Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Counteracting Homophobic Discourse in Internet Comments: Fuelling or Mediating Conflict?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Hate Speech in Social Media

  • 194 Accesses

Abstract

The present study aims to examine counterspeech used to respond to LGBTIQ-targeted hostility in the comments section on a Lithuanian news portal. The objectives are to analyse (1) the extent of homophobic and non-homophobic comments and (2) the discursive strategies used in the two types of comments. This research combines the perspective of Critical Discourse Analysis and to some extent impoliteness theory. The data includes all the comments posted in reaction to a news article on a social event held to support LGBTIQ persons (1718 comments in total). The quantitative results show that counterspeaking is scarce and is more common only in the section of registered users. As the qualitative analysis has revealed, the argumentation used in counter-comments contains a high degree of hostility and often resembles that in homophobic comments, only that the target of the attacks is different. There are only a small number of comments where the argumentation aims at a constructive dialogue. The analysis also shows that counterspeakers tend to express their perspective through humour and irony, and a most common strategy of mitigation appears to be that of rhetorical questions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The term “dangerous speech” was coined by Benesch (2015) and Benesch et al. (2016a) to refer to verbal violence.

  2. 2.

    Project developed by the Lithuanian Ministry of Internal Affairs “Response to hate crime and hate speech”; https://vrm.lrv.lt/lt/atsakas-i-neapykantos-nusikaltimus-ir-neapykanta-kurstancias-kalbas

  3. 3.

    https://www.lygybe.lt/data/public/uploads/2021/03/institucinis-atsakas-i-neapykantos-kalbos-reiskini-lietuvoje-nepriklausoma-apzvalga.pdf

  4. 4.

    Such studies typically assess the effectiveness of intervention measures.

  5. 5.

    https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2020-lgbti-equality-1_en.pdf

  6. 6.

    https://www.lrt.lt/naujienos/lietuvoje/2/1817653/civiline-sajunga-palaiko-beveik-du-trecdaliai-teisininke-tikina-visuomenes-nepasiruosimu-politikai-dangstytis-nebegali?fbclid=IwAR0H36bKcXW31kfpnaejpHnvE6AC821d_MyIsbYuNY586GSXhXT7UE8CZ7c

  7. 7.

    https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/653644/EXPO_BRI(2021)653644_EN.pdf

References

  • Abdelkader, E. (2014). Savagery in the subways: Anti-Muslim ads, the first amendment, and the efficacy of counterspeech. Asian American Law Journal, 21(1), 43–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alsagheer, D., Mansourifar, H., & Shi, W. (2022). Counter hate speech in social media: A survey. ArXiv, abs/2203.03584.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attardo, S. (2017). Humor in language. In Oxford research Encyclopedia of linguistics. Accessed from https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-342

  • Bartlett, J. & Krasodomski-Jones, A. (2015). Counter-speech: Examining content that challenges extremism online. Demos. Accessed from https://www.demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Counter-speech.pdf

  • Benesch, S. (2014). Countering dangerous speech: New ideas for genocide prevention. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Accessed from https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20140212-benesch-countering-dangerous-speech.pdf

  • Benesch, S. (2015). Civil Society Puts a Hand on the Wheel: Diverse Responses to Harmful Speech. Available at: https://dangerousspeech.org/civil-society-puts-ahandon-the-wheel-diverse-responses-to-harmful-speech/

  • Benesch, S., Ruths, D., Dillon, K. P., Saleem, H. M., & Wright, L. (2016a). Counterspeech on Twitter: A field study. Dangerous Speech Project. Accessed from https://dangerousspeech.org/counterspeech-on-twitter-a-field-study/

  • Benesch, S., Ruths, D., Dillon, K. P., Saleem, H. M., & Wrigh, L. (2016b). Considerations for successful counterspeech. Accessed from https://dangerousspeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Considerations-for-Successful-Counterspeech.pdf

  • Berry, G., & Taylor, S. (2017). Discussion quality diffuses in the digital public square. In Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web. Accessed from https://doi.org/10.1145/3038912.3052666.

  • Briggs, R., & Feve, S. (2014). Policy briefing: Countering the appeal of extremism online. Institute for Strategic Dialogue, 2014, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Buerger, C., & Wright, L. (2019). Counterspeech: A literature review. Accessed from https://dangerousspeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Counterspeech-lit-review_complete-11.20.19-2.pdf.

  • Burnap, P. & Matthew, L. W. (2015). Cyber hate speech on Twitter: An application of machine classification and statistical modeling for policy and decision making. Policy and Internet, 7(2), 223–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.85

  • Citron, D. K., & Norton, H. L. (2011). Intermediaries and hate speech: Fostering digital citizenship for our information age. Boston University Law Review, 91, 1435–1484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, J. (2011). Politeness and impoliteness. In K. Aijmer & G. Andersen (Eds.), Sociopragmatics, Volume 5 of Handbooks of pragmatics (pp. 391–436). Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, J., Iganski, P., & Sweiry, A. (2017). Linguistic impoliteness and religiously aggravated hate crime in England and Wales. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 5(1). 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.5.1.01cul

  • Djuric, N., Zhou, J., Morris, R., Grbovic, M., Radosavljevic, V., & Bhamidipati, N. (2015). Hate speech detection with comment embeddings. In WWW’15 companion: Proceedings of the 24th international conference on world wide web (pp. 18–22).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ernst, J., Schmitt, J. B., Rieger, D., Beier, A. K., Vorderer, P., Bente, G., & Roth, H. J. (2017). Hate beneath the counterspeech? A qualitative content analysis of user comments on YouTube related to counter speech videos. Journal for Deradicalization, 10, 1–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esposito, J. L., & Mogahed, D. (2008). Who will speak for Islam? World Policy Journal, 25(3), 47–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EU LGBTI Survey II. (2020). FRA’s survey on LGBTI people in the EU and North Macedonia and Serbia. https://fra.europa.eu/lt/project/2018/eu-lgbti-survey-ii

  • Fišer, D., Ljubešić, N. & Erjavec, T. (2017). Legal framework, dataset and annotation schema for socially unacceptable online discourse practices in Slovene. In Proceedings of the first workshop on abusive language online.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frenett, R., & Dow, M. (2015). One to one online interventions: A pilot CVE methodology. Institute for Strategic Dialogue.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagliardone, I., Gal, D., Alves, T., & Martinez, G. (2015). Countering online hate speech. UNESCO Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland, J., Ghazi-Zahedi, K., Young, J. G., Hébert-Dufresne, L., & Galesic, M. (2022). Impact and dynamics of hate and counter speech online. EPJ Data Science, 11(3), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, S.-H., Brazeal, L., & Pennington, N. (2018). Is civility contagious? Examining the impact of modeling in online political discussions. Social Media + Society, 4(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hangartner, D., Gennaroa, G., Alasiri, S., Bahricha, N., Bornhofta, A., Bouchera, J., Demircia, B. B., Derksena, L., Halla, A., Jochuma, M., Munoza, M. M., Richtera, M., Vogela, F., Wittwera, S., Wüthricha, F., Gilardic, F., & Donnay, K. (2021). Empathy-based counterspeech can reduce racist hate speech in a social media field experiment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(50).

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, M. (2010). Jocular mockery, (dis)affiliation, and face. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2106–2119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.018

  • Law, D. M., Shapka, J. D., Domene, J. F., & Gagne, M. H. (2012). Are cyberbullies really bullies? An investigation of reactive and proactive online aggression. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 664–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malmasi, S., & Zampieri, M. (2017). Detecting hate speech in social media. In Proceedings of recent advances in natural language processing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathew, B., Saha, P., Tharad, H., Rajgaria, S., Singhania, P., Maity, S. K., Goyal, P., & Mukherjee, A. (2019). Thou shalt not hate: Countering online hate speech. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miškolci, J., Kováčová, L., & Rigová, E. (2018). Countering hate speech on Facebook: The case of the Roma minority in Slovakia. Social Science Computer Review, 38(2), 128–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munger, K. (2017). Tweetment effects on the tweeted: Experimentally reducing racist harassment. Political Behavior, 39(3), 629–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nobata, C., Tetreault, J., Thomas, A., Mehdad, Y., & Chang, Y. 2016. Abusive language detection in online user content. In WWW’16 companion: Proceedings of the 25th international conference on world wide web.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, E., de Quincey, E., & Giraud, E. (2018). Contesting #stopIslam: Tensions around hate speech on social media. British Academy Review, 33, 16–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, A., Ingram, H. I., & Whittaker, J. (2017). Countering terrorist narratives. European Parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, R. D., & Calvert, C. (2000). Counterspeech 2000: A new look at the old remedy for “bad” speech. BYU Law Review, 2000(2), 553–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieger, D., Schmitt, J. B., & Frischlich, L. (2018). Hate and counter-voices in the Internet: Introduction to the special issue. Studies in Communication and Media, 7(4), 459–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohlfing, S., & Sonnenberg, S. (2016). “Who is really British anyway?”: A thematic analysis of responses to online hate materials. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 10(4), article 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rösner, L., & Krämer, N. C. (2016). Verbal venting in the social web: Effects of anonymity and group norms on aggressive language use in online comments. Social Media + Society, 2(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruzaitė, J. (2021). How do haters hate? Verbal aggression in Lithuanian online comments. In I. Chiluwa (Ed.), Discourse and conflict: Analysing text and talk of conflict, hate and peace-building (pp. 115–145). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76485-2_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ruzaitė, J. (Forthcoming). Impoliteness categories in hateful comments targeting migrants in Lithuania. In V. Guillén-Nieto, A. Doval, & D. Stein (Eds.), From fear to hate: Legal-linguistic perspectives on migration. de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saleem, H. M., Dillon, K. P., Benesch, S., & Ruths, D. (2016). A web of hate: Tackling hateful speech in online social spaces. In Proceedings of the first workshop on text analytics for cybersecurity and online safety.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schieb, C., & Preuss, M. (2016). Governing hate speech by means of counterspeech on Facebook. In 66th ICA annual conference, Fukuoka, Japan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seering, J., Kraut, R., & Dabbish, L. (2017). Shaping pro and anti-social behaviour on behavior on twitch through moderation and example-setting. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sponholz, L. (2016). Islamophobic hate speech: What is the point of counter speech. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 36, 502–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strand, C., & Svensson, J. (2021). Disinformation campaigns about LGBTI+ people in the EU and foreign influence. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/653644/EXPO_BRI(2021)653644_EN

  • Stroud, S. R., & Cox, W. (2018). The varieties of feminist counterspeech in the misogynistic online world. In J. Vickery & T. Everbach (Eds.), Mediating misogyny (pp. 293–310). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7, 321–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (2017). The relationship between irony and sarcasm: Insights from a first-order metalanguage investigation. Journal of Politeness Research, 13(2), 209–241. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2015-0037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & Communication, 1(1), 91–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasilaki, M. (2014). Name-calling in Greek YouTube comments. In C. Pérez-Arredondo, M. Calderón-López, H. Hidalgo-Avilés, & D. Pask-Hughes (Eds.), Papers from the 9th Lancaster University postgraduate conference in linguistics & language teaching (pp. 90–110). Lancaster University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 63–94). Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, L., Ruths, D., Dillon K. P., Saleem. H. M., & Benesch, S. (2017). Vectors for counterspeech on twitter. In Proceedings of the first workshop on abusive language online.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania

    Jūratė Ruzaitė

Authors
  1. Jūratė Ruzaitė
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jūratė Ruzaitė .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

    Isabel Ermida

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ruzaitė, J. (2023). Counteracting Homophobic Discourse in Internet Comments: Fuelling or Mediating Conflict?. In: Ermida, I. (eds) Hate Speech in Social Media. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38248-2_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38248-2_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-38247-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-38248-2

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation