Brandwatch, profile picture
Uploaded byBrandwatch
1,853 views

Cyberbullying and Hate Speech

This study analyzes nearly 19 million tweets to assess the prevalence and correlation of hate speech and online bullying in the UK and US. Findings suggest that racial intolerance is the most common form of hate speech, particularly in southern US states, and that there are significant challenges and progress related to homophobia and transphobia. The project highlights the importance of educators in promoting diversity and cautions against generalizations that could stigmatize specific groups.

Embed presentation

Download to read offline
Ditch the Label your world, prejudice free . Cyberbullying and Hate Speech What can social data tell us about cyberbullying and hate speech online?
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 2 Contents Abstract���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 3 Preface������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 4 Background and Methodology����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5 1.0 Hate Speech Analysis�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6 Progress and Challenges�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 8 Racial Intolerance��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 10 Homophobia����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 15 Transphobia�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������21 Correllation���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������28 2.0 Online Bullying������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������32 Progress and Challenges������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������33 Demographic Analysis�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������34 Recipient Responses��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������35 Timing������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������37 Appendix�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������45 About Brandwatch�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������46 About Ditch The Label������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������47
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 3 Abstract This study of almost 19 million tweets analyses hate speech, masculinity and online bullying in the UK and the US. Racial intolerance was the most common source of hate speech, with US tweets concentrated in southern states. In both markets, regions with racial hatred strongly correlated with misogyny. Socioeconomic factors may also play a role, with poorer areas hosting higher levels of hate speech. Gender constructs remain prominent within family units and the data points to educators as playing a pivotal role in encouraging diversity. Significant progress has been made raising awareness around homophobia and transphobia, but hate speech persists within specific interest groups. Online bullying was found to span a wide range of topics and responding to bullying often escalated the conflict. For each of the topics, key areas of progress are outlined as well as challenges for those hoping to tackle these areas of prejudice might face.
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 4 Preface This project represents the combined efforts of the Brandwatch Research Services team in conjunction with Ditch the Label. The contents, which can be divided loosely into two sections, provide supportive data and practical advice for campaigns hoping to challenge bullying and discrimination in online discourse. Hate speech, the first of our three topics, is itself a contested term1 . For the purposes of this study, we define hate speech as expression or incitement of hatred towards recipients based on prejudice; for this study based on race, gender identity and expression, or sexual orientation. Further areas of discrimination, such as religion, go beyond the current scope but warrant further research. Analysis in this project assumes the aims of minimising hate speech and increasing awareness and debate. Our research shows some hate speech to be concentrated in select geographic regions and demographics. The purpose of the project is not to vilify these groups (generalisations of this kind go against the core aims of the study), but rather to show the biggest opportunities for social progress. Reported rates of cyber bullying vary, with as high as 87% of youth being exposed according to a McAfee 2014 study2 and as many as 34% being direct recipients3 . In the second section of our study we analyse online bullying, questioning when bullying takes place, by which types of authors, and whether specific topics precede bullying remarks. The report recognizes bullying as a behaviour rather than identity and avoids ‘bully’ and ‘victim’ as static labels. Bullying language is heavily context dependent. Here, we have separated insults used as friendly or teasing exchanges from those intended to offend. Much of this must be inferred at perlocutionary level, however features in the text (including those denoting humour in the recipient) are also used in segmentation. This project sheds light on issues relating to hate speech, but should not be viewed as an argument for online censorship. Rather, the data points to the need for a nuanced approach, further open debate and awareness, and positive role models. While there are many signs of positive progress throughout, there are also key challenges to address for those hoping to facilitate social change. 1.Gagliardone, I., et al, UNESCO 2015. Countering Online Hate Speech, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cul- tural Organization. Open access: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002332/233231e.pdf 2.Eichorn, K. et al, 2014. “2014 Teens and the Screen Study”, http://www.mcafee.com/us/about/news/2014/ q2/20140603-01.aspx 3.Patchin, J.W., Jinduja, S., 2015. “Lifetime Cyberbullying Victimization Rates”, http://cyberbullying.org/summa- ry-of-our-cyberbullying-research
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 5 Background and Methodology Background Award-winning anti-bullying charity Ditch the Label and leading social intelligence company Brandwatch teamed up to tackle questions surrounding hate speech and online bullying. The project captured a total of 19 million tweets from the US and the UK over the span of four years, to better understand progress and challenges across the following key areas: 1.Online Hate Speech Five queries were written to capture hate speech across five topics: racial intolerance, misogyny, masculinity construct, homophobia and transphobia. For each topic a separate query searched for neutral and supportive discussion about the topic. The data was then analysed for key trends, author demographics and regional variation within the UK and the US. 2.Online Bullying Bullying exchanges were collected from Twitter, not limited to specific hate speech areas of section one. These were used to establish whether specific times and topics were more prone to online trolling, and whether responding to online bullying more often helps or hinders the recipient.
1.0 Hate Speech Analysis
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 7 Hate Speech Summary Hate speech summary Insult Prevalence Gender Breakdown Neutral/ Supportive Discussion Most prominent US States Most prominent UK Counties Correlations Racial Intolerance 7.7m tweets 59% male Overtook racial insults in January 2015 Louisiana, Texas Midlothian, East Ayrshire Strong positive correlation with misogyny, moderate positive correlation with homophobia Homophobia 390k tweets 64% male More common than homophobic insults and growing Rhode Island, Iowa Denbighshire, Dundee Moderate to strong positive correlation Transphobia 456k tweets 60% male More common than transphobic insults and growing Alabama, Idaho West Yorkshire, Coventry Strong positive correlation with Republican support (US), moderate negative correlation with masculinity (UK)
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 8 Hate Speech Summary Progress Online support is growing: discussion about homophobia and transphobia consistently outnumbers hate speech in these areas. Discrimination as a talking point has grown by 14% (homophobia) and 38% (transphobia) each month on average over the past four years. The Black Lives Matter movement has increased the profile of racial discrimination as a talking point online and gained traction on both sides of the Atlantic. While male authors are more likely to discuss the problems of racism, female authors now comprise a larger share in this conversation than in 2012. Misogyny has grown significantly as a talking point since 2014 and engages both male and female authors online. Misogynistic comments are now also less likely to come from students (comprising 31% in 2012 compared with 20% in 2016). Challenges Masculinity constructs are a growing talking point, especially since the beginning of 2016. However, masculinity-related insults remain prevalent. This is especially the case among authors associated with family and parenting, suggesting these terms and attitudes may be transferred to future generations. Intolerance in online conversation varies by region. In the US, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Southern Carolina host the most racially intolerant tweets (relative to population), while in the UK the most concentrated regions are Northumberland, Liverpool, Peterborough and Surrey. Hate speech authors are overrepresented within specific demographics, including sports enthusiasts (more than twice as prominent) and executives (30% overrepresented). By contrast, teachers and scientists, as well as those interested in politics and environmental issues, were least present in online hate speech. Female authors accounted for 52% of misogynistic language use. The data showed that misogynistic terms are used as insults between female authors, suggesting they sit within mainstream lexicon and may not consciously be considered misogynistic (though still typically used to insult females or perceived feminine behaviours).
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 9 Educators Play a Pivotal Role in Equality Debate Hate Speech and Debate by Parenting and Family Authors Educators Family Parents 100 MoreDebateMoreHateSpeech 50 0 -50 -100 Homophobia Masculinity Misogyny Racial Intolerance Transphobia In the chart above, the white nodes represent teacher and lecturer conversation and blue nodes represent family and parents. The size of each node reflects how big a talking point it is within each group. Higher nodes indicate more neutral and supportive debate around the topic, while nodes below the zero line indicate that insults and hate speech are more common. Authors associated with family and parenting were overrepresented in hate speech across all topics. The largest area of discussion was racial intolerance, suggesting a potential challenge for attitude transference between generations. Pejorative discussion was also pronounced for masculinity constructs and misogyny. Home life is typically the most influential source of gender constructs for children and early adolescents, again suggesting risk for negative attitudes to impact future generations. By contrast, teachers and lecturers were more likely to encourage debate surrounding gender issues, highlighting one means by which gender constructs may be challenged. Conversation surrounding homophobia and transphobia was much more constructive on average among both parents/family members and educators. However, while educators were more vocal surrounding sexual orientation, transphobia remained a much smaller talking point. This could mark need for more visibility surrounding the rights of transgender individuals, both in the home and in educational contexts.
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 10 Racial Intolerance Trend analysis 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 7000000 8000000 Mentions 7,010,192 7,681,280 Racial insults Discussion about racism Total Mention Volumes Across the time frame studied, neutral conversation around racial inequalities grew more strongly than racial hate speech. However, overall racial insults were 8% more visible than neutral discussion. The trend lines show that as of January 2015, weekly volumes of neutral conversation outgrew pejorative language. Racism: Mention Volumes Over Time MentionVolume 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 InsultsDiscussion Protests in Ferguson Videos showing how racism could be ended Jan 13 Jul12 Jan 14 Jul13 Jan 15 Jul14 Jan 16 Jul15
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 11 June and July 2016 saw a peak of neutral conversation around racism. This was triggered by landmark political events in both the UK and US. Notably, the stories that triggered peaks in neutral conversation did not impact racist language. The limited overlap in topics driving neutral and negative peaks suggests that these conversations were held by two distinct author groups. We analysed lists of the most impactful authors, both within racial insults and among those discussing racism, and found an overlap between the two groups of less than five per cent. This divide may pose a challenge for those hoping to raise awareness of racial intolerance, as the authors they may hope to influence are likely not in their immediate networks. Due to large volumes a 25% representative sample was taken for both queries. The trend chart shows 25% sample volumes while the bar chart shows actual volumes per query.
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 12 Heat Map Analysis In the US, southern states showed the highest concentration of pejorative racial language with Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Southern Carolina standing out. Vermont, Oregon and a majority of North-Western states emerged as more likely to host neutral or constructive debate. In the UK, areas of heated negative discussion were scattered throughout the country with East Ayrshire, Midlothian, North Yorkshire, Blaenau Gwent and Torfaen emerging as most prominent. Despite both being neutral overall, Scotland appeared to lean slightly more towards the neutral end of the spectrum (blue) while England and Wales hosted larger shares of prevalently negative countries (shown in red shades in the maps above).
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 13 Demographic Analysis %ofmentions 0 20 40 60 80 100 Discussion about racism Racial Insults 41% 59% 45% 55% Male Female Author Gender Overall, male authors were more active in discussing racial intolerance than females with the skew being even more pronounced for insulting language than for neutral. Authors working in educative fields (scientists researchers, teachers lecturers and journalists) were more active in neutral than in negative discussion. Students instead showed greater use of racial insults than neutral language, suggesting room for improvement around the reach and impact of conversations by educative professionals. Politics was the strongest interest among neutral conversations of racial intolerance. This interest was four times weaker among authors using racial insults who were instead more likely to be interested in sports, music, family and parenting.
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 14 Professions Racist insults Discussion about racism 2827 8 13 13 14 25 Interests Racist insults Discussion about racism Artist Executive Student Journalist TeacherLecturer Healthpractitioner SportpersonsTrainer ScientistResearcher Other Artist Executive Student Journalist TeacherLecturer Healthpractitioner SportpersonsTrainer ScientistResearcher Other 12 7 3 7 5 3 5 17 19 33 7 3 5 9 11 14 14 25 32 5 6 10 10 11 11 16 45 1716157532 Politics Sports Books FamilyParenting Music FoodDrinks Business Other Politics Sports Books FamilyParenting Music FoodDrinks Business Other Professions and interests in category ‘other’ listed in appendix.
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 15 Homophobia Trend analysis Total Mention Volumes 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000 3000000 3500000 Mentions Homophobic Insults Discussions about Homophobia 390,296 3,142,496 Homophobic hate speech was eight times less common than neutral discussion about homophobia. 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 Homophobia: Mention Volumes Over Time InsultsDiscussion Jan 13 Jul12 Jan 14 Jul13 Jan 15 Jul14 Jan 16 Jul15 MentionVolume Sochi Games 2016 Orlando Shootings
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 16 Neutral conversation peaked around two key events: the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi and the Orlando Shootings in June 2016. Both claimed around 2% of overall neutral homophobia discussion but showed minimal direct impact on the volume of homophobic hate speech. Engagement around these peaks was largely driven by actions/messages of support for the LGBT+ community by prominent authors such as Channel 4 and Germany’s national sports team, who rebranded their logo/opening ceremony outfits to reflect LGBT colours (Sochi), gay rights activists across the world who met for a day of protests (Sochi) and US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton who expressed support for the LGBT community on Twitter (Orlando). Both these peaks were closely linked to politics and political figures, suggesting a sphere in which political actions and individuals can have a significant impact on awareness of homophobia. However, the relatively stable use of homophobic language throughout the time frame suggests more work is needed to enable change within these author communities. The trend chart above shows % distribution for visual coherence.
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 17 Heat Map Analysis In the US, homophobic hate speech was strongly prevalent in Michigan, Ohio, Nevada, Arizona and Texas. Washington, Vermont, North Carolina and Louisiana were among the states to witness the lowest levels of homophobic engagement online. The UK exhibited less homophobic discussion (relative to debate) in comparison to the US (23% and 56% respectively), with Scotland showing the most widespread level of homophobic language. Pockets of homophobic hate speech were seen in Wales (Glamorgan, Gwent and neighbouring Herefordshire) and England (East Yorkshire and Peterborough). The UK exhibited a large number of counties in which homophobic hate speech was balanced by the neutral conversations around homophobia. By contrast, in the US individual states leaned more clearly towards either extreme suggesting that overall, suggesting that US states were more polarised around the topic of homophobia than counties in the UK.
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 18 Demographic Analysis 20 40 60 80 100 Author Gender Homophobic Insults Discussions about Homophobia 64% 49% 36% 51% Male Female %ofmentions Gender analysis revealed a higher level of male engagement (64%) for homophobic insults, while an even split was observed for general discussion. Within homophobic hate speech, slight differences emerged between male and female conversation topics, with discrimination and insults tending to be gender equivalent (topics such as ‘fucking queer’ emerged in male conversation, while female content contained terminology such as ‘fucking lesbian’).
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 19 Authors engaging in homophobic insults were more likely to be students and executives, while also expressing a greater interest in sports. Yet topical interest remained similar across professions and interests, with no defining topical engagements unique to executives or students, or those interested in sports. Artist Student Executive Journalist TeacherLecturer Artist Student Executive Journalist TeacherLecturer Music Sports FamilyParenting Politics FoodDrinks Books Professions Homophobic insults Discussion about homophobia Interests Homophobic insults Discussion about homophobia OtherOther Other Music Sports FamilyParenting Politics FoodDrinks Books Other 25 8 11 13 15 27 23 39 10 7 14 9 9 13 37 5 9 3 12 19 15 3 6 18 20 29
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 20 Professions Racist insults Discussion about racism 2827 8 13 13 14 25 Interests Racist insults Discussion about racism Artist Executive Student Journalist TeacherLecturer Healthpractitioner SportpersonsTrainer ScientistResearcher Other Artist Executive Student Journalist TeacherLecturer Healthpractitioner SportpersonsTrainer ScientistResearcher Other 12 7 3 7 5 3 5 17 19 33 7 3 5 9 11 14 14 25 32 5 6 10 10 11 11 16 45 1716157532 Politics Sports Books FamilyParenting Music FoodDrinks Business Other Politics Sports Books FamilyParenting Music FoodDrinks Business Other Professions and interests in category ‘other’ listed in appendix.
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 21 Transphobia Trend analysis Total Mention Volumes 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 19,003 455,945 Mentions Transphobic Insults Discussion about Transphobia Neutral discussion about transphobia was 24 times more prominent than transphobic hate speech, the strongest ratio across all discrimination areas. 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 Transphobia: Mention Volumes Over Time InsultsDiscussion Jan 13 Jul12 Jan 14 Jul13 Jan 15 Jul14 Jan 16 Jul15 MentionVolume Comedian Joan Rivers calls Michelle Obama a Tranny Discrimination towards Caitlyn Jenner and tweet pointing out difference between free speech and hate speech
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 22 The largest peak in neutral transphobia conversation occurred in the week commencing June 1st 2015. A significant share was driven by engagement around @beeteezy content regarding racism, transphobia, homophobia and misogyny not being opinions, stating the difference between free speech and hate speech (12,262 retweets). Other engagement was driven by a transphobic tweet by @DrakeBell in which he insisted on calling Caitlyn Jenner ‘Bruce’. @elielcruz encouraged other users to share her content to expose the author (2,700 retweets). Transphobic language peaked on June 30th 2015 due to news of comedian Joan Rivers calling Michelle Obama a ‘tranny’. Engagement came in the form of authors sharing news content involving footage of the comedian’s comments, noting the statements as a ‘bombshell’. The trend chart above shows % distribution for visual coherence .
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 23 Transphobia Debate Has Gained Momentum NumberofMentions 1 2 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 01/02/16 01/08/15 01/02/15 01/08/14 01/02/14 01/08/13 01/02/13 “There is an international day against homophobia and transphobia, and it is today” 1 “Disagreeing with a Trans person DOES NOT make you transphobic. It means you disagree with someone who happens to be Trans #gamergate” “Fight transphobia every day! Today is Transgender Day of Rememberance 2013 #solidarity #support” 2 “Target customers need to stop being so transphobic I swear the next person who says they don’t want to use the bathroom if “men” can just... ” As shown by the chart above, conversation about transphobia was scarcer in 2012 and 2013, however gained momentum from the second half of 2014. This may indicate an increased awareness and need to be vocal about issues affecting the transgender community. Over time, more authors have begun commemorating days such as International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia and Transgender Remembrance Day. The share of total conversation around
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 24 these two days was about 50% in 2012, it then decreased to around 14% in 2015 even though total conversation increased (due to a higher base level of discussion across the year). Instances of transphobia or perceived transphobia shaming started emerging in the fall of 2014 with the divided opinions on whether Gamegate’s introduction of a character identifying as transgender was transphobic. This discussion permeated the transphobia conversation through mid-2015. Planet Fitness’ involvement in a lawsuit also led to claims that the attorney had made transphobic remarks on public radio. Public speeches were also scrutinized with authors calling out perceived transphobic slurs (including Ellen DeGeneres during the Oscars, Joan River, National Review’s article on Laverne Cox). TV series featuring transgender characters (Orange Is The New Black and SVU) prompted polarized discussion around the topic with some viewers praising the shows for celebrating diversity and shedding light on discrimination issues. Several authors suggested that SVU had been transphobic in the past. Popular culture sources such as these could be further leveraged to educate viewers on transphobic issues. Legislation around bathroom rules for transgender individuals in early 2016 also played a role in igniting a debate which continued through summer 2016. Public issues could be an opportunity for DtL to participate in the social conversation by creating hashtags that foster constructive conversation.
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 25 Heat Map Analysis The maps above show the range of transphobic discussion across US states and UK counties. Nevada, Idaho, Alabama and North Dakota exhibited the highest ratios of transphobic discussion (relative to neutral discussion and debate). Kansas, Oklahoma and Louisiana also hosted above-av- erage levels of transphobic language. By contrast, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota and New Mexico hosted the lowest transphobic scores. In the UK, Perth Kinross, Lancashire, Derbyshire, Aberdeen City and Hampshire experienced the highest transphobic scores. Kent, Nottinghamshire and Sterling were the counties to host the lowest levels of transphobic conversation. The UK and the US differed to the extent that the UK hosted more neutral and low-level transphobic engagement, while in the US, transphobic conversation varied more widely between states.
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 26 Demographic Analysis 4020 40 60 80 100 Author Gender Transphobic Insults Discussions about Transphobia Male Female %ofmentions 60 41 59 Gender distribution revealed a highly engaged female audience in neutral conversation around transphobia (59% female), with male authors more likely to use pejorative language (60%). In neutral conversation, Islamaphobia emerged as a key talking point for both genders. This highlights the grouping of discriminatory mind-sets and engagement online, with popular content often encouraging authors to see discrimination as a wider issue pertaining to general human rights. Again, political reference was common here, with key authors such as Human Rights Campaign (@HRC) noting Clinton’s appreciation of access and opportunity as key American values, put in contrast with transphobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia and racism.
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 27 Journalist and executive were the only professions to see a difference at query level, with ‘insults’ exhibiting 6% and 16% respectively, while general discussion hosted 11% and 11% respectively. As was seen for homophobia, authors were more likely to be interested in Sports discussion (15% compared with 5%) Artist Student Executive Journalist TeacherLecturer ScientistResearcher Healthpractitioner Other Artist Student Executive Journalist TeacherLecturer ScientistResearcher Healthpractitioner Other Music Politics Sports FamilyParenting Books FoodDrinks AnimalsPets Games Other Music Politics Sports FamilyParenting Books FoodDrinks AnimalsPets Games Other Professions Transphobic insults Discussion about transphobia Interests Transphobic insults Discussion about transphobia 31 5 6 7 11 8 5 14 12 28 4 5 7 7 11 15 8 14 15 4 6 6 11 11 17 30 14 6 4 4 6 16 17 32
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 28 Correlation Analysis Correlation Overview (US) Correlation Overview (US) RACISM TRANSPHOBIA HOMOPHOBIA MASCULINITY MISOGYNY AVERAGE ANNUAL INCOME REPUBLICAN NO POLITICAL AFFILIATION DEMOCRAT WEALTH DISTRIBUTION RACISM 0.427 0.241 0.241 0.741 -0.219 0.150 -0.060 -0.120 0.116 TRANSPHOBIA 0.427 0.173 0.581 0.505 -0.379 0.622 0.276 -0.541 -0.038 HOMOPHOBIA 0.241 0.173 0.431 0.528 0.241 0.094 -0.154 -0.305 -0.066 The grid above displays correlations between the five discrimination topics, as well as outside topics: Average Annual Income*, those who self-identify as Republicans, no political affiliation, or Democrat**, and wealth distribution (Gini Coefficient)***. Correlations are based on a scale of -1 to 1, with zero representing no correlation, -1 representing a perfect negative and 1 representing a perfect positive correlation. The strongest negative correlation was found for Misogyny and self-identified Democrats (-0.929), meaning that states with lower levels of misogyny tend to be stronger bases of Democratic support. The same was true to a lesser extent for transphobia (-0.541), suggesting that Democrat-strong regions are less likely to tolerate misogyny or transphobia in online discussion. Racism and Misogyny saw the strongest uphill correlation (0.741) meaning states with high levels misogynistic language are also likely to exhibit less racial tolerance in the data. Homophobia and Transphobia had the weakest positive correlation (0.173), despite often sharing advocates within LGBT+ communities. This could potentially be a springboard to further investigate the relationship between these terms through the scope of social chatter. Methodology: Ratios for the five topics were found by dividing the insulters within the category by those who found the category to be intolerant. These ratios were then correlated against each other, as well as outside topics. *Data is based off of the 2012 US Census results, released in 2013 **Data is based off of the 2014 Pew Research study ***Data is based off of the 2013 wealth coefficient research by Frank Gini
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 29 Correlation Analysis (US) The heat maps above correspond to misogyny, racial intolerance and homophobia in the US, showing overlap across certain states. Texas hosted high levels of discriminatory content across all three constructs, and hosted the highest misogyny ratio (insults compared with neutral discussion) at 0.738 as well as the second highest racial intolerance ratio of 1.319. Nevada and Arizona both expressed high levels of homophobic engagement and slight levels of misogynistic content. Michigan similarly exhibited strong level of homophonic engagement, and slight levels of racial intolerance and misogynistic mentions. While southern states including Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida and South Carolina hosted higher levels of racial intolerance online, the majority of southern states were neutral in the context of homophobia, with Texas and Arizona the only exceptions. Louisiana (1.621), Texas (1.319), and Georgia (1.298) saw the highest ratios of racial insults to race debate, meaning for almost every two racially insensitive tweets, there was one tweet about racial tolerance. Washington and Oregon exhibited neutrality and low discriminatory scores across all constructs. Both held low ratios for topic insults to topic tolerance, with Washington ranking in the top five lowest ratios for all three categories, (0.426 racism, 0.068 homophobia, and 0.224 misogyny).
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 30 Correlation Overview (UK) Correlation Overview (UK) RACISM TRANSPHOBIA HOMOPHOBIA MASCULINITY MISOGYNY VOTED YES TO LEAVE EU CON 2015 UKIP TURNOUT 2015 LONG TERM UNEMPLOYMENT RACISM -0.295 0.478 0.279 0.632 0.0139 -0.0658 -0.047 0.086 0.145 TRANSPHOBIA -0.295 -0.315 -0.443 -0.334 0.334 -0.0813 0.095 -0.197 0.152 HOMOPHOBIA 0.478 -0.315 0.157 0.752 0.138 -0.0691 0.200 -0.142 0.163 The grid above displays correlations between the three measured topics (Racism, Transphobia and Homophobia), as well as outside topics: voted “yes” to leave the European Union, voted for the Conservative party in 2015, voted for UKIP in 2015, the share of voters who turned out for 2015 election, and long term unemployment in the UK. Correlations are based on a scale of -1 to 1, with zero representing no correlation, -1 representing a perfect downhill correlation and 1 representing a perfect uphill correlation. Homophobia to Misogyny saw the strongest positive correlation (0.752) among the topics, whereas Masculinity to Homophobia saw the weakest uphill correlation (0.157). Homophobia only had one downhill correlation, which did not feature as particularly strong, with Transphobia (-0.315), indicating the topic’s tendency to be mentioned in conjunction with the other categories. Interestingly, “Voting ‘Yes’ to leaving the EU” was not a reliable predictor of hate speech, including racial intolerance. This follows mainstream news reports of increases in hate crime following the referendum2 , and suggests that varying attitudes within each county make for a more nuanced picture of attitudes to race and nationality across the UK. Variable census data collected from the 2015 General Election Results, British Election Study, 2015 (sourced 29/08/2016). 2. Lusher, A. 2016. “Racism Unleashed”, Independent, 07/28/2016.
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 31 Correlation Analysis (UK) The heat maps above correspond to misogyny, masculinity constructs and homophobia in the UK, showing overlap across certain counties. Northamptonshire and South Ayrshire emerged as counties that exhibited high scores across all three constructs. Aside from Northamptonshire and South Ayrshire, regional distribution of discrimination appeared to be random and lacked consistency across constructs. This supports the notion that discrimination across the UK tended to be concentrated within a few regional pockets, while the majority of counties holding a more balanced range of views towards discrimination areas online.
2.0 Online Bullying
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 33 Online Bullying Summary Progress The data supports current Twitter advice to not necessarily interact with online bullying. Recipient replies led to escalated conflict in 44% of cases, compared with only 3% positive outcomes. This type of finding can be used to inform recipients who encounter online trolls. Less confrontational replies are less likely to escalate. Recipients of bullying who reply with offensive language were more likely to escalate the conflict, especially when relating to contentious issues such as politics. By contrast, more reasoned responses stood a better chance of diffusing the situation and enlisting support from others. Challenges Discrimination is visible within online bullying. The majority of insults related broadly to intelligence and appearance, however sexual orientation, religion and gender also featured within our sample. Bullying scenarios are scattered. While politics was the most common topic to be met with bullying remarks, there were no consistent themes predictive of online trolling. The finding, that most topics can lead to online bullying, poses a challenge for tracking and countering bullying behaviour online.
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 34 Females More Likely to Engage in Troll Discussion Interests Professions 20 40 60 80 100 BulliedBullying %ofmentions 31.2% 24.3% 19.1% 15.3% 10.1% 20% 15% 25% 20% 20% 20 40 60 80 100 RecipientBullying %ofmentions 41.7% 17.9% 11.9% 14.9% 13.4% 40.6% 14.5% 24.6% 4.3% 15.9% No Reaction Politics Music Family Parenting Sports Journalist Sales/Marketing/PR Student Executive Artist The charts above represent a demographic breakdown of Twitter trolls and their recipients. Females were more likely than male authors to be involved in this type of conversation, but the gender breakdown was roughly even between groups, with 66% of bullying authors identifying as female and 65% of recipients identifying as Male. Female authors tended to use insults relating to intelligence (dumb, stupid), appear- ance (fat, ugly), and derogatory animal terms (bitch, chicken). Male trolls also referenced intelligence in in- sults (stupid, dumb, moron) and appearance (ugly, fat), but were also more likely to use homophobic insults (faggot). Creating messaging around these prevalent themes for both genders could assist in educating and alleviating future online bullying behaviour. Earlier in the study we identified executives as over-represented in online hate speech. However, as shown above, executives were also more likely to be the recipients of online trolling, perhaps due in part to their more prominent/visible online status. * Brandwatch Twitter demographics segment authors on an automated basis according to name and bio information.
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 35 Trolls Respond to Wide Range of Discussion Topics Topics Shared by Recipients prior to Bullying Sports Food Music Bullying Response Gaming Health TV Hair Relationships Travel Politics 13% 12% 11% 10% 9% 9% 7% 7% 7% 5% 5% 5% Topics of Troll Content 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 PercentageofMentions Intelligence Appearance N otSpecified O ther Sexual O rientation R eligion W eight G ender 33% 20% 19% 11% 7% 4% 3% 3% The charts above reflect content by those who were bullied in their three tweets prior to being targeted. While a few authors used hashtags, mostly around sports or television shows, no two authors used the same hashtag in our random sample. 80 topics emerged within our sample; the chart above reflects the top 12. The broad range of topics prior to bullying suggests that trolls are not restricted to a limited range of topics. Rather, any number of topics may be met by troll content.
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 36 Politics held the largest share of voice (13%) followed by Sports (12%), and Food (11%). Recipients who were trolled for their political views were more likely to be insulted based on their intelligence, more so than any other category of insult. Within pre-troll Sports conversation, the range of insults varied, with appearance and general insults holding the largest shares. The Response category indicates a bullied user responding to another peer, usually in the form of a yes or no response, but did trigger bullying which focused on insulting the user’s intelligence as well as general insults. *Sample of 100 bullied authors out of 400 bullied, confidence interval of 10
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 37 Bullying: Day of the Week 5 10 15 20 Bullying Mentions During an Average Week MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN 16% 16% 16% 14% 11% 9% 18% PERCENTAGES Control Group Mentions During an Average Week 5 10 15 20 13% 17% 15% 15% 15% 13% 12% MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN PERCENTAGES The charts above show shares of activity throughout an average week. Figure A represents when trolling takes place and Figure B shows a control group (representative of broader Twitter discussion). Bullying authors tweeted most prolifically on Sunday (18%), followed by Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, all at 16% of the week. In the control group, Tuesday featured as the most prolific day (17%), followed by Sunday, Wednesday, and Thursday all at 15%. This indicates Sunday as a bullying outlier and a day to monitor for such discussions. On Sundays, appearance (ugly ,fat), and intelligence insults (stupid, dumb, idiot, moron) were most common, whereas on Wednesdays appearance outweighed intelligence insults. The trend of intelligence insults decreasing continued until volumes spiked on Sunday. Further research could reveal whether trolls are more critical of intelligence at the beginning of the week and more focused on appearance towards the end of the week, as well as which factors may influence these trends.
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 38 Bullying: Hour of the Day Bullying: Hour of the day PercentageofMentions Hour of day BullyControl 2 4 6 8 23:00 22:00 21:00 20:00 19:00 18:00 17:00 16:00 15:00 14:00 13:00 12:00 11:00 10:00 09:00 08:00 07:00 06:00 05:00 04:00 03:00 02:00 01:00 00:00 The chart above highlights the percentage of bullying activity throughout an average day, relative to a Twitter control group. The groups shared one peak in volume, which occurred at 17:00/5:00 p.m., when bullying saw 8% of the day’s volume and the control group held 7.5%. This featured as the largest peak in bullying conversation throughout the day, with content including homophobic, intelligence, and economic insults. Authors produced the fewest proportion of comments at 4 a.m., when insults focused predominantly on appearance (ugly) and intelligence (stupid). Discrepancies between the two lines show that bullying was disproportionately common between six and eight in the evening and was less common around two in the afternoon, when there was an increase in general (non-bullying) activity.
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 39 Responding To Trolls Can Escalate Conflict Twitter Response Sentiment No Reaction Positive to Ease Conflict Neutral to No Impact Negative to Escalate Conflict 44% 17% 3% 36% “LOL you dumb b-----” “so why are you talking to me????” NEGATIVE OUTCOME “Happiness is all that matters in life sweet pea...” “Deluded” “I’m proud of what I am” NEUTRAL OUTCOME “Not at all. Just blinded by ignorant hatred and racist bigotry that brings shame on Hull.” “...a racist, homophobic sexist idiot?” The chart above shows reactions to responses from bullying recipients. The examples featur represent archetypal bullying exchanges, with the inciting bullying shown first. As shown, negative reactions to responses from bullied individuals were the most likely, reflecting a tendency toward continuing or escalating the conflict. There is a scant likelihood of positive outcomes when engaging with trolls on Twitter.
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 40 Note that conversations categorized with ‘positive reaction’ do not necessarily entail positive reactions from the bullying author, but instead include positive outcomes for the recipient, including support received from other users. Twitter’s Help Center recommends several options for bullied individuals, including when to report abuse. These options include first unfollowing, then blocking, the user. According to the article, “Abusive users often lose interest once they realize you will not respond,” recommending a “don’t engage” policy. Further to this point, 36% of the ‘no reaction’ conversations were examples of non- engagement by bullied users.
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 41 Outcomes When Recipients Respond to Bullying “Re, belief in gods. I have none. Atheism is a NON-belief. Are you really that stupid or are you trolling?” “I don’t hate you, btw” NEUTRAL REACTION “Why do you hate me so much. I’m asking you a few simple questions. There you go calling me this and that..Come on be responsible” “and this is based on WHAT, oh Trump and ur a chump 4 buying n 2 the BS!” NO REACTION “Based on everything he says when I watch him. I’m a chump? Well YOU are blocked.” “Blacks r just as racist as any white racist they will have u try to feel guilty about #fuckem” “ur dumb, nothing I said was racist u complete spastic” NEGATIVE REACTION “I am very disappointed mate thought you were better then those comments you made. You can fuck off. #unfollwed #blocked” “Proving your a fool. And a racist” POSITIVE REACTION “I may be a fool – however definitely – not a racist – as a REPUBLICAN – in November – I’m voting for – HRC” “we’ll take you just this one time lol” “For that I applaud you”
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 42 Lead-Up to Negative Reactions Bullying Remark Response The above topic clouds represent the prominent phrases within conversations that ended with negative reactions from bullying authors. As shown, the two clouds reveal a striking similarity between the bullies and their victims, with several insults appearing prominently within both groups. Often, this bullying begets continued negativity and abuse. As these mentions were followed by further negative reaction and conversation, the finding suggests that engaging in abuse with similar language may simply perpetuate and escalate the conflict. .
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 43 No Reactions Bullying Remark Response The above topic clouds represent the prominent phrases within conversations that ended with no reaction from bullying authors. Although several negative phrases, including dumb and ugly, are prominent within the responses, they are far less likely to appear within responses by bullied individuals. This is understood when compared against the prominence of these outright negative terms in responses that prompted further negative reactions (see previous chart). The implication is that, if responding to bullying on Twitter, less offensive language is less likely to escalate the conflict.
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 44 Appendix Hate speech summary Insult prevalence Homophobia Transphobia Masculinity Construct Misogny Professions Interest Professions Interest Professions Interest Professions Interest Professions Interest Religious staff Home Gardening Religious staff Home Gardening Politician Shopping Religious staff Home Garden Religious staff Home Garden Emergency worker Shopping Emergency worker Shopping Sales/ Maketing Travel Emergency worker Shopping Emergency worker Shopping Politician Automotive Politician Travel Legal Environment Politician Environment Politician Environment Software developer Fashion Sales/ Marketing Environment Sportsperson Automotive Legal Travel Legal Travel Sales/ Marketing Travel Legal Fashion Software developer Fashion Sotware developer Automative Sales/ Marketing Automotive Legal Environment Software developer Automative Photo Video Sales/ Marketing Fashion Software developer Fashion Photo Video Scientist Researcher Science Science Scientist Researcher Photo Video Scientist Researcher Photo Video Movies Health practitioner Photo Video Movies Science Health practitioner Science Science Sportsperson Movies Business Movies Movies Games Technology Fine arts Technology Fine arts TV Fine arts TV TV Technology Fine arts Business Technology Fine arts Business Technology Beauty/Health Beauty/Health Games Beauty/Health Beauty/Health Fitness TV Business Animals Pets Games Animals Pets
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 45 About Brandwatch Brandwatch is the world’s leading social intelligence company. Brandwatch Analytics and Vizia products fuel smarter decision making around the world. The Brandwatch Analytics platform gathers millions of online conversations every day and provides users with the tools to analyze them, empowering the world’s most admired brands and agencies to make insightful, data-driven business decisions. Vizia distributes visually-engaging insights to the physical places where the action happens. The Brandwatch platform is used by over 1,200 brands and agencies, including Unilever, Cisco, Whirlpool, British Airways, Heineken, Walmart and Dell. Brandwatch continues on its impressive business trajectory, recently named a global leader in enterprise social listening platforms by the latest reports from several independent research firms. Increasing its worldwide presence, the company has offices around the world including Brighton, New York, San Francisco, Berlin, Stuttgart, Paris and Singapore. Brandwatch. Now You Know. www.brandwatch.com | @Brandwatch
Cyberbullying and Hate Speech | 46 About Ditch the Label We are one of the largest and most ambitious anti-bullying charities in the world. We are defiant, innovative and most importantly, proud to be different. Our mission is to reduce the effect and prominence of bullying internationally. No more disempowerment. No more prejudice. No more bullying. Each week, we provide award-winning support to thousands of young people aged 12-25, primarily through our website and digital partnerships. We also work with schools, colleges, parents/guardians, young people and other youth organisations. Innovation is at the core of all that we do and we believe that we can, and will beat bullying. We commission and utilise research reports, like this one, to better understand the changing nature and climate of bullying and discrimination. This continuous learning process feeds directly into the improvement and evolution of our support programs which helps not only those who are being bullied, but those who are doing the bullying too. Find out more at www.DitchtheLabel.org
Brandwatch Research Services is a team of dedicated analysts based in Brighton, Berlin and New York, helping our customers better understand and use social data. For more research examples visit our report library www.brandwatch.com/reports © Brandwatch Ditch The Label Contact Our address 15-17 Middle St, Brighton, BN11AL Email hello@DitchtheLabel.org Web www.DitchtheLabel.org Tweet @DitchtheLabel

More Related Content

PDF
10 Ways to Identify Disinformation
bySarah Jackson
 
PDF
Measuring Stakeholder Perceptions of the "Social Impact" in ESG
byOlivia Kresic
 
PPTX
The new landscape of facts and trust
byPew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project
 
PPTX
Trust, Facts, Democracy
byPew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project
 
PPTX
Online Harassment 2017
byPew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project
 
PDF
Top 14 booklet 2019
byTaylorThelander
 
PDF
Top 14 booklet 2019
byTaylorThelander
 
PDF
Top 14 booklet 2019
byTaylorThelander
 
10 Ways to Identify Disinformation
bySarah Jackson
 
Measuring Stakeholder Perceptions of the "Social Impact" in ESG
byOlivia Kresic
 
The new landscape of facts and trust
byPew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project
 
Trust, Facts, Democracy
byPew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project
 
Online Harassment 2017
byPew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project
 
Top 14 booklet 2019
byTaylorThelander
 
Top 14 booklet 2019
byTaylorThelander
 
Top 14 booklet 2019
byTaylorThelander
 

What's hot

PDF
Teens and Sexting
byPew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project
 
PDF
Content sharing-and-identity
byMadalina Balaban
 
PDF
Top 14 Public Relations Insights of 2019
bySarah Jackson
 
PDF
Social media hurting
byclay153
 
PDF
Challenges of a Social Media Professional
bySarah Jackson
 
PDF
Dynamics of Cause Engagement - Final Report
byCenter for Social Impact Communication, Georgetown University
 
PPSX
Exploring privacy behaviours of social media users
byTheSRAOrg
 
PDF
Civility in America 2019: Solutions for Tomorrow
byWeber Shandwick
 
PDF
Wiedman_Op-Ed
byCatherine Wiedman
 
PDF
Measuring Stakeholder Perceptions of the "Social Impact" in ESG
byOlivia Kresic
 
PDF
What makes-an-influencer
byÓscar Miranda
 
DOCX
Sm
bysamsheils
 
PPTX
Fake it until you make it: The secret behind Trump's win
byOgilvy Consulting
 
PPT
Digital Politics: Pew Research findings on technology and campaign 2012
byPew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project
 
PDF
Research Propsal 1
byChristina Cecil
 
PPTX
VSPEC social media / Jon Newman
byjonnewman12
 
PPTX
IPRRC17
byMelissa Dodd, Ph.D
 
DOCX
Sm
bysamsheils
 
Teens and Sexting
byPew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project
 
Content sharing-and-identity
byMadalina Balaban
 
Top 14 Public Relations Insights of 2019
bySarah Jackson
 
Social media hurting
byclay153
 
Challenges of a Social Media Professional
bySarah Jackson
 
Dynamics of Cause Engagement - Final Report
byCenter for Social Impact Communication, Georgetown University
 
Exploring privacy behaviours of social media users
byTheSRAOrg
 
Civility in America 2019: Solutions for Tomorrow
byWeber Shandwick
 
Wiedman_Op-Ed
byCatherine Wiedman
 
Measuring Stakeholder Perceptions of the "Social Impact" in ESG
byOlivia Kresic
 
What makes-an-influencer
byÓscar Miranda
 
Sm
bysamsheils
 
Fake it until you make it: The secret behind Trump's win
byOgilvy Consulting
 
Digital Politics: Pew Research findings on technology and campaign 2012
byPew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project
 
Research Propsal 1
byChristina Cecil
 
VSPEC social media / Jon Newman
byjonnewman12
 
IPRRC17
byMelissa Dodd, Ph.D
 
Sm
bysamsheils
 

Viewers also liked

PPTX
Cómo utilizar Brandwatch para identificar influencers/Introducción a Audience...
byBrandwatch
 
PDF
Case Study: Empowering employee advocacy with social listening
byBrandwatch
 
PDF
Publicis Groupe - Using social data to inform campaign strategy
byBrandwatch
 
PPT
Thinking outside the bubble: How to build a valuable B2B audience
byBrandwatch
 
PPTX
Social Consumer Insights: Why social is a vital component for uncovering the ...
byBrandwatch
 
PDF
Taller de queries / Josefina Valenciano
byBrandwatch
 
PPTX
Asking more from your social research - Doing More With Social
byBrandwatch
 
PDF
Walmart: How Social Analytics Works at Walmart
byBrandwatch
 
PPTX
Social CMI: Audience: First Time Buyers
byBrandwatch
 
PPTX
Client Case Study: Ditch The Label - Doing More With Social
byBrandwatch
 
PDF
Masculinity and Misogyny in the Digital Age
byBrandwatch
 
PPTX
Understanding Online Behaviors - Doing More With Social
byBrandwatch
 
PDF
FOX Networks Group
byBrandwatch
 
PPTX
Storytelling with Dashboards and Vizia - Doing More With Social
byBrandwatch
 
PPTX
Audience-based community management - Doing More With Social
byBrandwatch
 
PPTX
The Science of Influence and Networks - Paul Siegel
byBrandwatch
 
PPTX
Social CMI: The value of audience segmentation in social listening
byBrandwatch
 
PPTX
Switching Mobile Provider - Doing More With Social
byBrandwatch
 
PDF
Wimbledon and Hill+Knowlton
byBrandwatch
 
PDF
Case Study: Comic relief
byBrandwatch
 
Cómo utilizar Brandwatch para identificar influencers/Introducción a Audience...
byBrandwatch
 
Case Study: Empowering employee advocacy with social listening
byBrandwatch
 
Publicis Groupe - Using social data to inform campaign strategy
byBrandwatch
 
Thinking outside the bubble: How to build a valuable B2B audience
byBrandwatch
 
Social Consumer Insights: Why social is a vital component for uncovering the ...
byBrandwatch
 
Taller de queries / Josefina Valenciano
byBrandwatch
 
Asking more from your social research - Doing More With Social
byBrandwatch
 
Walmart: How Social Analytics Works at Walmart
byBrandwatch
 
Social CMI: Audience: First Time Buyers
byBrandwatch
 
Client Case Study: Ditch The Label - Doing More With Social
byBrandwatch
 
Masculinity and Misogyny in the Digital Age
byBrandwatch
 
Understanding Online Behaviors - Doing More With Social
byBrandwatch
 
FOX Networks Group
byBrandwatch
 
Storytelling with Dashboards and Vizia - Doing More With Social
byBrandwatch
 
Audience-based community management - Doing More With Social
byBrandwatch
 
The Science of Influence and Networks - Paul Siegel
byBrandwatch
 
Social CMI: The value of audience segmentation in social listening
byBrandwatch
 
Switching Mobile Provider - Doing More With Social
byBrandwatch
 
Wimbledon and Hill+Knowlton
byBrandwatch
 
Case Study: Comic relief
byBrandwatch
 

Similar to Cyberbullying and Hate Speech

PPT
calins bully, cyberbullying the legacies
byCalinMarBolofer2
 
DOCX
Jacque lewis - Senior Project -w/o script
byJacque Lewis
 
PPTX
Presentation on the cyber bullying in digital threat
bysrinivasuluk211
 
PDF
SAMUEL FULL PROJECT
bySamuel Adekanmbi
 
PPTX
Bullying-and-Cyberbullying-A-Community-Concern-PowerPoint-Presentation (1).pptx
byAsthaShukla40
 
PPTX
Understanding Online Socials Harm: Examples of Harassment and Radicalization
byAmit Sheth
 
PPTX
Social Media Powerpoint
byJuliaWilliams18
 
PPTX
Social Networiking & Cyber Bullying Presentation
byteganjoy97
 
PPTX
Social Networking & Cyberbullying presentation
bylucycowell
 
PDF
Cyberbullying: Advice for Schools
byInternational Accreditation Organization
 
PPT
Cyberbullying
byhmfowler
 
PPTX
Cyber bullying
bylheikkila
 
PDF
Module 3 english
byUls Ulsaa
 
PDF
Module 3 english
byMijiddorj Ganjargal
 
PDF
Module 3 english
byUls Ulsaa
 
PPTX
CyberBullying_Week6_Presentation_FinalVersion.pptx
byAlaarahim1
 
PPTX
Cyber bullying
byCharlotte Gore
 
PPT
Mexico Presentation[1]
byJose Luis Gonzalez
 
PPT
What is Cyberbullying presentation
bySally Garza
 
PPTX
Cyber-bullying for Attorneys June2012
byDeborah Gonzalez, Esq.
 
calins bully, cyberbullying the legacies
byCalinMarBolofer2
 
Jacque lewis - Senior Project -w/o script
byJacque Lewis
 
Presentation on the cyber bullying in digital threat
bysrinivasuluk211
 
SAMUEL FULL PROJECT
bySamuel Adekanmbi
 
Bullying-and-Cyberbullying-A-Community-Concern-PowerPoint-Presentation (1).pptx
byAsthaShukla40
 
Understanding Online Socials Harm: Examples of Harassment and Radicalization
byAmit Sheth
 
Social Media Powerpoint
byJuliaWilliams18
 
Social Networiking & Cyber Bullying Presentation
byteganjoy97
 
Social Networking & Cyberbullying presentation
bylucycowell
 
Cyberbullying: Advice for Schools
byInternational Accreditation Organization
 
Cyberbullying
byhmfowler
 
Cyber bullying
bylheikkila
 
Module 3 english
byUls Ulsaa
 
Module 3 english
byMijiddorj Ganjargal
 
Module 3 english
byUls Ulsaa
 
CyberBullying_Week6_Presentation_FinalVersion.pptx
byAlaarahim1
 
Cyber bullying
byCharlotte Gore
 
Mexico Presentation[1]
byJose Luis Gonzalez
 
What is Cyberbullying presentation
bySally Garza
 
Cyber-bullying for Attorneys June2012
byDeborah Gonzalez, Esq.
 

More from Brandwatch

PPTX
Identifying and Analyzing a target audience with Analytics
byBrandwatch
 
PPTX
Brand protection & Crisis Aversion
byBrandwatch
 
PPTX
Leveraging Insights with Creative Segmentation
byBrandwatch
 
PPTX
Life As a Brandwatch Analyst
byBrandwatch
 
PPTX
Intelligence: The Fundamentals
byBrandwatch
 
PPTX
Control vs. Culture: The New Technology Operating Environment
byBrandwatch
 
PPTX
Collective creativity for better intelligence
byBrandwatch
 
PDF
Ethics and humanity in the age of technology
byBrandwatch
 
PPTX
Digital transformation in a regulated industry
byBrandwatch
 
PDF
Emotional Intelligence
byBrandwatch
 
PDF
25 things we learned analyzing billions of tweets
byBrandwatch
 
PPTX
PSB + Aga Khan Foundation: United We Brand
byBrandwatch
 
PPTX
Ditch the Label and Brandwatch: Mental Health Study, 2017
byBrandwatch
 
PPTX
Telling a story with your social insights
byBrandwatch
 
PPTX
Combining Brandwatch and non Brandwatch data using Vizia 2
byBrandwatch
 
PPTX
How can social listening help to determine ROI?
byBrandwatch
 
PPTX
One step ahead: How Co-op uses Brandwatch to inform their business
byBrandwatch
 
PPTX
Today’s Reality: Managing & Monitoring Campus Crises through Social Media
byBrandwatch
 
PPTX
Social Truth: Revealing what Truly Matters to Customers
byBrandwatch
 
PPTX
Social Maturity
byBrandwatch
 
Identifying and Analyzing a target audience with Analytics
byBrandwatch
 
Brand protection & Crisis Aversion
byBrandwatch
 
Leveraging Insights with Creative Segmentation
byBrandwatch
 
Life As a Brandwatch Analyst
byBrandwatch
 
Intelligence: The Fundamentals
byBrandwatch
 
Control vs. Culture: The New Technology Operating Environment
byBrandwatch
 
Collective creativity for better intelligence
byBrandwatch
 
Ethics and humanity in the age of technology
byBrandwatch
 
Digital transformation in a regulated industry
byBrandwatch
 
Emotional Intelligence
byBrandwatch
 
25 things we learned analyzing billions of tweets
byBrandwatch
 
PSB + Aga Khan Foundation: United We Brand
byBrandwatch
 
Ditch the Label and Brandwatch: Mental Health Study, 2017
byBrandwatch
 
Telling a story with your social insights
byBrandwatch
 
Combining Brandwatch and non Brandwatch data using Vizia 2
byBrandwatch
 
How can social listening help to determine ROI?
byBrandwatch
 
One step ahead: How Co-op uses Brandwatch to inform their business
byBrandwatch
 
Today’s Reality: Managing & Monitoring Campus Crises through Social Media
byBrandwatch
 
Social Truth: Revealing what Truly Matters to Customers
byBrandwatch
 
Social Maturity
byBrandwatch
 

Cyberbullying and Hate Speech

  • 1.
    Ditch the Label yourworld, prejudice free . Cyberbullying and Hate Speech What can social data tell us about cyberbullying and hate speech online?
  • 2.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 2 Contents Abstract���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 3 Preface������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 4 Background and Methodology����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5 1.0 Hate Speech Analysis�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6 Progress and Challenges�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 8 Racial Intolerance��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 10 Homophobia����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 15 Transphobia�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������21 Correllation���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������28 2.0 Online Bullying������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������32 Progress and Challenges������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������33 Demographic Analysis�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������34 Recipient Responses��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������35 Timing������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������37 Appendix�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������45 About Brandwatch�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������46 About Ditch The Label������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������47
  • 3.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 3 Abstract This study of almost 19 million tweets analyses hate speech, masculinity and online bullying in the UK and the US. Racial intolerance was the most common source of hate speech, with US tweets concentrated in southern states. In both markets, regions with racial hatred strongly correlated with misogyny. Socioeconomic factors may also play a role, with poorer areas hosting higher levels of hate speech. Gender constructs remain prominent within family units and the data points to educators as playing a pivotal role in encouraging diversity. Significant progress has been made raising awareness around homophobia and transphobia, but hate speech persists within specific interest groups. Online bullying was found to span a wide range of topics and responding to bullying often escalated the conflict. For each of the topics, key areas of progress are outlined as well as challenges for those hoping to tackle these areas of prejudice might face.
  • 4.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 4 Preface This project represents the combined efforts of the Brandwatch Research Services team in conjunction with Ditch the Label. The contents, which can be divided loosely into two sections, provide supportive data and practical advice for campaigns hoping to challenge bullying and discrimination in online discourse. Hate speech, the first of our three topics, is itself a contested term1 . For the purposes of this study, we define hate speech as expression or incitement of hatred towards recipients based on prejudice; for this study based on race, gender identity and expression, or sexual orientation. Further areas of discrimination, such as religion, go beyond the current scope but warrant further research. Analysis in this project assumes the aims of minimising hate speech and increasing awareness and debate. Our research shows some hate speech to be concentrated in select geographic regions and demographics. The purpose of the project is not to vilify these groups (generalisations of this kind go against the core aims of the study), but rather to show the biggest opportunities for social progress. Reported rates of cyber bullying vary, with as high as 87% of youth being exposed according to a McAfee 2014 study2 and as many as 34% being direct recipients3 . In the second section of our study we analyse online bullying, questioning when bullying takes place, by which types of authors, and whether specific topics precede bullying remarks. The report recognizes bullying as a behaviour rather than identity and avoids ‘bully’ and ‘victim’ as static labels. Bullying language is heavily context dependent. Here, we have separated insults used as friendly or teasing exchanges from those intended to offend. Much of this must be inferred at perlocutionary level, however features in the text (including those denoting humour in the recipient) are also used in segmentation. This project sheds light on issues relating to hate speech, but should not be viewed as an argument for online censorship. Rather, the data points to the need for a nuanced approach, further open debate and awareness, and positive role models. While there are many signs of positive progress throughout, there are also key challenges to address for those hoping to facilitate social change. 1.Gagliardone, I., et al, UNESCO 2015. Countering Online Hate Speech, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cul- tural Organization. Open access: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002332/233231e.pdf 2.Eichorn, K. et al, 2014. “2014 Teens and the Screen Study”, http://www.mcafee.com/us/about/news/2014/ q2/20140603-01.aspx 3.Patchin, J.W., Jinduja, S., 2015. “Lifetime Cyberbullying Victimization Rates”, http://cyberbullying.org/summa- ry-of-our-cyberbullying-research
  • 5.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 5 Background and Methodology Background Award-winning anti-bullying charity Ditch the Label and leading social intelligence company Brandwatch teamed up to tackle questions surrounding hate speech and online bullying. The project captured a total of 19 million tweets from the US and the UK over the span of four years, to better understand progress and challenges across the following key areas: 1.Online Hate Speech Five queries were written to capture hate speech across five topics: racial intolerance, misogyny, masculinity construct, homophobia and transphobia. For each topic a separate query searched for neutral and supportive discussion about the topic. The data was then analysed for key trends, author demographics and regional variation within the UK and the US. 2.Online Bullying Bullying exchanges were collected from Twitter, not limited to specific hate speech areas of section one. These were used to establish whether specific times and topics were more prone to online trolling, and whether responding to online bullying more often helps or hinders the recipient.
  • 6.
  • 7.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 7 Hate Speech Summary Hate speech summary Insult Prevalence Gender Breakdown Neutral/ Supportive Discussion Most prominent US States Most prominent UK Counties Correlations Racial Intolerance 7.7m tweets 59% male Overtook racial insults in January 2015 Louisiana, Texas Midlothian, East Ayrshire Strong positive correlation with misogyny, moderate positive correlation with homophobia Homophobia 390k tweets 64% male More common than homophobic insults and growing Rhode Island, Iowa Denbighshire, Dundee Moderate to strong positive correlation Transphobia 456k tweets 60% male More common than transphobic insults and growing Alabama, Idaho West Yorkshire, Coventry Strong positive correlation with Republican support (US), moderate negative correlation with masculinity (UK)
  • 8.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 8 Hate Speech Summary Progress Online support is growing: discussion about homophobia and transphobia consistently outnumbers hate speech in these areas. Discrimination as a talking point has grown by 14% (homophobia) and 38% (transphobia) each month on average over the past four years. The Black Lives Matter movement has increased the profile of racial discrimination as a talking point online and gained traction on both sides of the Atlantic. While male authors are more likely to discuss the problems of racism, female authors now comprise a larger share in this conversation than in 2012. Misogyny has grown significantly as a talking point since 2014 and engages both male and female authors online. Misogynistic comments are now also less likely to come from students (comprising 31% in 2012 compared with 20% in 2016). Challenges Masculinity constructs are a growing talking point, especially since the beginning of 2016. However, masculinity-related insults remain prevalent. This is especially the case among authors associated with family and parenting, suggesting these terms and attitudes may be transferred to future generations. Intolerance in online conversation varies by region. In the US, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Southern Carolina host the most racially intolerant tweets (relative to population), while in the UK the most concentrated regions are Northumberland, Liverpool, Peterborough and Surrey. Hate speech authors are overrepresented within specific demographics, including sports enthusiasts (more than twice as prominent) and executives (30% overrepresented). By contrast, teachers and scientists, as well as those interested in politics and environmental issues, were least present in online hate speech. Female authors accounted for 52% of misogynistic language use. The data showed that misogynistic terms are used as insults between female authors, suggesting they sit within mainstream lexicon and may not consciously be considered misogynistic (though still typically used to insult females or perceived feminine behaviours).
  • 9.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 9 Educators Play a Pivotal Role in Equality Debate Hate Speech and Debate by Parenting and Family Authors Educators Family Parents 100 MoreDebateMoreHateSpeech 50 0 -50 -100 Homophobia Masculinity Misogyny Racial Intolerance Transphobia In the chart above, the white nodes represent teacher and lecturer conversation and blue nodes represent family and parents. The size of each node reflects how big a talking point it is within each group. Higher nodes indicate more neutral and supportive debate around the topic, while nodes below the zero line indicate that insults and hate speech are more common. Authors associated with family and parenting were overrepresented in hate speech across all topics. The largest area of discussion was racial intolerance, suggesting a potential challenge for attitude transference between generations. Pejorative discussion was also pronounced for masculinity constructs and misogyny. Home life is typically the most influential source of gender constructs for children and early adolescents, again suggesting risk for negative attitudes to impact future generations. By contrast, teachers and lecturers were more likely to encourage debate surrounding gender issues, highlighting one means by which gender constructs may be challenged. Conversation surrounding homophobia and transphobia was much more constructive on average among both parents/family members and educators. However, while educators were more vocal surrounding sexual orientation, transphobia remained a much smaller talking point. This could mark need for more visibility surrounding the rights of transgender individuals, both in the home and in educational contexts.
  • 10.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 10 Racial Intolerance Trend analysis 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 7000000 8000000 Mentions 7,010,192 7,681,280 Racial insults Discussion about racism Total Mention Volumes Across the time frame studied, neutral conversation around racial inequalities grew more strongly than racial hate speech. However, overall racial insults were 8% more visible than neutral discussion. The trend lines show that as of January 2015, weekly volumes of neutral conversation outgrew pejorative language. Racism: Mention Volumes Over Time MentionVolume 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 InsultsDiscussion Protests in Ferguson Videos showing how racism could be ended Jan 13 Jul12 Jan 14 Jul13 Jan 15 Jul14 Jan 16 Jul15
  • 11.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 11 June and July 2016 saw a peak of neutral conversation around racism. This was triggered by landmark political events in both the UK and US. Notably, the stories that triggered peaks in neutral conversation did not impact racist language. The limited overlap in topics driving neutral and negative peaks suggests that these conversations were held by two distinct author groups. We analysed lists of the most impactful authors, both within racial insults and among those discussing racism, and found an overlap between the two groups of less than five per cent. This divide may pose a challenge for those hoping to raise awareness of racial intolerance, as the authors they may hope to influence are likely not in their immediate networks. Due to large volumes a 25% representative sample was taken for both queries. The trend chart shows 25% sample volumes while the bar chart shows actual volumes per query.
  • 12.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 12 Heat Map Analysis In the US, southern states showed the highest concentration of pejorative racial language with Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Southern Carolina standing out. Vermont, Oregon and a majority of North-Western states emerged as more likely to host neutral or constructive debate. In the UK, areas of heated negative discussion were scattered throughout the country with East Ayrshire, Midlothian, North Yorkshire, Blaenau Gwent and Torfaen emerging as most prominent. Despite both being neutral overall, Scotland appeared to lean slightly more towards the neutral end of the spectrum (blue) while England and Wales hosted larger shares of prevalently negative countries (shown in red shades in the maps above).
  • 13.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 13 Demographic Analysis %ofmentions 0 20 40 60 80 100 Discussion about racism Racial Insults 41% 59% 45% 55% Male Female Author Gender Overall, male authors were more active in discussing racial intolerance than females with the skew being even more pronounced for insulting language than for neutral. Authors working in educative fields (scientists researchers, teachers lecturers and journalists) were more active in neutral than in negative discussion. Students instead showed greater use of racial insults than neutral language, suggesting room for improvement around the reach and impact of conversations by educative professionals. Politics was the strongest interest among neutral conversations of racial intolerance. This interest was four times weaker among authors using racial insults who were instead more likely to be interested in sports, music, family and parenting.
  • 14.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 14 Professions Racist insults Discussion about racism 2827 8 13 13 14 25 Interests Racist insults Discussion about racism Artist Executive Student Journalist TeacherLecturer Healthpractitioner SportpersonsTrainer ScientistResearcher Other Artist Executive Student Journalist TeacherLecturer Healthpractitioner SportpersonsTrainer ScientistResearcher Other 12 7 3 7 5 3 5 17 19 33 7 3 5 9 11 14 14 25 32 5 6 10 10 11 11 16 45 1716157532 Politics Sports Books FamilyParenting Music FoodDrinks Business Other Politics Sports Books FamilyParenting Music FoodDrinks Business Other Professions and interests in category ‘other’ listed in appendix.
  • 15.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 15 Homophobia Trend analysis Total Mention Volumes 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000 3000000 3500000 Mentions Homophobic Insults Discussions about Homophobia 390,296 3,142,496 Homophobic hate speech was eight times less common than neutral discussion about homophobia. 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 Homophobia: Mention Volumes Over Time InsultsDiscussion Jan 13 Jul12 Jan 14 Jul13 Jan 15 Jul14 Jan 16 Jul15 MentionVolume Sochi Games 2016 Orlando Shootings
  • 16.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 16 Neutral conversation peaked around two key events: the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi and the Orlando Shootings in June 2016. Both claimed around 2% of overall neutral homophobia discussion but showed minimal direct impact on the volume of homophobic hate speech. Engagement around these peaks was largely driven by actions/messages of support for the LGBT+ community by prominent authors such as Channel 4 and Germany’s national sports team, who rebranded their logo/opening ceremony outfits to reflect LGBT colours (Sochi), gay rights activists across the world who met for a day of protests (Sochi) and US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton who expressed support for the LGBT community on Twitter (Orlando). Both these peaks were closely linked to politics and political figures, suggesting a sphere in which political actions and individuals can have a significant impact on awareness of homophobia. However, the relatively stable use of homophobic language throughout the time frame suggests more work is needed to enable change within these author communities. The trend chart above shows % distribution for visual coherence.
  • 17.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 17 Heat Map Analysis In the US, homophobic hate speech was strongly prevalent in Michigan, Ohio, Nevada, Arizona and Texas. Washington, Vermont, North Carolina and Louisiana were among the states to witness the lowest levels of homophobic engagement online. The UK exhibited less homophobic discussion (relative to debate) in comparison to the US (23% and 56% respectively), with Scotland showing the most widespread level of homophobic language. Pockets of homophobic hate speech were seen in Wales (Glamorgan, Gwent and neighbouring Herefordshire) and England (East Yorkshire and Peterborough). The UK exhibited a large number of counties in which homophobic hate speech was balanced by the neutral conversations around homophobia. By contrast, in the US individual states leaned more clearly towards either extreme suggesting that overall, suggesting that US states were more polarised around the topic of homophobia than counties in the UK.
  • 18.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 18 Demographic Analysis 20 40 60 80 100 Author Gender Homophobic Insults Discussions about Homophobia 64% 49% 36% 51% Male Female %ofmentions Gender analysis revealed a higher level of male engagement (64%) for homophobic insults, while an even split was observed for general discussion. Within homophobic hate speech, slight differences emerged between male and female conversation topics, with discrimination and insults tending to be gender equivalent (topics such as ‘fucking queer’ emerged in male conversation, while female content contained terminology such as ‘fucking lesbian’).
  • 19.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 19 Authors engaging in homophobic insults were more likely to be students and executives, while also expressing a greater interest in sports. Yet topical interest remained similar across professions and interests, with no defining topical engagements unique to executives or students, or those interested in sports. Artist Student Executive Journalist TeacherLecturer Artist Student Executive Journalist TeacherLecturer Music Sports FamilyParenting Politics FoodDrinks Books Professions Homophobic insults Discussion about homophobia Interests Homophobic insults Discussion about homophobia OtherOther Other Music Sports FamilyParenting Politics FoodDrinks Books Other 25 8 11 13 15 27 23 39 10 7 14 9 9 13 37 5 9 3 12 19 15 3 6 18 20 29
  • 20.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 20 Professions Racist insults Discussion about racism 2827 8 13 13 14 25 Interests Racist insults Discussion about racism Artist Executive Student Journalist TeacherLecturer Healthpractitioner SportpersonsTrainer ScientistResearcher Other Artist Executive Student Journalist TeacherLecturer Healthpractitioner SportpersonsTrainer ScientistResearcher Other 12 7 3 7 5 3 5 17 19 33 7 3 5 9 11 14 14 25 32 5 6 10 10 11 11 16 45 1716157532 Politics Sports Books FamilyParenting Music FoodDrinks Business Other Politics Sports Books FamilyParenting Music FoodDrinks Business Other Professions and interests in category ‘other’ listed in appendix.
  • 21.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 21 Transphobia Trend analysis Total Mention Volumes 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 19,003 455,945 Mentions Transphobic Insults Discussion about Transphobia Neutral discussion about transphobia was 24 times more prominent than transphobic hate speech, the strongest ratio across all discrimination areas. 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 Transphobia: Mention Volumes Over Time InsultsDiscussion Jan 13 Jul12 Jan 14 Jul13 Jan 15 Jul14 Jan 16 Jul15 MentionVolume Comedian Joan Rivers calls Michelle Obama a Tranny Discrimination towards Caitlyn Jenner and tweet pointing out difference between free speech and hate speech
  • 22.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 22 The largest peak in neutral transphobia conversation occurred in the week commencing June 1st 2015. A significant share was driven by engagement around @beeteezy content regarding racism, transphobia, homophobia and misogyny not being opinions, stating the difference between free speech and hate speech (12,262 retweets). Other engagement was driven by a transphobic tweet by @DrakeBell in which he insisted on calling Caitlyn Jenner ‘Bruce’. @elielcruz encouraged other users to share her content to expose the author (2,700 retweets). Transphobic language peaked on June 30th 2015 due to news of comedian Joan Rivers calling Michelle Obama a ‘tranny’. Engagement came in the form of authors sharing news content involving footage of the comedian’s comments, noting the statements as a ‘bombshell’. The trend chart above shows % distribution for visual coherence .
  • 23.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 23 Transphobia Debate Has Gained Momentum NumberofMentions 1 2 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 01/02/16 01/08/15 01/02/15 01/08/14 01/02/14 01/08/13 01/02/13 “There is an international day against homophobia and transphobia, and it is today” 1 “Disagreeing with a Trans person DOES NOT make you transphobic. It means you disagree with someone who happens to be Trans #gamergate” “Fight transphobia every day! Today is Transgender Day of Rememberance 2013 #solidarity #support” 2 “Target customers need to stop being so transphobic I swear the next person who says they don’t want to use the bathroom if “men” can just... ” As shown by the chart above, conversation about transphobia was scarcer in 2012 and 2013, however gained momentum from the second half of 2014. This may indicate an increased awareness and need to be vocal about issues affecting the transgender community. Over time, more authors have begun commemorating days such as International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia and Transgender Remembrance Day. The share of total conversation around
  • 24.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 24 these two days was about 50% in 2012, it then decreased to around 14% in 2015 even though total conversation increased (due to a higher base level of discussion across the year). Instances of transphobia or perceived transphobia shaming started emerging in the fall of 2014 with the divided opinions on whether Gamegate’s introduction of a character identifying as transgender was transphobic. This discussion permeated the transphobia conversation through mid-2015. Planet Fitness’ involvement in a lawsuit also led to claims that the attorney had made transphobic remarks on public radio. Public speeches were also scrutinized with authors calling out perceived transphobic slurs (including Ellen DeGeneres during the Oscars, Joan River, National Review’s article on Laverne Cox). TV series featuring transgender characters (Orange Is The New Black and SVU) prompted polarized discussion around the topic with some viewers praising the shows for celebrating diversity and shedding light on discrimination issues. Several authors suggested that SVU had been transphobic in the past. Popular culture sources such as these could be further leveraged to educate viewers on transphobic issues. Legislation around bathroom rules for transgender individuals in early 2016 also played a role in igniting a debate which continued through summer 2016. Public issues could be an opportunity for DtL to participate in the social conversation by creating hashtags that foster constructive conversation.
  • 25.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 25 Heat Map Analysis The maps above show the range of transphobic discussion across US states and UK counties. Nevada, Idaho, Alabama and North Dakota exhibited the highest ratios of transphobic discussion (relative to neutral discussion and debate). Kansas, Oklahoma and Louisiana also hosted above-av- erage levels of transphobic language. By contrast, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota and New Mexico hosted the lowest transphobic scores. In the UK, Perth Kinross, Lancashire, Derbyshire, Aberdeen City and Hampshire experienced the highest transphobic scores. Kent, Nottinghamshire and Sterling were the counties to host the lowest levels of transphobic conversation. The UK and the US differed to the extent that the UK hosted more neutral and low-level transphobic engagement, while in the US, transphobic conversation varied more widely between states.
  • 26.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 26 Demographic Analysis 4020 40 60 80 100 Author Gender Transphobic Insults Discussions about Transphobia Male Female %ofmentions 60 41 59 Gender distribution revealed a highly engaged female audience in neutral conversation around transphobia (59% female), with male authors more likely to use pejorative language (60%). In neutral conversation, Islamaphobia emerged as a key talking point for both genders. This highlights the grouping of discriminatory mind-sets and engagement online, with popular content often encouraging authors to see discrimination as a wider issue pertaining to general human rights. Again, political reference was common here, with key authors such as Human Rights Campaign (@HRC) noting Clinton’s appreciation of access and opportunity as key American values, put in contrast with transphobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia and racism.
  • 27.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 27 Journalist and executive were the only professions to see a difference at query level, with ‘insults’ exhibiting 6% and 16% respectively, while general discussion hosted 11% and 11% respectively. As was seen for homophobia, authors were more likely to be interested in Sports discussion (15% compared with 5%) Artist Student Executive Journalist TeacherLecturer ScientistResearcher Healthpractitioner Other Artist Student Executive Journalist TeacherLecturer ScientistResearcher Healthpractitioner Other Music Politics Sports FamilyParenting Books FoodDrinks AnimalsPets Games Other Music Politics Sports FamilyParenting Books FoodDrinks AnimalsPets Games Other Professions Transphobic insults Discussion about transphobia Interests Transphobic insults Discussion about transphobia 31 5 6 7 11 8 5 14 12 28 4 5 7 7 11 15 8 14 15 4 6 6 11 11 17 30 14 6 4 4 6 16 17 32
  • 28.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 28 Correlation Analysis Correlation Overview (US) Correlation Overview (US) RACISM TRANSPHOBIA HOMOPHOBIA MASCULINITY MISOGYNY AVERAGE ANNUAL INCOME REPUBLICAN NO POLITICAL AFFILIATION DEMOCRAT WEALTH DISTRIBUTION RACISM 0.427 0.241 0.241 0.741 -0.219 0.150 -0.060 -0.120 0.116 TRANSPHOBIA 0.427 0.173 0.581 0.505 -0.379 0.622 0.276 -0.541 -0.038 HOMOPHOBIA 0.241 0.173 0.431 0.528 0.241 0.094 -0.154 -0.305 -0.066 The grid above displays correlations between the five discrimination topics, as well as outside topics: Average Annual Income*, those who self-identify as Republicans, no political affiliation, or Democrat**, and wealth distribution (Gini Coefficient)***. Correlations are based on a scale of -1 to 1, with zero representing no correlation, -1 representing a perfect negative and 1 representing a perfect positive correlation. The strongest negative correlation was found for Misogyny and self-identified Democrats (-0.929), meaning that states with lower levels of misogyny tend to be stronger bases of Democratic support. The same was true to a lesser extent for transphobia (-0.541), suggesting that Democrat-strong regions are less likely to tolerate misogyny or transphobia in online discussion. Racism and Misogyny saw the strongest uphill correlation (0.741) meaning states with high levels misogynistic language are also likely to exhibit less racial tolerance in the data. Homophobia and Transphobia had the weakest positive correlation (0.173), despite often sharing advocates within LGBT+ communities. This could potentially be a springboard to further investigate the relationship between these terms through the scope of social chatter. Methodology: Ratios for the five topics were found by dividing the insulters within the category by those who found the category to be intolerant. These ratios were then correlated against each other, as well as outside topics. *Data is based off of the 2012 US Census results, released in 2013 **Data is based off of the 2014 Pew Research study ***Data is based off of the 2013 wealth coefficient research by Frank Gini
  • 29.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 29 Correlation Analysis (US) The heat maps above correspond to misogyny, racial intolerance and homophobia in the US, showing overlap across certain states. Texas hosted high levels of discriminatory content across all three constructs, and hosted the highest misogyny ratio (insults compared with neutral discussion) at 0.738 as well as the second highest racial intolerance ratio of 1.319. Nevada and Arizona both expressed high levels of homophobic engagement and slight levels of misogynistic content. Michigan similarly exhibited strong level of homophonic engagement, and slight levels of racial intolerance and misogynistic mentions. While southern states including Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida and South Carolina hosted higher levels of racial intolerance online, the majority of southern states were neutral in the context of homophobia, with Texas and Arizona the only exceptions. Louisiana (1.621), Texas (1.319), and Georgia (1.298) saw the highest ratios of racial insults to race debate, meaning for almost every two racially insensitive tweets, there was one tweet about racial tolerance. Washington and Oregon exhibited neutrality and low discriminatory scores across all constructs. Both held low ratios for topic insults to topic tolerance, with Washington ranking in the top five lowest ratios for all three categories, (0.426 racism, 0.068 homophobia, and 0.224 misogyny).
  • 30.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 30 Correlation Overview (UK) Correlation Overview (UK) RACISM TRANSPHOBIA HOMOPHOBIA MASCULINITY MISOGYNY VOTED YES TO LEAVE EU CON 2015 UKIP TURNOUT 2015 LONG TERM UNEMPLOYMENT RACISM -0.295 0.478 0.279 0.632 0.0139 -0.0658 -0.047 0.086 0.145 TRANSPHOBIA -0.295 -0.315 -0.443 -0.334 0.334 -0.0813 0.095 -0.197 0.152 HOMOPHOBIA 0.478 -0.315 0.157 0.752 0.138 -0.0691 0.200 -0.142 0.163 The grid above displays correlations between the three measured topics (Racism, Transphobia and Homophobia), as well as outside topics: voted “yes” to leave the European Union, voted for the Conservative party in 2015, voted for UKIP in 2015, the share of voters who turned out for 2015 election, and long term unemployment in the UK. Correlations are based on a scale of -1 to 1, with zero representing no correlation, -1 representing a perfect downhill correlation and 1 representing a perfect uphill correlation. Homophobia to Misogyny saw the strongest positive correlation (0.752) among the topics, whereas Masculinity to Homophobia saw the weakest uphill correlation (0.157). Homophobia only had one downhill correlation, which did not feature as particularly strong, with Transphobia (-0.315), indicating the topic’s tendency to be mentioned in conjunction with the other categories. Interestingly, “Voting ‘Yes’ to leaving the EU” was not a reliable predictor of hate speech, including racial intolerance. This follows mainstream news reports of increases in hate crime following the referendum2 , and suggests that varying attitudes within each county make for a more nuanced picture of attitudes to race and nationality across the UK. Variable census data collected from the 2015 General Election Results, British Election Study, 2015 (sourced 29/08/2016). 2. Lusher, A. 2016. “Racism Unleashed”, Independent, 07/28/2016.
  • 31.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 31 Correlation Analysis (UK) The heat maps above correspond to misogyny, masculinity constructs and homophobia in the UK, showing overlap across certain counties. Northamptonshire and South Ayrshire emerged as counties that exhibited high scores across all three constructs. Aside from Northamptonshire and South Ayrshire, regional distribution of discrimination appeared to be random and lacked consistency across constructs. This supports the notion that discrimination across the UK tended to be concentrated within a few regional pockets, while the majority of counties holding a more balanced range of views towards discrimination areas online.
  • 32.
  • 33.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 33 Online Bullying Summary Progress The data supports current Twitter advice to not necessarily interact with online bullying. Recipient replies led to escalated conflict in 44% of cases, compared with only 3% positive outcomes. This type of finding can be used to inform recipients who encounter online trolls. Less confrontational replies are less likely to escalate. Recipients of bullying who reply with offensive language were more likely to escalate the conflict, especially when relating to contentious issues such as politics. By contrast, more reasoned responses stood a better chance of diffusing the situation and enlisting support from others. Challenges Discrimination is visible within online bullying. The majority of insults related broadly to intelligence and appearance, however sexual orientation, religion and gender also featured within our sample. Bullying scenarios are scattered. While politics was the most common topic to be met with bullying remarks, there were no consistent themes predictive of online trolling. The finding, that most topics can lead to online bullying, poses a challenge for tracking and countering bullying behaviour online.
  • 34.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 34 Females More Likely to Engage in Troll Discussion Interests Professions 20 40 60 80 100 BulliedBullying %ofmentions 31.2% 24.3% 19.1% 15.3% 10.1% 20% 15% 25% 20% 20% 20 40 60 80 100 RecipientBullying %ofmentions 41.7% 17.9% 11.9% 14.9% 13.4% 40.6% 14.5% 24.6% 4.3% 15.9% No Reaction Politics Music Family Parenting Sports Journalist Sales/Marketing/PR Student Executive Artist The charts above represent a demographic breakdown of Twitter trolls and their recipients. Females were more likely than male authors to be involved in this type of conversation, but the gender breakdown was roughly even between groups, with 66% of bullying authors identifying as female and 65% of recipients identifying as Male. Female authors tended to use insults relating to intelligence (dumb, stupid), appear- ance (fat, ugly), and derogatory animal terms (bitch, chicken). Male trolls also referenced intelligence in in- sults (stupid, dumb, moron) and appearance (ugly, fat), but were also more likely to use homophobic insults (faggot). Creating messaging around these prevalent themes for both genders could assist in educating and alleviating future online bullying behaviour. Earlier in the study we identified executives as over-represented in online hate speech. However, as shown above, executives were also more likely to be the recipients of online trolling, perhaps due in part to their more prominent/visible online status. * Brandwatch Twitter demographics segment authors on an automated basis according to name and bio information.
  • 35.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 35 Trolls Respond to Wide Range of Discussion Topics Topics Shared by Recipients prior to Bullying Sports Food Music Bullying Response Gaming Health TV Hair Relationships Travel Politics 13% 12% 11% 10% 9% 9% 7% 7% 7% 5% 5% 5% Topics of Troll Content 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 PercentageofMentions Intelligence Appearance N otSpecified O ther Sexual O rientation R eligion W eight G ender 33% 20% 19% 11% 7% 4% 3% 3% The charts above reflect content by those who were bullied in their three tweets prior to being targeted. While a few authors used hashtags, mostly around sports or television shows, no two authors used the same hashtag in our random sample. 80 topics emerged within our sample; the chart above reflects the top 12. The broad range of topics prior to bullying suggests that trolls are not restricted to a limited range of topics. Rather, any number of topics may be met by troll content.
  • 36.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 36 Politics held the largest share of voice (13%) followed by Sports (12%), and Food (11%). Recipients who were trolled for their political views were more likely to be insulted based on their intelligence, more so than any other category of insult. Within pre-troll Sports conversation, the range of insults varied, with appearance and general insults holding the largest shares. The Response category indicates a bullied user responding to another peer, usually in the form of a yes or no response, but did trigger bullying which focused on insulting the user’s intelligence as well as general insults. *Sample of 100 bullied authors out of 400 bullied, confidence interval of 10
  • 37.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 37 Bullying: Day of the Week 5 10 15 20 Bullying Mentions During an Average Week MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN 16% 16% 16% 14% 11% 9% 18% PERCENTAGES Control Group Mentions During an Average Week 5 10 15 20 13% 17% 15% 15% 15% 13% 12% MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN PERCENTAGES The charts above show shares of activity throughout an average week. Figure A represents when trolling takes place and Figure B shows a control group (representative of broader Twitter discussion). Bullying authors tweeted most prolifically on Sunday (18%), followed by Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, all at 16% of the week. In the control group, Tuesday featured as the most prolific day (17%), followed by Sunday, Wednesday, and Thursday all at 15%. This indicates Sunday as a bullying outlier and a day to monitor for such discussions. On Sundays, appearance (ugly ,fat), and intelligence insults (stupid, dumb, idiot, moron) were most common, whereas on Wednesdays appearance outweighed intelligence insults. The trend of intelligence insults decreasing continued until volumes spiked on Sunday. Further research could reveal whether trolls are more critical of intelligence at the beginning of the week and more focused on appearance towards the end of the week, as well as which factors may influence these trends.
  • 38.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 38 Bullying: Hour of the Day Bullying: Hour of the day PercentageofMentions Hour of day BullyControl 2 4 6 8 23:00 22:00 21:00 20:00 19:00 18:00 17:00 16:00 15:00 14:00 13:00 12:00 11:00 10:00 09:00 08:00 07:00 06:00 05:00 04:00 03:00 02:00 01:00 00:00 The chart above highlights the percentage of bullying activity throughout an average day, relative to a Twitter control group. The groups shared one peak in volume, which occurred at 17:00/5:00 p.m., when bullying saw 8% of the day’s volume and the control group held 7.5%. This featured as the largest peak in bullying conversation throughout the day, with content including homophobic, intelligence, and economic insults. Authors produced the fewest proportion of comments at 4 a.m., when insults focused predominantly on appearance (ugly) and intelligence (stupid). Discrepancies between the two lines show that bullying was disproportionately common between six and eight in the evening and was less common around two in the afternoon, when there was an increase in general (non-bullying) activity.
  • 39.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 39 Responding To Trolls Can Escalate Conflict Twitter Response Sentiment No Reaction Positive to Ease Conflict Neutral to No Impact Negative to Escalate Conflict 44% 17% 3% 36% “LOL you dumb b-----” “so why are you talking to me????” NEGATIVE OUTCOME “Happiness is all that matters in life sweet pea...” “Deluded” “I’m proud of what I am” NEUTRAL OUTCOME “Not at all. Just blinded by ignorant hatred and racist bigotry that brings shame on Hull.” “...a racist, homophobic sexist idiot?” The chart above shows reactions to responses from bullying recipients. The examples featur represent archetypal bullying exchanges, with the inciting bullying shown first. As shown, negative reactions to responses from bullied individuals were the most likely, reflecting a tendency toward continuing or escalating the conflict. There is a scant likelihood of positive outcomes when engaging with trolls on Twitter.
  • 40.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 40 Note that conversations categorized with ‘positive reaction’ do not necessarily entail positive reactions from the bullying author, but instead include positive outcomes for the recipient, including support received from other users. Twitter’s Help Center recommends several options for bullied individuals, including when to report abuse. These options include first unfollowing, then blocking, the user. According to the article, “Abusive users often lose interest once they realize you will not respond,” recommending a “don’t engage” policy. Further to this point, 36% of the ‘no reaction’ conversations were examples of non- engagement by bullied users.
  • 41.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 41 Outcomes When Recipients Respond to Bullying “Re, belief in gods. I have none. Atheism is a NON-belief. Are you really that stupid or are you trolling?” “I don’t hate you, btw” NEUTRAL REACTION “Why do you hate me so much. I’m asking you a few simple questions. There you go calling me this and that..Come on be responsible” “and this is based on WHAT, oh Trump and ur a chump 4 buying n 2 the BS!” NO REACTION “Based on everything he says when I watch him. I’m a chump? Well YOU are blocked.” “Blacks r just as racist as any white racist they will have u try to feel guilty about #fuckem” “ur dumb, nothing I said was racist u complete spastic” NEGATIVE REACTION “I am very disappointed mate thought you were better then those comments you made. You can fuck off. #unfollwed #blocked” “Proving your a fool. And a racist” POSITIVE REACTION “I may be a fool – however definitely – not a racist – as a REPUBLICAN – in November – I’m voting for – HRC” “we’ll take you just this one time lol” “For that I applaud you”
  • 42.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 42 Lead-Up to Negative Reactions Bullying Remark Response The above topic clouds represent the prominent phrases within conversations that ended with negative reactions from bullying authors. As shown, the two clouds reveal a striking similarity between the bullies and their victims, with several insults appearing prominently within both groups. Often, this bullying begets continued negativity and abuse. As these mentions were followed by further negative reaction and conversation, the finding suggests that engaging in abuse with similar language may simply perpetuate and escalate the conflict. .
  • 43.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 43 No Reactions Bullying Remark Response The above topic clouds represent the prominent phrases within conversations that ended with no reaction from bullying authors. Although several negative phrases, including dumb and ugly, are prominent within the responses, they are far less likely to appear within responses by bullied individuals. This is understood when compared against the prominence of these outright negative terms in responses that prompted further negative reactions (see previous chart). The implication is that, if responding to bullying on Twitter, less offensive language is less likely to escalate the conflict.
  • 44.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 44 Appendix Hate speech summary Insult prevalence Homophobia Transphobia Masculinity Construct Misogny Professions Interest Professions Interest Professions Interest Professions Interest Professions Interest Religious staff Home Gardening Religious staff Home Gardening Politician Shopping Religious staff Home Garden Religious staff Home Garden Emergency worker Shopping Emergency worker Shopping Sales/ Maketing Travel Emergency worker Shopping Emergency worker Shopping Politician Automotive Politician Travel Legal Environment Politician Environment Politician Environment Software developer Fashion Sales/ Marketing Environment Sportsperson Automotive Legal Travel Legal Travel Sales/ Marketing Travel Legal Fashion Software developer Fashion Sotware developer Automative Sales/ Marketing Automotive Legal Environment Software developer Automative Photo Video Sales/ Marketing Fashion Software developer Fashion Photo Video Scientist Researcher Science Science Scientist Researcher Photo Video Scientist Researcher Photo Video Movies Health practitioner Photo Video Movies Science Health practitioner Science Science Sportsperson Movies Business Movies Movies Games Technology Fine arts Technology Fine arts TV Fine arts TV TV Technology Fine arts Business Technology Fine arts Business Technology Beauty/Health Beauty/Health Games Beauty/Health Beauty/Health Fitness TV Business Animals Pets Games Animals Pets
  • 45.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 45 About Brandwatch Brandwatch is the world’s leading social intelligence company. Brandwatch Analytics and Vizia products fuel smarter decision making around the world. The Brandwatch Analytics platform gathers millions of online conversations every day and provides users with the tools to analyze them, empowering the world’s most admired brands and agencies to make insightful, data-driven business decisions. Vizia distributes visually-engaging insights to the physical places where the action happens. The Brandwatch platform is used by over 1,200 brands and agencies, including Unilever, Cisco, Whirlpool, British Airways, Heineken, Walmart and Dell. Brandwatch continues on its impressive business trajectory, recently named a global leader in enterprise social listening platforms by the latest reports from several independent research firms. Increasing its worldwide presence, the company has offices around the world including Brighton, New York, San Francisco, Berlin, Stuttgart, Paris and Singapore. Brandwatch. Now You Know. www.brandwatch.com | @Brandwatch
  • 46.
    Cyberbullying and HateSpeech | 46 About Ditch the Label We are one of the largest and most ambitious anti-bullying charities in the world. We are defiant, innovative and most importantly, proud to be different. Our mission is to reduce the effect and prominence of bullying internationally. No more disempowerment. No more prejudice. No more bullying. Each week, we provide award-winning support to thousands of young people aged 12-25, primarily through our website and digital partnerships. We also work with schools, colleges, parents/guardians, young people and other youth organisations. Innovation is at the core of all that we do and we believe that we can, and will beat bullying. We commission and utilise research reports, like this one, to better understand the changing nature and climate of bullying and discrimination. This continuous learning process feeds directly into the improvement and evolution of our support programs which helps not only those who are being bullied, but those who are doing the bullying too. Find out more at www.DitchtheLabel.org
  • 47.
    Brandwatch Research Servicesis a team of dedicated analysts based in Brighton, Berlin and New York, helping our customers better understand and use social data. For more research examples visit our report library www.brandwatch.com/reports © Brandwatch Ditch The Label Contact Our address 15-17 Middle St, Brighton, BN11AL Email hello@DitchtheLabel.org Web www.DitchtheLabel.org Tweet @DitchtheLabel