From a recent Science Reports paper:
Online debates are often characterised by extreme polarisation and heated discussions among users. The presence of hate speech online is becoming increasingly problematic, making necessary the development of appropriate countermeasures. In this work, we perform hate speech detection on a corpus of more than one million comments on YouTube videos through a machine learning model, trained and fine-tuned on a large set of hand-annotated data.
Our analysis shows that there is no evidence of the presence of "pure haters", meant as active users posting exclusively hateful comments. Moreover, coherently with the echo chamber hypothesis, we find that users skewed towards one of the two categories of video channels (questionable, reliable) are more prone to use inappropriate, violent, or hateful language within their opponents' community.
Interestingly, users loyal to reliable sources use on average a more toxic language than their counterpart. Finally, we find that the overall toxicity of the discussion increases with its length, measured both in terms of the number of comments and time. Our results show that, coherently with Godwin's law, online debates tend to degenerate towards increasingly toxic exchanges of views.
Journal Reference:
M. Cinelli, A. Pelicon, I. Mozetič, et al. Dynamics of online hate and misinformation. [open] Sci Rep 11, 22083 (2021).
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-01487-w
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 18 2021, @08:09AM (1 child)
Citations needed for any of that. And, no, CNN is not a citation. Some serious studies, from somewhere other than a liberal non-profit "think" tank. I can wait . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 18 2021, @08:18AM
OK, this just in from Satan's ThinkTank, Inc., Turns out everything you thought was true, and wanted to have confirmed by, um, somebody, is actually true. The citation is given. Truth is in. Trust in the Plan. Where we go to hell, we all go the hell. Semper Ignis!