattackingher.Hereplied,Idoubtit.Shesbeendeadforayearandahalfso
    Imsorryforyourloss,thecounterspeakerwrote.AndIhopeyoufindabetterwayto
    honorher.Afterseveralmoreexchanges,hewrotetothewomanhehadbeenattacking
    viciously,youresoniceandImsosorry.Thiscasewaspublicizedonlineandthe
    counterspeakerwaspraisedforherforbearance(Payne,2015).
    AnotherstrikingexampleofonetoonecounterspeechisthecaseofMeganPhelpsRoper,
    whowasfullyconvincedoftheextremehomophobictenetsoftheWestboroBaptistChurch,
    whichhergrandfatherFredPhelpsfoundedandinwhichshewasraiseduntilshestarteda
    Twitteraccounttospreadtheviewsofthechurch.OnTwittersheencounteredpeoplewho
    challengedherviewsandengagedherinotherways,includinghumorandsuggestionsfor
    musicshemightenjoy.Extendedconversationswithtwoofthem(DavidAbitbol,arabbi
    whofoundedtheblogJewlicious,andalawyerwithwhomPhelpsRopergraduallyfellin
    love)completelychangedPhelpsRopersviews,byherownaccount.Sheendedupleaving
    thechurch.ThiscaseisrecountedbyAdrianChen(2015)inalongarticlethatPhelpsRoper
    haspraisedforcapturinghertransformationverywell.
    Akeydistinctionbetweentheseonetoonecasesandtheotherexchangeswestudiedisthat
    thesedialoguesarelong,goingfarbeyondthethreeessentialpartsofwhatweaffectionately
    callagoldenconversation.Itisnosurprisethatdeepand/orlastingchangeindiscourseand
    beliefsdifficulttoachievebyanymeans,onlineorofflinecantakemanytweets.Another
    distinguishingfeatureofonetooneconversationsisthat,evenonTwitter,theyarenot
    alwayspublic.OnecansendadirectmessageonTwitterwhich,likeanSMSortext
    message,isvisibleonlytoitsdesignatedrecipient.InMeganPhelpsRoperscase,sheand
    hernewinterlocutorsalsousedonetoonemessagingappsothersthanTwitter,suchas
    WordsWithFriends.Inalesspubliconlinecontext,peoplemayfeellessguardedand
    thereforemoreopentodissentingviews.Ontheotherhand,iftheirconversationsare
    invisibletothelargeraudience,theaudiencecanneitherjoininnorbefavorablyinfluenced
    bytheconversation,exceptinrarecaseswhenitisdescribedelsewhere,asinChensarticle
    (2015).

    16

    OnetoMany
    SomeTwitterusershavetakenituponthemselvestotrytochangewayinwhichothers
    expressthemselvespubliclyonTwitter,bysearchingfortheuseofcertaintermsorphrases
    andrebukingthosewhousethem.Thissortofactivisteffortisonetomanycounterspeech.
    Inoneexample,DawudWalid,anAfricanAmericanMuslim,searchedforvariationsofthe
    wordabeedwhichmeansslaveinArabic,whereitwasusedintweetstorefertoblack
    people.Hesentanopedhehadwritten,entitledFellowhumansarenotabeedtomany
    Twitteruserswhohadtweetedtheterm.Hereceivedavarietyofresponses,fromapologies
    andpromisesnottousethewordagain,toatweetthatrepeatedthewordasmanytimesas
    possiblein140characters(Walid,2013).Othersimilareffortsare@YesYoureRacistand
    @YesYoureSexist.Ineachofthesecases,counterspeechismetwitharangeofresponses,
    fromapologiestoangryargument.Inanotherexampleofonetomanycounterspeech,some
    usersdeliberatelytweetonahashtagwithwhichtheydisagree,suchas#stopislam,toreach
    peoplewhoagreewithit.
    ManytoOne
    Insomecases,newsofanobjectionabletweet(orhashtag)goesviral,andmanysometimes
    thousandsofTwitterusersjoinincounterspeech.Thiscanbesalutarywhereitcatches
    enoughoftheattentionoftheoriginalspeakertobesuccessfulbutnotharrassing,asinthe
    caseofauserwhotweetedhisoutragethatNinaDavuluri(whoheerroneouslyidentifiedas
    anArab)hadbeenchosenasMissAmerica2014.Afterreceivingtweetsthatvariously
    correctedhiserrorandcalledhimaracist,hefirstrespondedIdidntrealizeitwould
    explodelikethat#unrealandthentweetedatDavuluri,apologizing.Thefurordieddown
    quickly,andtheuserisstillonTwitter,wishinghappybirthdaystofamilymembersand
    tweetingphotosofhisfishingtrips.
    Inothercases,however,hugenumbersofangryTwitterusershaveoverwhelmedothers,
    risingtothelevelofharassment.Originalspeakershastilydeletetweetsoreventheir
    accounts,buteventhatcanbeaninsufficientrefugeinthefaceof,forexample,
    counterspeakerswhocontacttheiremployers,demandingthattheybefiredforhavingposted
    perceivedhatefulorracistcontent.ThiswasthecaseforJustineSacco,whoinadvertently
    createdanumberoneworldwidetrendonTwitterinDecember2013bytweeting
    (tongueincheek,sheinsistedlater),GoingtoAfrica.HopeIdontgetAIDS.JustKidding.
    Imwhite!assheboardedaflighttoSouthAfrica.Tensofthousandsoffurioustweetscame
    withinhours,andSaccowassoonfiredfromherjobinpublicrelations(Ronson,2015).
    TheblogRacistsGettingFiredmadeapracticeofpunishingpeoplewhomaderacistposts,
    bycontactingtheiremployersand,similarly,demandingthattheybefired(McDonald,2014).
    Suchresponsesarenodoubtsuccessfulatchangingtheonlinespeechoftheirtargets,but
    mayonlyhardenthehatefulconvictionsofthosetargets,andconstituteonlinemobjustice.

    17

    ManytoMany
    Conversationsamonglargenumbersofpeopleonlineareofinterest,notleastbecauseofthe
    impressivescaleonwhichtheyoftentakeplace.Inourexperience,theyareoftencatalyzed
    byofflineeventsthatareofstronginteresttoalargenumberandlargevarietyofpeople.On
    Twitter,suchconversationsgenerallyformaroundhashtags.
    Hashtagscanconstitutehatefulanddangerousspeech,orcounterspeech,andtheyoften
    gatherorinspiremanytomanyconversations.Theuseofahashtagcanbeseenasan
    explicitattempttoaddressanimaginedcommunityofusersaseachuserparticipatingina
    hashtagconversationactspotentiallyasabridgebetweenthehashtagcommunityand
    membersoftheirownfollowernetwork(Bruns&Burgess,2012,p.804).Often,one
    hashtagrepresentsonegeneralviewornormativegroup,suchas#BlackLivesMatter,and
    othersrepresentopposingordissentingviews,suchas#BlueLivesMatter(whichreferstothe
    policefortheirblueuniforms),or#AllLivesMatter.
    Oneofthemostvitriolichashtagswefound,#KillAllMuslims,trendedintheimmediate
    aftermathoftheCharlieHebdomassacreofJanuary2015andthenwasquicklytakenover
    bycounterspeakersexpressingtheirdismaythatitexisted.Onecounterspeechtweetthatuses
    thehashtagwasretweetedmore10,000times:Notmuslimbutneverthoughtaboutthisb4
    #CharlieHebdo#KillAllMuslims#Muslimspic.twitter.com/LL1pkPk6uk. Thelinkwastoan
    imageofvisualsimilaritiesamongreligioustraditions,e.g.aCatholicnuninahabitanda
    Muslimwomaninhijab.

    Notably,hashtagscanbemorewidelyandquicklydisseminated,whentheytrend,thanany
    tweet.When#KillAllMuslimstrended,forexample,thousandsofpeopleonTwittercould
    nothelpbutnoticetwothings:thehashtagcalledformassmurderorgenocide,andthousands
    ofpeoplehadtypeditandsentit,aspartoftheirtweets.Thefactthatahashtagistrending
    canalsohaveamajorimpactonhowTwitterusersperceivenormsontheplatform.Itis
    dismayingwhenhatefulhashtagstrend,andreassuringwhencounterspeechdoes.The
    hashtag#YouAintNoMuslimBruv,forexample,trendedafterabystanderyelledthesame
    phraseinDecember2015,atawouldbeattackerinLondon.Aworthytopicforfurtherstudy
    wouldbethenorminfluencingcapacityofhashtagsaroundpubliceventsandcontroversies.
    Taxonomyofcounterspeech
    Wehaveobservednumerouscommunicativestrategiesatworkincounterspeechtweets,
    whichwepresentanddiscusshere.Somearewelldescribedinpersuasionand
    communicationliterature.Wedistinguisheightstrategies:1)presentationoffactstocorrect
    misstatementsormisperceptions,2)pointingouthypocrisyorcontradictions,3)warningof
    possibleofflineandonlineconsequencesofspeech,4)identificationwithoriginalspeakeror
    targetgroup,5)denouncingspeechashatefulordangerous,6)useofvisualmedia,7)useof
    humor,and8)useofaparticulartone,e.g.anempatheticone.Thesearenotexclusive

    18

    counterspeakersoftenemploymultiplestrategiesinasingletweet.Norisourlist
    comprehensiveitisintendedasastart,basedondatacollectedforthepresentproject.
    Presentingfactstocorrectmisstatementsormisperceptions
    Likepreviousauthors(Bartlett&KrasodomskiJones,2015AntiDefamationLeague,2014
    Briggs&Feve,2013),weobservedthatcounterspeakersoftentrytopersuadebycorrecting
    misstatements.Unfortunatelythereisabundantresearchindicatingthatthisrarelysucceeds,
    especiallyinthefirstinstance.6Evenwhenpresentedwithfactsthatcorrectanegregious
    mistakeorfalsehood,mostpeopleareunlikelytochangetheirbeliefsaboutthe
    misperceptionasfalsebeliefsbasedonmisinformation,areoftenheldstronglyandwith
    (perhapsinfectious)conviction(Lewandowskyetal.,2012,p.108).Paradoxically,
    individualswithminimalknowledgeoffactsandexperienceofthesubjectareleastlikelyto
    beswayedbycorrections(Kuklinskietal.,2000).Someresearchershaveevenfounda
    backfireeffectwherecorrectionattemptsresultinfirmerbeliefsinthemisperceptionor
    misinformation(Nyhan&Reifler,2010Nyhan&Reifler,2015).Whereasthecorrections
    maynotbesuccessfulinchangingthespeechorattitudesoftheoriginalspeaker,whomay
    haveatightlyheldbeliefonthetopic,theycouldpersuadecyberbystandersi.e.membersof
    thegeneralaudiencewhohavenotyetalliedthemselvesfirmlywitheitherside.
    Perhapsawareofhowdifficultitistochangemindsevenwithfacts,counterspeakers
    sometimessupporttheircontentionswithevidenceoreveninviteotherstolookupthe
    evidenceforthemselves.Forexample,oneuserwhowasagainstTargetsnewpolicyof
    genderneutralbathrooms,saidover400,000peoplehadsignedapetitiontoboycottTarget.
    Anotherusertriedtocorrectthenumber(<5,000),andinvitedthefirstusertocheck.The
    originalspeakerinsultinglydeclined(seeFigure4).

    Figure4.Counterspeakerusingfactstocorrectmisinformationandmisperception
    Counterspeakerssometimesgotostrikinglengthstopersuadestrangersthattheirfactsor
    understandingarewrong.Forexample,inresponsetothesuggestionthattheimageofthe
    abolitionistHarrietTubmanbeplacedonanEBT(welfare)cardinsteadoftheUS$20bill,a
    6

    Psychologistsandotherscholarsusethetermmotivatedreasoningtodescribepeoplesextraordinary(and
    routine)effortstoreachtheconclusionstheyseek,inspiteoffactsthatdonotsupportthoseconclusions.See,
    e.g.DanKahan,NeutralPrinciples,MotivatedCongnition,andsomeProblemsforConstitutionalLaw.Harvard
    LawReview,2011.

    19

    counterspeakerengagedtheoriginalspeakerinadebateabouttheproportionsofwhiteand
    blackAmericansonwelfare(seeFigure5).Thecounterspeakerfounddatafromaseparate,
    morereputablesource(theU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture),andthenpostedagraphicto
    illustratethedata.Theeffort,likemostoftheothersweobserved,wasunsuccessful.

    Figure5.Counterspeakermarshallingstatistics
    InadiscussionofIslamicprayerroomsinAmericanpublicschools,onespeakertriedtouse
    historicaleventstocorrecttheoriginalspeakersassertions,PointofhistoricalfactSpanish
    soldiersmurderedPuebloIndianreligiousleadersbecausetheywerecompetition.Oneof

    20

    thosetaggedrespondedtothiscounterspeech,andapoliteexchangecontinuedbutthefact
    didnotapparentlychangeanymindsonthetopic.
    Pointingouthypocrisyorcontradictions
    Inastrategysimilartocorrectingmistakesormisstatements,counterspeakersoftenpointed
    outhypocrisyorcontradictions.This,too,maycauseanoriginalspeakertodiginhisorher
    heels,sinceitisdisturbingtobecalledahypocrite.Inordertodiscredittheaccusation,the
    individualmayexplainawayandrationalizetheirpreviousbehavior,oriftheyare
    persuadable,resolvetoavoidthedissonantbehaviorinthefuture(Beauvois,Joule,&
    Brunetti,1993).Buttomembersoftheaudience,whomwecancallcyberbystanders,
    pointingouthypocrisymaybepersuasive.
    Inoneexample,ausertweeted#KillAllMuslims!!!!Washitlerabadperson?Yeshow
    darehekillsomeonejustcosoftheirreligionUmmm...Ok.Anotherexampleofcallingout
    hypocrisyorcontradictionsistopainttheoriginalspeakerwiththesamebrushheorsheis
    usingtopaintagroup.Forexample,onecounterspeakertweetedIfamuslimtwtd
    #KillAllChristianshemustba"terrorist"btachristiantwtng#KillAllMuslimsissimply
    exprsnghisfreedomwhileanothersimplystated,#KillAllMuslims"..butyettheycallus
    terrorists.
    Warningofofflineoronlineconsequences
    Warningusersofthepossibleconsequencesoftheirhatefulordangerousspeechisacommon
    strategyamongcounterspeakers.Likethepreviousstrategy,thismayleadanoriginalspeaker
    toholdmoretightlytoopinions.However,inourdata,thiscounterspeechstrategyappeared
    tobesuccessful,leadingtorecantingordeletionofoffendingtweets.Thismaybebecause
    peopleforget,untilreminded,thattheirspeechonlinecanhaveseriousconsequencesoffline.
    Online,theycanbecomedisinhibited,actingasiftheyliveinanmakebelievedimension,
    separateandapartfromthedemandsandresponsibilitiesoftherealworld(Suler,2004,p.
    323).Itmayalsobethatwarningsorthreatsareeffectivebecausetheyhavebeencarriedout
    inwellpublicizedcases,suchassuccessfuldemandsthatpeoplebefiredfromtheirjobsfor
    contentthattheypostedonline.
    Inonesuchcase,aTexasschoolteacher7postedaracistdiatribeonFacebookinthewakeofa
    scandaloverpolicebrutalityinMcKinney,Texas(Michael&Young,2015).Screenshotsof
    herdiatribemadetheirwayontoTwitter,andwerecirculatedwidely.Inresponse,many
    userstaggedheremployer,FrenshipIndependentSchoolDistrict,onTwittercallingforher
    ouster,"@FrenshipISDShehasgottoGO!!GetridofherNOW.#[teachersname],
    "@FrenshipISDIf#[teachersname]hasanyblackkidsinher4thgradeclassPLEASEget
    themoutofthere!#Mckinney,"@FrenshipISDistheracist#[teachersname]firedyetoris

    Weavoidrepeatingthenameoftheteachersinceshehasnotchosentodiscussthecasepublicly,nor
    issheapublicfigure.

    21

    thistypeofideologyencouragedinyourdistrict?Theteacherwaseventuallyfiredfor
    failingtoabidebythestaffcodeofconductonsocialmedia.
    Inmanyothercases,counterspeechfeatureswarningsoftheriskoffutureunemployment.
    RespondingtomisogynistandracisttweetsregardingUniversityofIllinoisat
    UrbanaChampaignChancellorPhyllisWisesdecisionnottocancelclassesonaverycold
    dayinJanuary2014,counterspeakerswerequicktowarnofrealworldconsequences
    (Simeone,2014).Arecurringthemewastheimplicationsonfutureemployment.Some
    tweeted,"Allofyoustudentswhotweetedracistcomments,GOODLUCKGETTINGAJOB
    DUMMIES#fuckphyllisand"Ppldefending#FuckPhyllisfocusingonwrongthing.You
    shouldbeworryingabhowtoundoyourtweetscomeyoureventualemploymentsearch.
    Anotherremindedstudentsthattheirprofessorsandfutureemployersmightseetheirtweets
    (seeFigure6).

    Figure6.Imageoftweetwarningusersofofflineconsequences
    Oneuserdidreportattemptingtopunishstudentsbycontactingtheiremployers,tweeting"11
    studentsreportedtoWise.1reportedtoemployer.seeifthey'llbelaughingabt#fuckphyllis
    Monday#diversityMadnessandlater"lmfao...takingscreencapsandnamesoftheseracist
    kids.Foundtheemployerforone....stillworking.Anotherusertweeted,"Asanemployer
    whohasrecruitedmanyfreshoutofcollegestudents,Idohavesecondthoughttohire
    anyoneoutofUIUCseeing#fuckphyllis."Somealumnievencomplainedthatthehateful
    tweetingwouldputaburdenonthem:"Policeyourselves,UofIstudentsburdenof
    #fuckphyllisalsofallsontheshouldersofusalumniwhotrytogetuhiredwhenugraduate.
    Onlineconsequencesofhatefulspeechareblockingandostracism.Manycounterspeakers
    documentedtheireffortstolimitinstancesofhatefulspeechintheirpersonalfeedsas
    warningstothegeneralaudience:"Thesituationin#Baltimorebroughtoutthe#racists.My
    friend'slistisdownadozensofarblockedandunfriended,"Callingthe#protesters
    #animalsanddefending#Baltimoreforkilling#FreddieGrayyou'regonnagetblocked!
    #AmericaIsBetterThanThat,Anyoneusingthehashtag#KillAllMuslimsonmyTLget
    blocked,WhoEverCameupwiththis#KillAllMuslimshe/Sheshouldbeblockedfromall
    socialnetwork.
    Counterspeakerssometimesalsotrytoprovokeempathybypointingouttotheoriginal
    speakerthathatefulordangerousspeechmayhavepainfulconsequencesforothersonline.
    Forexample,thewriterwhorepeatedlyrepliedtoanotherTwitterusersracisttweetson
    MartinLutherKingDay2015,asdescribedabove,tweetedathim,rememberthatthereisa
    goodchancethatsomeonecomingacrossyourhatefultweetsissufferingfromdepression
    too.Inothercases,counterspeakerswarnofharmtothegroupsdenigratedinhatefultweets,

    22

    IfUofIllinoisstudentscansay#FuckPhyllisandberacist/sexisttotheirChancellorthenI
    fearforotherAsiansand/orwomenoncampus.However,warningoriginalspeakersofthe
    offlineconsequencesthattheythemselvesmightfaceappearstobethemosteffectivetypeof
    thisstrategy.
    Unfortunately,warningscaneasilyswellintothreatsandharassment,sometimesbylarge
    numbersofpeople.Counterspeakerscanalsotargetthewrongindividuals,suchaspeople
    whohavewrittensomethingoffensiveorinsensitive,butnothatefulordangerousoreven
    peoplewhosimplyhappentosharethenameoftheintendedrecipient.Nomatterwhat
    contenttheyarecountering,wouldbecounterspeakersshouldbeawareofthelinebetween
    counterspeech,ontheonehand,andtrolling,harassment,dogpiling,oreventhreatsof
    physicalharmontheother.Itisbothwrongandineffectivetoattackinthoseways,andit
    mustnotbeconfusedwithcounterspeech.
    Affiliation
    Affiliationis...establishing,maintaining,orrestoringapositiveaffectiverelationshipwith
    anotherpersonorgroupofpersons(Atkinson,Heyns,&Veroff,1954,p.407).Associal
    creatures,weunderstandweareamemberofnumeroussocialgroupsandthemembership
    contributes,positivelyornegatively,totheimageonehasofhimorherself(Tajfel,1974,p.
    69).Peoplemayalsomorelikelytocreditthecounterspeechofthosewithwhomthey
    affiliate,sincetheytendtoevaluateingroupmembersasmoretrustworthy,honest,loyal,
    cooperative,andvaluabletothegroupthanoutgroupmembers.(Kane,Argote,&Levine,
    2005,p.58).
    Ifacounterspeakerpersonallyaffiliateswithahatefulspeaker,itcanreducetheperceived
    distancebetweenthetwo(Tanis&Postmes,2003).Counterspeakers,usingimpliedsocial
    identitieseitherinthetextofhatefulordangeroustweetsorfromthehatefulspeakersprofile
    information,canusetheinformationgleanedtoaffiliatewiththeoriginalspeakersassumed
    orperceivedsocialidentities.Insomecases,counterspeakersuseasharedidentitytoclaim
    thatcertainspeechisunacceptableforamemberofthatgroup.Inthetweetbelow,the
    speakeruseshisidentityasarightwingertobothassociatewith,anddistancehimself
    from,theoriginalspeakers(Figure7).Asnotedabove,BergerandStrathearnsresearch
    indeedfoundthatconservativesarebettersuitedtoreachingouttowhitenationalistsonline
    thanliberals,becauseofaperceivedaffiliation(2013).

    Figure7.Illustrationofcounterspeakeraffiliatingwithoriginalspeaker.
    Inthe#FuckPhyllisdata,alumniassertedtheiraffliationwiththestudentswhostartedthe
    trendtolendcredibilitytotheircounterspeech,andtodeclarethestudentsbehavior

    23

    outofboundsfortheirsharedidentity.Forexample:AsaUofIalumna,Iamcompletely
    embarrassedbythis#FuckPhyllishashtag.Realitycheckkids:professors&employerscan
    seeeverything.Thisaffiliationtacticwasalsosuccessfulinrecruitingothercounterspeakers.
    Itcanfacilitatehelpingorinterveningbehaviors,mostlikelyduetogroupnorms,suchas
    expectationstohelponeanotherorbehavelikeoneanother(Rutkowski,Gruder,&Romer,
    1983).
    Inanotheruseofaffiliation,usersfromagroupvilifiedintweetssometimesdisclosetheir
    affiliationineffortstocounterthosetweets.Forexample,inresponseto#KillAllMuslims,
    onetweetedAsaMuslimI'mdisgustedandoffendedthatthisisevenahashtag.
    #KillAllMuslims.IdentifyingasMusliminthefaceofonlineIslamophobiawasfoundin
    otherevents.Oneuser,inresponsetotheGarland,TXshootingtweeted,AsaMuslimliving
    inTexasthetweetsunderthe#garlandshootinghashtagarebothalarminganddisturbing.
    Prayingforpeace&tolerance.Othershumanizedadangerousproposalinthehashtag
    #KillAllMuslims,#KillAllMuslimsi'mamuslimandidon'tthinkishouldbekilledbc
    someonedidsomething,Can'tbelievethatthisistrending,I'maMuslimmyselfsoyou
    wantmedead?#KillAllMuslims.Theeffectsofracistspeechonatargetgroupwerespelled
    outbyselfdisclosingtargetgroupmembers,AsanAsianAmericanwoman,trendslike
    #FuckPhyllismakeitclearthatnoamountofsuccesscaneraseracistandsexistattacks.
    Sometakeituponthemselvestoapologizeonbehalfofidentitiestheypresumedtheyhadin
    commonwithhatefulspeakers.Forexample,oneusertweeted,Asachristian,I'msorryfor
    thehashtag#KillAllMuslims.It'sashamethathumanityisgonefromthemodernworld.
    Others,havingidentitiesincommonwithbothatargetgroupandtheoriginalspeakersofthe
    hatefulspeech,speakoutagainstthehatefulspeechgenerally(seeFigure8).

    Figure8.Imageoftweetsaffiliatingwithtargetandhatefulspeakinggroup.
    Denouncinghatefulordangerousspeech
    Counterspeakersoftenidentifyspeechashateful,especiallyracistormisogynist.Asoneuser
    tweeted,Iknowyoucantalwayschangearacistsmindandtbhidontwanttobother
    wastingmytimeonthembutillbefuckedifidontatleasthumiliateandshamethem.

    24

    Denouncingthecontentandnotthespeakercanbeuseful,andeveneducationalifthe
    speakerisunawaretheyareengaginginhatefulordangerousspeech(seeFigure9).

    Figure9.Counterspeakerdistinguishingspeechfromspeaker
    Somecounterspeakerssimplycallouttweetsasracist(seeFigure10).Otherselaborateon
    whyspeechishatefulordangerous:YES.ITDOES.Theentiretagismisogynisticand
    encouragesrape.#fuckphyllis.

    Figure10.Counterspeakersdenunciation,quotinganoriginalspeakerstweet.
    Wheredenunciationisdirectedataperson,notatcontent,itcanbeindistinguishablefrom
    hostilenamecalling,asintheexchangeinFigure11.OneTwitterusermakesacritical
    commentaboutatheists(andatheism)andanotherrespondswithaninsult:pissoff,bigot.
    Aseconduserinsteadexplainswhythefirsttweetmightbeunderstoodasbigoted.Afterthat,
    theoriginalspeakersayshertweetwassnottyandclarifiesherpoint.

    Figure11.Twocounterspeakersdifferentstrategies

    25

    Counterspeakersoftendenouncehashtags.Forexample,oneusertweetedaskingrhetorically,
    whyis#FeminismIsAwfulathing?Itsupportsequality.Whyarepeopleagainstthat?Many
    tooktoTwittertodenouncethehashtag#KillAllMuslims,untiltweetscondemningit
    outnumberedthosesupportingit.Examplesare#KillAllMuslimsisaviciousandcrueltrend
    anditjustneedstostopand#KillAllMuslimsisliterallythemostdisgracefulthingI'veseen
    onTwitterandoneofthemostoftenretweetedpostsinthewakeoftheCharlieHebdo
    shootingsinJanuary2015wasTothosewhotrended#KillAllMuslimsYou'renodifferent
    thanAlQaeda,Osama&ISISYouarehumanityatitsworst!
    Visualcommunication
    Twitterallowsuserstoembedimages(i.e.memes,graphics,photographs,animatedgifs,
    videos)intweets,andcounterspeakersoftenusethem,sinceimagesaremorepersuasivethan
    textalone.Theysendpeoplealongemotivepathwayswheretextual/verbalmaterialleaves
    theminamorerational,logicalandlinearpathwayofthought(Joffe,2008,p.84).Online
    specifically,visualscanaugmenttextualinformationviaparatasis,thatis,bybeingplaced
    nexttosuchinformationasacoordinate,supportivestructure(LaGrandeur,2003,p.124).In
    oneexample,aheavilyretweetedcounterspeechpostcontainedthetextthefactthat
    #KillAllMuslimsis/wastrendingmakesmesicksoheresafriendlyreminderwithanimage
    illustratingtheproportionofterroristsamongallMuslims(seeFigure12).

    Figure12.Visualcommunicationexample.
    Otherstrytoputcurrenthatefulspeechintohistoricalcontext(seeFigure13).

    26

    Figure13.VisualcomparisonofIslamophobia,Nazis,andKKK.
    Visualcaricaturescanmaketheoriginalseemludicrous,andmaylimittheeffectsofhateful
    ordangerousspeech.Forexample,usershavetriedtoundermineperceptionsofthestrength
    andpowerofISISbyalteringISISphotos,whichaboundonTwitter,withrubberduckheads
    andaccoutrements(seeFigure14).

    Figure14.SpoofingISIS.
    Usersalsoembedanimatedvisualslikegifsandvideosincounterspeech.Forexample,many
    tweetedESPNs#MoreThanMeanvideoofmenreadinghatefulanddangeroustweetssentto
    femalesportsreporterswithacommentWeshouldberespectfulofothersinpersonor
    online(seeFigure15).

    27

    Figure15.Videocounterspeech.
    Humor
    Humorseemstohavespecialpowerasacounterspeechstrategy.Itmayshiftthedynamicsof
    communication,deescalateconflict,anddrawmuchmoreattentiontoamessagethanit
    wouldotherwisegarner.Someperceivehumorasalinguisticorcommunicativeperformance,
    whichputstheactofspeakingondisplayobjectifiesit,liftsittoadegreefromits
    interactionalsettingandopensittoscrutinybyanaudience(Baumann&Briggs,1990,p.
    73).Researchershavefoundthathumorinonlinesettingseaseshostility,offerssupportto
    otheronlinespeakers,andencouragessocialcohesion.(Marone,2015,p.61).OnTwitter,
    humoroftengetstheattentionofaverylargeanddiverseaudience,asillustratedbelow,and
    isarelativelycommonstrategy.Itcomesinmanyforms,ofcourse,includingcaricatureand
    sarcasm,andcanvaryimmenselyintone,fromconciliatorytoprovocativeoreven
    aggressive.
    Humorisoftensuccessfullyconveyedinimages,soitallowspeoplewhodonotsharea
    languagetocounterspeaktogetherofteninlargenumbersandacrossculturalandnational
    boundaries.OneexampleofthiscameinJuly2014,afterTurkishDeputyPrimeMinister
    BlentArincsaid(givinghisideasforproperfemaleconduct)thatwomenshouldnotlaugh
    loudlyinpublic.Withhoursofthespeech,#direnkahkaha(Turkishforresistandlaugh)
    wasoneofthetoptentrendinghashtagsworldwide(Bacchi,2014).Inspired,outraged,and
    amused,tensofthousandsofwomenandmenpostedlaughingselfies.Inmanycases,the
    imageswerealsofunny,astheyshoweddogs,cats,goats,andhorsesapparentlylaughing.
    AnotheramusingimagespreadlikewildfireonTwitterinApril2014,afterDaniAlves,a
    Braziliansoccerplayer,wassubjectedtoanalltoofamiliarhumiliatingracistgesturewhena
    spectatorthrewabananaathimonthefield.Alvespickedupthebanana,peeleditandateit.
    Anotherplayer,NeymardaSilvaSantosJr.,quicklypostedanimageofhimselfeatinga
    banana,onthehashtag#Somostodosmacacos,meaningweareallmonkeys.Thathashtag,
    inEnglish,spreadquicklyaswell.Inthiscase,Neymarhadpreparedtheimageinadvance
    withtheadviceofanadvertisingfirm,sincebothheandAlveshadbeenpeltedwithbananas
    manytimesbeforeandthousandsofpeoplepostedbananaeatingselfiesinspontaneous
    support.SeeFigure16.

    28

    Figure16.Tweetusingahashtagintwolanguages,tocounterracism.
    Insomecases,humorisusedtosoftenamessagethatwouldotherwisebeblunt,andperhaps
    tomakeitmorepersuasive.Apopularmeme,theItsTimeToStopPostingcatwasused
    byoneusertoprotestSinnFinpresidentGerryAdamsuseofthenword.(seeFigure17).
    Inresponsetothatcritiqueandothers,Adamsapologizedanddeletedhistweetquickly,but
    saidhehadbeeninnocentlycomparingthesufferingofAfricanAmericanswiththatofIrish
    nationalists.Whilethereareparallelsbetweenpeopleinstruggle,thetweetwas
    inappropriate"hetweeted.

    Figure17.Catmemeusedtosoftenademand
    Usingcaricatures,bycontrast,isawaytocounterhatefulordangerousspeechbymockingit.
    Forexample,severalcounterspeakerstookonauserwhotweetedracistisaderogatory
    wordusedonlytodescribewhitepeoplewhoopposetheirgenocide.Antiracistiscodeword
    forantiwhite.Diversityisacodewordforwhitegenocide.Oneuserrepliedwitha
    caricatureoftheNFLteamWashingtonRedskinslogo,usingwhitestereotypes(e.g.striped
    ties,golfclubs,blondhair,lanternjaw)tomocktheoriginaluser(seeFigure18).

    29

    Figure18.Imageofcaricatureofstereotypesbycounterspeaker
    Humorouscounterspeechhasbeenusedeveninresponsetoviolentextremistcontenton
    Twitter.Forexample,theISISrubberduckpicturesinFigure14aremeanttomake
    intimidatingimagesandmessageslessfrighteningorpowerful.Similarly,whenthehuman
    rightsactivistIyadElBaghdadiretweetedpartofacalltoactionfromISISin2015,Muslim
    Twitterusersrespondedwithhumorousreasonswhytheycouldnotjoin(seeFigure19),
    referringtopopularcultureandtotheQuran.LiketheISISrubberduckimages,thehumorin
    thesecounterspeechtweetscanweakentheISIScontentbytrivializingit.

    Figure19.HumorousresponsetoISISrecruitmentattempts
    OftenTwitterhumorisalsosardonicorsarcastic,likethistweet:Heylet'strend
    #KillAllMuslimsbutstillcallthemterroristbecauseitmakessomuchsense!!!!Another
    counterspeakercommentedonDonaldTrumpsproposedbanonadmittingMuslimstothe
    UnitedStates,@realDonaldTrumpcongratulations!You'rethenewHitler!#MuslimBan.
    Users,aswellasresearchers(Maynard&Greenwood,2014),havedifficultyidentifying
    sarcasmreliablyandsometimesgivethebenefitofthedoubt,Can'ttellifyou'rebeing
    sarcasticornot.Doyoureallynotknowthatblackfaceisoffensiveandaracistact?On
    theirownuseofsarcasm,somecounterspeakersleavenoroomfordoubt,taggingtheirtweets
    withahashtagorsomeformofmodifiedcodelike/sarcasm(Liebrecht,Kunneman,&van
    denBosch,2013).I'veneverhadasnowdayinmylife,evenwithtempsat46with
    windchill,soI'mreallyfeelingsorryforyouall#sarcasm#fuckphyllis,orbysimply

    30

    announcingityesthatsrightyourhashtagsarentracistatall.Neitherarethephotosyou
    haveposted.Justtomakesure,imbeingsarcastic.
    Tone
    Twittercounterspeechoccursalongaverywidetonalandemotionalspectrum,fromtweets
    thatarejustasobscene,angry,andviciousasthetweetstowhichtheyrespond,tokindand
    empathicmessages.Tweetsofdifferenttonehave,ofcourse,differenteffects.Hostiletweets
    canpersuadeanoriginalspeakertodeletetweetsorevenawholeaccount,butareunlikelyto
    eitherdeescalatetheconversationorpersuadetheoriginalspeakertorecantorapologize.
    Forexample,onecounterspeakertweetedfucknotallmuslimsbelongtoISISinresponseto
    anotherwhousedthehashtag#KillAllMuslims.Elsewhereonthespectrumaremany
    varietiesoftone:empathic,kind,andpolite,orcivil,speech.
    Ingeneral,expressionsofempathyhavebeenshowntoleadtopositiveattitudestowardsan
    adversarywhentrustbetweenspeakersishigh,butnegativeeffectsiftrustislow(Nadler&
    Liviatan,2006).Ithasalsobeenseenasaspeechaccommodationtactic,leadingto
    convergencewherespeakersbegintoadopteachothersspeakingstyles(Street&Giles,
    1982).Empathycanhelpaspeechpartnersavefaceindisclosure,helpingclosethe
    interpersonaldistancebetweentwospeakerstoengendertrustandcredibilityofarguments.
    Counterspeakersusedempathictonesintheirtweetsagainsthatefulhashtagsaswellas
    towardsindividualuserswhoweretweetinghatefulcontent.Thehashtag#KillAllMuslims
    yieldedmuchofthis,includingsuggestionsfornewhashtagstotrend.Forexample,oneuser
    tweeted#KillAllMuslims#KillAllChristiansWhatatrocioushashtags.#LetLoveLiveand
    #KillAllMuslimsHowabout#SaveHumanity??:")Anotheruserwasquitepolitein
    denouncingthehashtag:#KillAllMuslimsIstronglydisagreewiththistag.ItisdisgustingI
    believein#Love&#peaceit'sarealshame#ParisShooting.Evenwhenfacedwithexplicit
    deathwishes,somerespondedwithempathy(seeFigure20).

    Figure20.Empathicresponsetohatefulspeech.
    InanextendedoneononeexchangewithauserintentontweetingracismonMartinLuther
    KingDay2015,thecounterspeakerrepeatedlycounteredwithempathy,stillwishingyou
    love,tryasyoumight,Imnevergoingtowishyouanythingbutlove,andIwouldnever

    31

    laughatyourmurder.Iwouldnevertauntyourgrieving.Iwouldnevermockyourfightfor
    equality.Herempathetictweetsapparentlysucceededforadetaileddescriptionofthiscase,
    seepage14above.
    TypesofResponses
    Wehaveidentifiedfivecounterspeechresponsetypes,whichmayserveasanimportant
    startingpointforunderstandingwhencounterspeechissuccessful,withregardtoboththe
    authorofahatefultweetanditsaudience.Theseresponsesare:anapologyorrecanting,the
    deletionofthetweetoraccount,thecreationofmorehatefulspeech,asustainedandcivil
    conversation,andelicitingnewcounterspeechfromtheaudience.
    Apologyorrecanting
    Theresponsetocounterspeechwhichmostclearlysuggestssuccessiswhentheoriginal
    speakerrecantsorapologizes.Wefoundsuchresponsestoberare,butnotunheardof.We
    observedthemwhenoriginalspeakersclaimedtobeunawarethattheirtweetswerehateful,
    andwhentheywererebukedrepeatedly,orbyseveraldifferentaccounts.Forexample,inthe
    MissAmericaincident,auseratfirstdeniedthathewasracist,andapologizedonlyafter
    severalcounterspeakerscontradictedhim.Thissuggeststhatcontinuedcounterspeechas
    originalspeakersslowlyretreatcaneventuallyleadtoanapology.Withoutinterviewing
    thosewhorecantorapologize,however,wecannotknowwhytheyhavedoneso,orwhether
    theirspeechremainslesshateful,orwhethertheirviewshavechanged.Sometimes,original
    speakersmaybackdownorevenapologizesimplytogetcounterspeakerstoleavethem
    alone,andmaystillspeakhatefullyinthefuture.
    Deletion
    Anothercommonresponsetocounterspeechisthattheoriginalspeakerdeletesthehateful
    tweet,ortheentireaccountfromwhichitwassent.Weobservedthisasaresponseto
    manytoonecounterspeechandinresponsetowarningsofofflineconsequences.As
    mentionedabove,manycounterspeakersrespondedtothe#FuckPhyllishashtagbypointing
    outtostudentsthatfutureemployerswouldbeabletoreadthosetweets.Inresponse,many
    studentsdeletedtheirhatefultweets.
    Measuringthesuccessofthistypeofresponserequiresacarefulconsiderationofitslong
    termandshorttermeffects.Whilepushingtheoriginalspeakertoremovehatefulcontentisa
    shorttermsuccess,itdoesnotensurethatthespeakerwillcommunicatelesshatefullyinthe
    future.Evenifanaccountisdeleted,thespeakermaycontinueinthesameveinonanother
    platformoronadifferentaccountonthesameplatform.Theoutcomethatmostindicates
    longtermsuccessisameaningfulchangeintheoriginalspeakersfuturespeech,butthismay
    alsoconstitutesilencing,atacticthatisoftenusedtocurbthespeechofwomen,minority
    groups,anddissenters.Thishighlightsonereasonforourstrictdefinitionsofbothhateful
    speechandcounterspeech:webelieveitisessentialnottosilencecontroversialviews.

    32

    Morehatefulspeech
    SupportersofthesloganDontfeedthetrollsshouldbeunsurprisedtofindthatone
    responsetocounterspeechthatweobservedismorehatefulspeech,notonlyfromtheoriginal
    speaker,butsometimesalsofromothersonTwitterwhojoinintorefutethecounterspeaker.
    Weobservedthisresponsecomingfromboththosewhoenjoyelicitingareaction,thosewho
    seemtosincerelyholdhatefulbeliefs,andsomewhoareboth,e.g.racisttrolls.Itisareaction
    similartothatofthosewithstronglyheldbeliefswhorespondtofactcheckingbybecoming
    evenmoreentrenchedintheirviews.Thissortofresponseobviouslyincreaseshatefulspeech
    online,butthatmay,inturn,inspiremorecounterspeakerstostepin.
    Civilconversation
    Wehavealsoobservedrepeatedexchangesbetweenthosewhodisagreestronglybutremain
    civil.Successisuncertain,sincetheoriginalspeakeroftenrefusestoacknowledgeany
    wrongdoing,butdiffusingasituationsothathatefulspeechisnolongerbeingproducedisat
    leastapartialsuccess.Thecontacthypothesissuggeststhatprolongedcivilexchanges
    betweenindividualswhosharedifferentviewsandnormallywouldnotinteractcanhelp
    reducedistancebetweenthetwofactionsoropinions(Allport,1954Dekker,Belabas,&
    Scholten,2015).Itisdifficulttoproveinthewildthatthecontacthypothesisisworking,
    butthetheorysuggestssustainedcivilconversationsareasuccessfulformofcounterspeech.
    Morecounterspeech
    Thefinalresponsethatwehaveobservedisthecreationofmorecounterspeechbyother
    Twitterusers,orcyberbystanders.Itisdifficulttoknowwhethersubsequent
    counterspeakersweredrawnintoaconversationbytheinitialcounterspeech,butwehave
    indicationsthatthisisthecaseandcansignalsuccessintheformoffavorableimpactonthe
    audience.Duringthe#FuckPhyllisincident,oneUniversityofIllinoisalumnacredited
    anothercounterspeakerwithinspiringherowncounterspeechagainstthehashtag.Shesaid,I
    knew[redacted]wasanalumandsheinspiredmetousesocialmediaforgood,butIguess
    myclassmatesdidntgetthememo.#FuckPhyllis.Similarly,dozensofTwitterusers
    followedtheexampleofcomedianMichaelIanBlack,afterhediscoveredMegan
    PhelpsRopersTwitteraccountandbegancounterspeakingtoit.Cyberbystanders,like
    offlinebystanders,typicallychoosenottoactwhentheyperceivethatmanyothersare
    presentandwatching(Dillon&Bushman,2015Dillon,2015),buttheyaremuchmore
    likelytodosooncesomeoneelseacts(orcounterspeaks)(Markey,2000).
    Thisresponsecouldbesuccessfulinthesensethatitmayhavesignificantimpactonthe
    audience.Wespeculatethatasurgeincounterspeechmightacclimateotheruserstoit,sothat
    someofthembegintopracticeit.Ifagroupofnewcounterspeakersbecomesvocal,evenif
    stillintheminority,thatmaybeinfluentialinshiftingdiscoursenorms(Rosenberg,2011
    Gladwell,2000).

    33

    Thistypeofresponseisnotwithoutitsdangers,however.Likecounterspeechthatsilences,
    counterspeechwhichcreatesmorecounterspeechcanleadtodogpiling.Avoidingthis,like
    silencing,requiresgoodjudgmentandselfcontrolonthepartofcounterspeakers.

    ConclusionsandIdeasforFutureResearch
    Wehopetohaveprovidedsomeusefulideasoncounterspeech,whichisworthfurther
    explorationalthoughitissurelynot,byitself,asolutiontotheacuteproblemofvitrioland
    extremismonline.
    Wesuggestthatfutureresearchcontinueourfieldstudyapproach,gatheringlargerdatasets
    andworkinginotherlanguagesandnationalcontexts,inordertocomparedatasets.Workon
    thesefuturedatasetsshouldincludeacodebookorqualitativememoingsystem.
    Itmayalsobeusefultoconductlaboratoryexperimentsonthecommunicativestrategiesfor
    socialmediathatwevewitnessedonline.Itwouldbeespeciallyimportanttotesttheeffects
    ofvariousformsofcounterspeechonanaudience,whichwouldprobablybemorefeasible
    inalaboratoryexperimentthaninanobservationalstudylikeours.
    Anotherlineofresearchwouldfocusontheuseofhashtagsashatefulspeechor
    counterspeech.Itwouldbeusefultoexaminemultiplecasesinwhichhatefulhashtagsare
    reclaimed,forexample,especiallywhentheytrendaftereventsthatignitestrongemotionsin
    largepopulationsofpeople,suchasbombingsandshootings.
    Otherimportantquestionstobetackledinclude:Whichsortsofcounterspeechworkbestfor
    whatsortsofsubjects(people)?Arecertaintypesofcounterspeech(usingparticular
    strategies)moreeffectiveinresponsetoparticularformsofhatefulordangerousspeechor
    extremism(e.g.racismvs.misogyny,whitesupremacyvs.Islamicextremism)?Does
    counterspeechdifferinnatureandeffectivenesswhenconversationsareamongstrangers
    withnoties,peoplewhoknoweachother,orpeoplewithsomeofflinesharedidentityor
    connection(e.g.studentsandalumnioftheUniversityofIllinois)?
    Finally,itcouldbeofgreatinteresttointerviewindividualswhochangedtheirspeechor
    attitudesafteronlineexchanges,tolearnmoreabouthowandwhysuchchangetakesplace,
    andtointerviewcounterspeakerstolearnabouttheirreasoningandthoughtprocessasthey
    debatepeoplewhoare,mostoften,perfectstrangers.

    34

    WorksCited
    Allport,G.W.(1954).Thenatureofprejudice.Cambridge,MA:PerseusBooks.
    AmichaiHamburger,Y.,&McKenna,K.Y.(2006).Thecontacthypothesisreconsidered:
    InteractingviatheInternet.JournalofComputer MediatedCommunication,11(3),
    825843.
    Anderson,J.Q.,&Rainie,L.(2010).Thefutureofsocialrelations.PewResearchCenters
    Internet&AmericanLifeProject,2.
    AntiDefamationLeague.(2014).Bestpracticesforrespondingtocyberhate.
    Barrett,R.(2014).TheIslamicState.TheSoufanGroup.
    Bartlett,J.,&KrasodomskiJones,A.(2015).Counterspeech:Examiningcontentthat
    challengesextremismonline.Demos.
    Bauman,R.,&Briggs,C.L.(1990).Poeticsandperformanceascriticalperspectiveson
    languageandsociallife.AnnualReviewofAnthropology,19,5988.
    Baym,N.K.(1995).Theperformanceofhumorincomputermediatedcommunication.
    JournalofComputer MediatedCommunication,1(2),00.
    Bacchi,U.(2014,July30).#DirenKahkaha:Turkishwomeninsocialmedialaughprotest
    againstErdogansdeputy.TheInternationalBusinessTimes.Retrievedat
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/direnkahkahaturkishwomensocialmedialaughprotestag
    ainsterdogansdeputy1459005.
    Berger,J.M.,&Morgan,J.(2015).TheISISTwitterCensus:Defininganddescribingthe
    populationofISISsupportersonTwitter.TheBrookingsProjectonUSRelationswith
    theIslamicWorld,3(20).
    Berger,J.M.,&Strathearn,B.(2013).Whomattersonline:Measuringinfluence,evaluating
    contentandcounteringviolentextremisminonlinesocialnetworks.TheInternational
    CentrefortheStudyofRadicalisationandPoliticalViolence.
    Beauvois,J.L.,Joule,R.V.,&Brunetti,F.(1993).Cognitiverationalizationandact
    rationalizationinanescalationofcommitment.BasicandAppliedSocialPsychology,
    14,117.
    Benesch,S.(2013).Proposedguidelinesondangerousspeech.TheDangerousSpeech
    Project.Retrivedfromhttp://dangerousspeech.org/guidelines
    Benesch,S.(2014).Defininganddiminishinghatespeech.InFreedomfromhate:Stateof
    theworldsminoritiesandindigenouspeoples2014(pp.1825).London:Minority
    GroupInternational.

    35

    BipartisanPolicyCenter.(2012).CounteringonlineradicalizationinAmerica.Washington,
    DC:Neumann.
    boyd,d.,Golder,S.,&Lotan,G.(2010,January).Tweet,tweet,retweet:Conversational
    aspectsofretweetingonTwitter.InSystemSciences(HICSS),201043rdHawaii
    InternationalConferenceon(pp.110).IEEE.
    Brewer,M.B.,&Brown,R.J.(1998).Intergrouprelations.InD.T.Gilbert,S.T.Fiske,&
    G.Lindzey(Eds.),Handbookofsocialpsychology(4ed.,Vol.2,pp.554594).New
    York:McGrawHill
    Briggs,R.,&Feve,S.(2013).Reviewofprogramstocounternarrativesofviolent
    extremism.InstituteofStrategicDialogue.
    Brown,R.(2016).Defusinghate:Astrategiccommunicationguidetocounteractdangerous
    speech.UnitedStatesHolocaustMemorialMuseum.
    Bruns,A.,&Burgess,J.E.(2011,August).TheuseofTwitterhashtagsintheformationof
    adhocpublics.InProceedingsofthe6thEuropeanConsortiumforPolitical
    Research(ECPR)GeneralConference2011.
    Chen,A.(2015,November23).Unfollow:HowaprizeddaughteroftheWestboroBaptist
    Churchcametoquestionitsbeliefs.NewYorker.Retrievedfrom
    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/conversionviatwitterwestboroba
    ptistchurchmeganphelpsroper
    Citron,D.K.(2014).Hatecrimesincyberspace.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
    Citron,D.K.,&Norton,H.L.(2011).Intermediariesandhatespeech:Fosteringdigital
    citizenshipforourinformationage.BostonUniversityLawReview,91,1435.
    Conover,M.,Ratkiewicz,J.,Francisco,M.R.,Gonalves,B.,Menczer,F.,&Flammini,A.
    (2011).Politicalpolarizationontwitter.ICWSM,133,8996.
    Dekker,R.,Belabas,W.,&Scholten,P.(2015).InterethnicContactOnline:Contextualising
    theImplicationsofSocialMediaUsebySecondGenerationMigrantYouth.Journal
    ofInterculturalStudies,36(4),450467.
    Dinakar,K.,Reichart,R.,&Lieberman,H.(2011).ModelingthedetectionofTextual
    Cyberbullying.TheSocialMobileWeb,11,02.
    Dillon,K.P.(2015,November).Helpmehelpyou:Victimcommunicationin
    cyberbystanderinterventionincyberbullying,PaperpresentedattheNational
    CommunicationAssociation101stAnnualConference,HumanCommunication&
    TechnologyDivision,LasVegas,NV.

    36

    Dillon,K.P.,&Bushman,B.J.(2015).Unresponsiveorunnoticed?:Cyberbystander
    interventioninanexperimentalcyberbullyingcontext.ComputersinHuman
    Behavior,45,144150.
    Frenett,R.,&Dow,M.(2015).Onetooneonlineinterventions:ApilotCVEmethodology.
    InstituteforStrategicDialogue.
    Foxman,A.H.,&Wolf,C.(2013).Viralhate:ContainingitsspreadontheInternet.New
    York,NY:Macmillan.
    Fraser,B.(1990).Perspectivesonpoliteness.JournalofPragmatics,14(2),219236.
    Gladwell,M.(2006).Thetippingpoint:Howlittlethingscanmakeabigdifference.Boston:
    Little,Brown.
    Glaser,B.,&Strauss,A.(1967).Thediscoveryofgroundedtheory.Chicago:Aldine.
    Herz,M.,&Molnar,P.(2012).Thecontentandcontextofhatespeech:Rethinking
    regulationandresponses.NewYork,NY:CambridgeUniversityPress.
    Hussain,G.,&Saltman,E.M.(2014).Jihadtrending:Acomprehensiveanalysisofonline
    extremismandhowtocounterit.TheQuilliamFoundation.
    Joffe,H.(2008).Thepowerofvisualmaterial:Persuasion,emotionandidentification.
    Diogenes,55(1),8493.
    Kane,A.A.,Argote,L.,&Levine,J.M.(2005).Knowledgetransferbetweengroupsvia
    personnelrotation:Effectsofsocialidentityandknowledgequality.Organizational
    BehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses,96(1),5671.
    Kuklinski,J.H.,Quirk,P.J.,Jerit,J.,Schweider,D.,&Rich,R.F.(2000).Misinformation
    andthecurrencyofdemocraticcitizenship.TheJournalofPolitics,62(3),790816.
    Kwok,I.,&Wang,Y.(2013).Locatethehate:Detectingtweetsagainstblacks.In
    Proceedingsofthe27thAssociationfortheAdvancementofArtificialIntelligence
    Conference,16211622.
    LaGrandeur,K.(2003).DigitalimagesandclassicalpersuasioninMaryE.Hocks&
    MichelleR.Kendrick(Eds.)Eloquentimages:Word&imageintheageofnew
    media.Cambridge:MITPress.
    Lewandowsky,S.,Ecker,U.K.H.,Seifert,C.M.,Schwarz,N.,&Cook,J.(2012).
    Misinformationanditscorrection:Continuedinfluenceandsuccessfuldebiasing.
    PsychologicalScienceinthePublicInterest,13(3),106131.
    Liebrecht,C.C.,Kunneman,F.A.,Bosch,A.P.J.vanden(2013).Theperfectsolutionfor
    detectingsarcasmintweets#not.InBalahur,A.Goot,E.vanderMontoyo,A.

    37

    (Eds.),Proceedingsofthe4thWorkshoponComputationalApproachesto
    Subjectivity,SentimentandSocialMediaAnalysis,2937.
    Markey,P.M.(2000).Bystanderinterventionincomputermediatedcommunication.
    ComputersinHumanBehavior,16(2),183188.
    Marone,V.(2015).Onlinehumourasacommunitybuildingcushioningglue.TheEuropean
    JournalofHumourResearch,3(1),6183.
    McDonald,S.N.(2014,December2).RacistsGettingFiredexposesweaknessesofInternet
    vigilantism,nomatterhowwellintentioned.TheWashingtonPost.Retrievedfrom
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morningmix/wp/2014/12/02/racistsgettingfi
    redexposesweaknessesofinternetvigilantismnomatterhowwellintentioned/
    Mendel,T.,Herz,M.,&Molnar,P.(2012).Doesinternationallawprovideforconsistent
    rulesonhatespeech?Thecontentandcontextofhatespeech:Rethinkingregulation
    andresponses,417429.
    Michael,K.,&Young,A.D.(2015,June11).FrenshipISDteacherapologizesafter
    McKinneyrelatedsegregationpost,LubbockAvalancheJournal.Retrievedfrom
    http://lubbockonline.com/education/20150610/frenshipisdteacherapologizesafter
    mckinneyrelatedsegregationpost#.V1iqzasaLZo
    MuslimAdvocates.(2014).Clickheretoendhate:AntiMuslimbigotryonline&howtotake
    action.Retrievedfrom
    http://www.muslimadvocates.org/wpcontent/uploads/ClickHeretoEndHate.pdf
    Nadler,A.,&Liviatan,I.(2006).Intergroupreconciliation:Effectsofadversary'sexpressions
    ofempathy,responsibility,andrecipients'trust.PersonalityandSocialPsychology
    Bulletin,32(4),459470.
    Nyhan,B.,&Reifler,J.(2010).Whencorrectionsfail:Thepersistenceofpolitical
    misperceptions.PoliticalBehavior,32(2),303330.
    Nyhan,B.,&Reifler,J.(2015).Doescorrectingmythsaboutthefluvaccinework?An
    experimentalevaluationoftheeffectsofcorrectiveinformation.Vaccine,33(3),
    459464.
    Oring,E.(1992).Jokesandtheirrelations.Lexington:UniversityPressofKentucky.
    Payne,S.(2015,January20).AnamazingwomanfieldsatrollonMLKDayanditwas
    nothingshortofinspirational.[Blog].Retrievedfrom
    https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/1/20/1359055/Anamazingwomanfeedsatro
    llonMLKDayanditwasnothingshortofinspirational

    38

    Prior,M.(2003).Liberatedviewers,polarizedvoters:Theimplicationsofincreasedmedia
    choicefordemocraticpolitics.TheGoodSociety,11,1016.
    Ronson,J.(2015,February12).HowonestupidtweetblewupJustineSaccoslife.TheNew
    YorkTimes.Retrievedfrom
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/howonestupidtweetruinedjustines
    accoslife.html
    Rosenberg,T.(2011).Jointheclub:Howpeerpressurecantransformtheworld.NewYork,
    NY:WWNorton&Company.
    Rutkowski,G.K.,Gruder,C.L.,&Romer,D.(1983).Groupcohesiveness,socialnorms,and
    bystanderintervention.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,44(3),545552.
    Saleem,H.M.,Dillon,K.P.,Benesch,S.,Ruths,D.(2016).Awebofhate:Tacklinghateful
    speechinonlinesocialspaces.EuropeanLanguageResourcesAssociation.
    Saltman,E.M.,&Russell,J.(2014).TheroleofPreventincounteringonlineextremism.The
    QuilliamFoundation.
    Simeone,M.(2014,January29).Twitteroutrage,charted:Thepartialanatomyofthe
    #FuckPhyllistrend,orwhyIdonttrustBuzzFeed.[Blog].Retrievedfrom
    https://suffenus.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/twitteroutragechartedthepartialanatom
    yofthefuckphyllistrendandwhyidonttrustbuzzfeed/
    Stevens,M.(2013,May13).FAQ:Thegeographyofhate.[Blog].Retrievedfrom
    http://www.floatingsheep.org/2013/05/faqgeographyofhate.html
    Stevens,M.(2013,May13).Thegeographyofhate.[Blog].Retrievedfrom
    http://www.floatingsheep.org/2013/05/hatemap.html
    Street,R.L.,&Giles.H.(1982).Speechaccommodationtheory:Asocialcognitiveapproach
    tolanguageandspeechbehavior.InM.Roloff&C.Berger(Eds.),Socialcognition
    andcommunication(p.205255).BeverlyHills,CA:Sage.
    Suler,J.(2004).Theonlinedisinhibitioneffect.Cyberpsychology&Behavior,7(3),321326.
    Tajfel,H.(1974).Socialidentityandintergroupbehaviour.SocialScienceInformation,13,
    6593.
    Tanis,M.,&Postmes,T.(2003).SocialcuesandimpressionformationinCMC.Journalof
    Communication,53(4),676693.
    Walid,D.(2013,November24).Responsestomycallingoutthetermabeed.Retrieved
    from
    https://dawudwalid.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/responsestomycallingouttheterm
    abeed/

    39

    Warner,W.&Hirschberg,J.(2012).Detectinghatespeechontheworldwideweb.In
    ProceedingsoftheSecondWorkshoponLanguageinSocialMedia,1926.
    AssociationforComputationalLinguistics.
    Xiang,G.,Fan,B.,Wang,L.,Hong,J.,&Rose,C.(2012).Detectingoffensivetweetsvia
    topicalfeaturediscoveryoveralargescaletwittercorpus.InProceedingsofthe21st
    ACMinternationalconferenceonInformationandknowledgemanagement,
    19801984.ACM.
    Zuckerman,E.(2013).Digitalcosmopolitans:WhywethinktheInternetconnectsus,whyit
    doesn't,andhowtorewireit.WWNorton&Company.

    Anda mungkin juga menyukai