Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

U.S. Election Hardens Hate Universe

Published 1 May 2024 in cs.SI, cs.HC, nlin.AO, and physics.soc-ph | (2405.00459v1)

Abstract: Local or national politics can trigger potentially dangerous hate in someone. But with a third of the world's population eligible to vote in elections in 2024 alone, we lack understanding of how individual-level hate multiplies up to hate behavior at the collective global scale. Here we show, based on the most recent U.S. election, that offline events are associated with a rapid adaptation of the global online hate universe that hardens (strengthens) both its network-of-networks structure and the 'flavors' of hate content that it collectively produces. Approximately 50 million potential voters in hate communities are drawn closer to each other and to the broad mainstream of approximately 2 billion others. It triggers new hate content at scale around immigration, ethnicity, and antisemitism that aligns with conspiracy theories about Jewish-led replacement before blending in hate around gender identity/sexual orientation, and religion. Telegram acts as a key hardening agent - yet is overlooked by U.S. Congressional hearings and new E.U. legislation. Because the hate universe has remained robust since 2020, anti-hate messaging surrounding not only upcoming elections but also other events like the war in Gaza, should pivot to blending multiple hate 'flavors' while targeting previously untouched social media structures.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (29)
  1. PhD thesis, DePaul University, 2018.
  2. K. Starbird, “Disinformation’s spread: bots, trolls and all of us,” Nature, vol. 571, pp. 449–449, July 2019. Bandiera_abtest: a Cg_type: World View Number: 7766 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group Subject_term: Society, Information technology.
  3. M. Shahi, “Protecting Democracy Online in 2024 and Beyond,” tech. rep., The Center for American Progress, Sept. 2023.
  4. M. Obaidi, J. Kunst, S. Ozer, and S. Y. Kimel, “The “great replacement” conspiracy: How the perceived ousting of whites can evoke violent extremism and islamophobia,” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 1675–1695, 2022.
  5. “Stress in America 2023: A nation recovering from collective trauma,” Nov. 2023.
  6. N. F. Johnson, R. Leahy, N. J. Restrepo, N. Velasquez, M. Zheng, P. Manrique, P. Devkota, and S. Wuchty, “Hidden resilience and adaptive dynamics of the global online hate ecology,” Nature, vol. 573, pp. 261–265, Sept. 2019. Number: 7773 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
  7. Cynthia Miller-Idriss, Hate in the Homeland: The New Global Far Right. Princeton University Press, Oct. 2020.
  8. E. Douek, “Content moderation as systems thinking,” Harv. L. Rev., vol. 136, p. 526, 2022.
  9. Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act – Stepping stones to a level playing field in Europe. European Economic and Social Committee, 2021.
  10. Y. Lupu, R. Sear, N. Velásquez, R. Leahy, N. J. Restrepo, B. Goldberg, and N. F. Johnson, “Offline events and online hate,” PLOS ONE, vol. 18, p. e0278511, Jan. 2023. Publisher: Public Library of Science.
  11. Y.-Y. Liu and A.-L. Barabási, “Control principles of complex systems,” Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 88, p. 035006, Sept. 2016. Publisher: American Physical Society.
  12. M. J. Gelfand, “Cultural evolutionary mismatches in response to collective threat,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 401–409, 2021.
  13. M. Zheng, R. F. Sear, L. Illari, N. J. Restrepo, and N. F. Johnson, “Adaptive link dynamics drive online hate networks and their mainstream influence,” npj Complexity, vol. 1, Apr 2024.
  14. Princeton university press, 2004.
  15. Rachel Brown and Laura Livingston, “A New Approach to Assessing the Role of Technology in Spurring and Mitigating Conflict: Evidence From Research and Practice,” Sept. 2018.
  16. M. Cinelli, A. Pelicon, I. Mozetič, W. Quattrociocchi, P. K. Novak, and F. Zollo, “Dynamics of online hate and misinformation,” Scientific Reports, vol. 11, p. 22083, Nov. 2021. Number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
  17. X. Chen, S.-C. J. Sin, Y.-L. Theng, and C. S. Lee, “Why Students Share Misinformation on Social Media: Motivation, Gender, and Study-level Differences,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship, vol. 41, pp. 583–592, Sept. 2015.
  18. X. Chen, S.-C. J. Sin, Y.-L. Theng, and C. S. Lee, “Why Do Social Media Users Share Misinformation?,” in Proceedings of the 15th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, JCDL ’15, (New York, NY, USA), pp. 111–114, Association for Computing Machinery, June 2015.
  19. Y. A. Kim and M. A. Ahmad, “Trust, distrust and lack of confidence of users in online social media-sharing communities,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 37, pp. 438–450, Jan. 2013.
  20. C. S. Lee, J. Merizalde, J. D. Colautti, J. An, and H. Kwak, “Storm the capitol: linking offline political speech and online twitter extra-representational participation on qanon and the january 6 insurrection,” Frontiers in Sociology, vol. 7, p. 876070, 2022.
  21. N. Velásquez, R. Leahy, N. J. Restrepo, Y. Lupu, R. Sear, N. Gabriel, O. K. Jha, B. Goldberg, and N. F. Johnson, “Online hate network spreads malicious COVID-19 content outside the control of individual social media platforms,” Scientific Reports, vol. 11, p. 11549, June 2021. Number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
  22. P. Leifeld, “Polarization in the social sciences: Assortative mixing in social science collaboration networks is resilient to interventions,” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, vol. 507, pp. 510–523, 2018.
  23. M. Oehlers and B. Fabian, “Graph metrics for network robustness—a survey,” Mathematics, vol. 9, no. 8, p. 895, 2021.
  24. M. Jacomy, T. Venturini, S. Heymann, and M. Bastian, “Forceatlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the gephi software,” PLoS ONE, vol. 9, Jun 2014.
  25. H. Schulze, J. Hohner, S. Greipl, M. Girgnhuber, I. Desta, and D. Rieger, “Far-right conspiracy groups on fringe platforms: A longitudinal analysis of radicalization dynamics on telegram,” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 1103–1126, 2022.
  26. D. O. Jamie Gangel, “Talk of overturning the 2020 election on new social media platforms used by qanon followers sparks fears of further violence,” 2021.
  27. J. Guhl and J. Davey, “A safe space to hate: White supremacist mobilisation on telegram,” Institute for Strategic Dialogue, vol. 26, 2020.
  28. S. Walther and A. McCoy, “Us extremism on telegram: Fueling disinformation, conspiracy theories, and accelerationism,” Perspectives on Terrorism, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 100–124, 2021.
  29. J. D. Hunter, “Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment,” Computing in Science & Engineering, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 90–95, 2007.

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Sign Up to Summarize

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate All Videos Subscribe on YouTube

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Generate Now

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Generate Now

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Sign Up

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 0 likes about this paper.

Sign Up for Free