skip to main content
10.1145/3524010.3539499acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshtConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Endorsement Analysis of Migrant-related Deliberations on YouTube: Prior to and During 2022 Ukrainian crisis

Published:28 June 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Extant literature has noted that migrant-related deliberations on social media platforms are primarily associated with negative sentiments. However, the literature has rarely probed – whether these negative sentiments get endorsed by other users? If yes, does it depend on who the migrants are – especially if they are cultural others? The 2022 Ukrainian refugee crisis allows probing these intricate issues. We have analyzed 110,803 (prior to this 2022 crisis) and 21,453 (during this crisis) migrant-related comments on the YouTube platform. Specifically, we investigate the relationship between user endorsement and sentiments of these comments. Both datasets indicate that users endorse comments with positive sentiments and reveal a negative propensity to endorse hate speeches, i.e., comments that use swear words. However, the analysis of the recent dataset reveals a negative propensity to endorse comments with negative sentiments, but the earlier dataset indicates a positive propensity. Thus, the endorsement pattern of comments with negative sentiments may depend on who the migrants are!

References

  1. Luis Aguirre and Emese Domahidi. 2021. Problematic Content in Spanish Language Comments in YouTube Videos about Venezuelan Refugees and Migrants. JQD 1, (September 2021). DOI:https://doi.org/10.51685/jqd.2021.022Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Valerio Basile, Cristina Bosco, Elisabetta Fersini, Debora Nozza, Viviana Patti, Francisco Manuel Rangel Pardo, Paolo Rosso, and Manuela Sanguinetti. 2019. SemEval-2019 Task 5: Multilingual Detection of Hate Speech Against Immigrants and Women in Twitter. In Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, Association for Computational Linguistics, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, 54–63. DOI:https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/S19-2007Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Alexandre Bovet and Hernán A. Makse. 2019. Influence of fake news in Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Nat Commun 10, 1 (December 2019), 7. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07761-2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Carlos Arcila Calderón, Gonzalo de la Vega, and David Blanco Herrero. 2020. Topic Modeling and Characterization of Hate Speech against Immigrants on Twitter around the Emergence of a Far-Right Party in Spain. Social Sciences 9, 11 (October 2020), 188. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9110188Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Erik Cambria, Yang Li, Frank Z. Xing, Soujanya Poria, and Kenneth Kwok. 2020. SenticNet 6: Ensemble Application of Symbolic and Subsymbolic AI for Sentiment Analysis. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, ACM, Virtual Event Ireland, 105–114. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3340531.3412003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Laura Ceci. 2022. YouTube penetration in selected countries and territories 2022. Statista. Retrieved April 25, 2022 from https://www.statista.com/statistics/1219589/youtube-penetration-worldwide-by-country/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Nathaniel Ming Curran and Hyun Tae. 2020. Digital Feminism and Affective Splintering: South Korean Twitter Discourse on 500 Yemeni Refugees. International Journal of Communication (2020), 14–19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Marianne Hattar‐Pollara. 2019. Barriers to Education of Syrian Refugee Girls in Jordan: Gender‐Based Threats and Challenges. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 51, 3 (May 2019), 241–251. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12480Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Grace Hauck. Ukraine refugee crisis highlights racism in Europe, Poland. Retrieved April 25, 2022 from https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2022/03/03/ukraine-refugee-crisis-racism-european-union/9329667002/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Jennifer Hoewe, Cynthia Peacock, Bumsoo Kim, and Matthew Barnidge. 2020. The Relationship Between Fox News Use and Americans’ Policy Preferences Regarding Refugees and Immigrants. International Journal of Communication (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Sylvia Jaki and Tom De Smedt. Right-wing German Hate Speech on Twitter: Analysis and Automatic Detection. 31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Serhat Karakayali. 2018. The Flüchtlingskrise in Germany: Crisis of the Refugees, by the Refugees, for the Refugees. Sociology 52, 3 (June 2018), 606–611. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038518760224Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Saif Khalid. Q&A: Understanding Europe's response to Ukrainian refugee crisis | Russia-Ukraine war News | Al Jazeera. Retrieved April 25, 2022 from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/10/qa-why-europe-welcomed-ukrainian-refugees-but-not-syriansGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Aparup Khatua and Wolfgang Nejdl. 2021. Analyzing European Migrant-related Twitter Deliberations. In Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, ACM, Ljubljana Slovenia, 166–170. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3442442.3453459Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Aparup Khatua and Wolfgang Nejdl. 2021. Struggle to Settle down! Examining the Voices of Migrants and Refugees on Twitter Platform. In Companion Publication of the 2021 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, ACM, Virtual Event USA, 95–98. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3462204.3481773Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Aparup Khatua and Wolfgang Nejdl. 2022. Unraveling Social Perceptions & Behaviors towards Migrants on Twitter. 16th International Conference On Web And Social Media ICWSM (2022).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Aparup Khatua and Wolfgang Nejdl. 2022. Rites de Passage: Elucidating Displacement to Emplacement of Refugees on Twitter. 33rd ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media (HT ’22) (2022). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3511095.3536362Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Ramona Kreis. 2017. #refugeesnotwelcome: Anti-refugee discourse on Twitter. Discourse & Communication 11, 5 (October 2017), 498–514. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481317714121Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Juan Pablo Latorre and Javier J. Amores. 2021. Topic modelling of racist and xenophobic YouTube comments. Analyzing hate speech against migrants and refugees spread through YouTube in Spanish. In Ninth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM’21), ACM, Barcelona Spain, 456–460. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3486011.3486494Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Douglas R. Leasure, Ridhi Kashyap, Francesco Rampazzo, Benjamin Elbers, Claire Dooley, Ingmar Weber, Masoomali Fatehkia, Maksym Bondarenko, Mark D. Verhagen, Arun Frey, Jiani Yan, Evelina Akimova, Alessandro Sorichetta, Andrew Tatem, and Melinda C. Mills. 2022. Ukraine Crisis: Monitoring population displacement through social media activity. SocArXiv. DOI:https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/6j9wqGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Ju-Sung Lee and Adina Nerghes. 2018. Refugee or Migrant Crisis? Labels, Perceived Agency, and Sentiment Polarity in Online Discussions. Social Media + Society 4, 3 (July 2018), 205630511878563. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118785638Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Raphael Ottoni, Evandro Cunha, Gabriel Magno, Pedro Bernardina, Wagner Meira Jr., and Virgílio Almeida. 2018. Analyzing Right-wing YouTube Channels: Hate, Violence and Discrimination. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science, ACM, Amsterdam Netherlands, 323–332. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3201064.3201081Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Nazan Öztürk and Serkan Ayvaz. 2018. Sentiment analysis on Twitter: A text mining approach to the Syrian refugee crisis. Telematics and Informatics 35, 1 (April 2018), 136–147. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.10.006Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Shriphani Palakodety, Ashiqur R. KhudaBukhsh, and Jaime G. Carbonell. 2020. Voice for the Voiceless: Active Sampling to Detect Comments Supporting the Rohingyas. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (2020), 454–462.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Endang Wahyu Pamungkas, Valerio Basile, and Viviana Patti. 2020. Do You Really Want to Hurt Me? Predicting Abusive Swearing in Social Media. In The 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (2020), 6237–6246.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Michelle Peterie and David Neil. 2020. Xenophobia towards asylum seekers: A survey of social theories. Journal of Sociology 56, 1 (March 2020), 23–35. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783319882526Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. David Pope and Josephine Griffith. 2016. An Analysis of Online Twitter Sentiment Surrounding the European Refugee Crisis: In Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, SCITEPRESS - Science and Technology Publications, Porto, Portugal, 299–306. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5220/0006051902990306Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Manoel Horta Ribeiro, Raphael Ottoni, Robert West, Virgílio A. F. Almeida, and Wagner Meira. 2020. Auditing radicalization pathways on YouTube. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, ACM, Barcelona Spain, 131–141. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372879Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Luis N. Rivera-Pagán. 2012. Xenophilia or Xenophobia: Towards a Theology of Migration. The Ecumenical Review 64, 4 (December 2012), 575–589. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/erev.12013Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Christos Sagredos and Evelin Nikolova. 2022. ‘Slut I hate you’: A critical discourse analysis of gendered conflict on YouTube. JLAC (2022). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00065.sagGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Manuela Sanguinetti, Fabio Poletto, Cristina Bosco, Viviana Patti, and Marco Stranisci. 2018. An italian twitter corpus of hate speech against immigrants. In Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC) (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Stefan Siersdorfer, Sergiu Chelaru, Wolfgang Nejdl, and Jose San Pedro. 2010. How useful are your comments?: analyzing and predicting youtube comments and comment ratings. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web - WWW ’10, ACM Press, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, 891. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1772690.1772781Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Christoph Spörlein and Elmar Schlueter. 2021. Ethnic Insults in YouTube Comments: Social Contagion and Selection Effects During the German “Refugee Crisis.” European Sociological Review 37, 3 (May 2021), 411–428. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcaa053Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Lu Tang, Kayo Fujimoto, Muhammad (Tuan) Amith, Rachel Cunningham, Rebecca A Costantini, Felicia York, Grace Xiong, Julie A Boom, and Cui Tao. 2021. “Down the Rabbit Hole” of Vaccine Misinformation on YouTube: Network Exposure Study. J Med Internet Res 23, 1 (January 2021), e23262. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2196/23262Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Yla R. Tausczik and James W. Pennebaker. 2010. The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and Computerized Text Analysis Methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29, 1 (March 2010), 24–54. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09351676Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Maximiliano Frías Vázquez and Francisco Seoane Pérez. 2019. Hate Speech in Spain Against Aquarius Refugees 2018 in Twitter. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, ACM, León Spain, 906–910. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3362789.3362849Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Bertie Vidgen, Tristan Thrush, Zeerak Waseem, and Douwe Kiela. 2021. Learning from the Worst: Dynamically Generated Datasets to Improve Online Hate Detection. arXiv:2012.15761 [cs] (June 2021). Retrieved December 16, 2021 from http://arxiv.org/abs/2012.15761Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Fabio Del Vigna, Andrea Cimino, Felice Dell'Orletta, Marinella Petrocchi, and Maurizio Tesconi. 2017. Hate me, hate me not: Hate speech detection on Facebook. In Proceedings of the First Italian Conference on Cybersecurity (ITASEC17) (2017), 86–95.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Zeerak Waseem and Dirk Hovy. 2016. Hateful Symbols or Hateful People? Predictive Features for Hate Speech Detection on Twitter. In Proceedings of the NAACL Student Research Workshop, Association for Computational Linguistics, San Diego, California, 88–93. DOI:https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N16-2013Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Greene William H. 2003. Econometric analysis.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. n.d. Media Bias/Fact Check News. Media Bias/Fact Check. Retrieved April 25, 2022 from https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Endorsement Analysis of Migrant-related Deliberations on YouTube: Prior to and During 2022 Ukrainian crisis
        Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          OASIS '22: Proceedings of the 2022 Workshop on Open Challenges in Online Social Networks
          June 2022
          49 pages
          ISBN:9781450392792
          DOI:10.1145/3524010

          Copyright © 2022 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 28 June 2022

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Upcoming Conference

          HT '24
          35th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media
          September 10 - 13, 2024
          Poznan , Poland
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)18
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format