Empathy-based counter speech can reduce hate speech

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account


Online hate speech can be curbed by inducing empathy for those affected. In contrast, the use of humour or warnings of possible consequences have little effects. A team of social scientists and 13 ETH Zurich students has demonstrated this in a new scientific publication.


Illustration with Twitter birds on a platform: An ETH research team tested three different counterspeech strategies on twitter to reduce hate speech. Most effective were comments that encouraged empathy with those targeted by hate speech.

The research team tested three different counterspeech strategies on twitter to reduce hate speech. Most effective were comments that encouraged empathy with those targeted by hate speech. (Graphic: alliance F)


Online hate speech has become a pressing issue worldwide. On social networks, sexual minorities are vilified, members of particular religions are intimidated and ethnic groups are discriminated. In addition, hate speech is a threat to democracy, as it can prevent those who are targeted from participating in public debate.
To moderate hateful comments, many social media platforms have developed sophisticated filters. However, these alone are not sufficient to fix the problem. For example, Facebook estimates (according to the internal documents leaked in October 2021) that it is not able to delete more than 5 percent of the hate comments posted. Furthermore, automatic filters are imprecise and could harm freedom of speech.

Inducing empathy with those affected

An alternative to deleting problematic comments is the use of targeted counterspeech. Counterspeech is used by numerous organisations aiming to tackle online hate speech. However, until now, little is known about which counterspeech strategies are most effective in addressing online hostility. A team of researchers led by Dominik Hangartner, Professor of Public Policy at ETH, have now joined forces with colleagues at the University of Zurich to investigate what kind of messages could encourage authors of hate speech to refrain from such postings in the future
Using machine learning methods, the researchers identified 1,350 English-speaking Twitter users who had published racist or xenophobic content. They randomly assigned these accounts to a control group or one of following three, often-used counterspeech strategies: messages that elicit empathy with the group targeted by racism, humour, or a warning of possible consequences.
The results, which have just been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAScall_made), are clear: only counterspeech messages that elicit empathy with the people affected by hate speech are likely to persuade the senders to change their behaviour. An example of such a response could be: “Your post is very painful for Jewish people to read...” Compared to the control group, the authors of hate tweets posted around one-third fewer racist or xenophobic comments after such an empathy-inducing intervention. Additionally, the probability that a hate tweet was deleted by its author increased significantly. In contrast, the authors of hate tweets barely reacted to humorous counterspeech. Even a message that reminded the sender that their family, friends and colleagues could see their hateful comments, too, were not effective. This is striking because these two strategies are frequently used by organisations that are committed to combatting hate speech.
“We have certainly not found a panacea against hate speech on the internet, but we have uncovered important clues about which strategies might work, and which do not,” says Hangartner. What remains to be studied is whether all empathy-based responses work similarly well, or whether particular messages are more effective. For example, hate speech authors could be encouraged to put themselves in the victim’s shoe or be asked to adopt an analogous perspective (“How would you feel if people talked about you like that?”).

Blending teaching and research

Alongside Professors Karsten Donnay and Fabrizio Gilardi from the University of Zurich’s Digital Democracy Labcall_made, 13 Master’s students from the ETH Center for Comparative and International Studies (CIS) were also heavily involved in the project. The students participated in all phases of the project, from developing an algorithm to detect hate tweets, to testing the strategies on Twitter, to statistical analysis and project management. “To me, this new type of collaborative seminar exemplifies a form of education that not only equips students with important tools for data science and social science, but also for research ethics. My hope is that this hands-on education enables them to make a positive impact in the field of digitalisation and social media,” says Hangartner.
The students involved take a similar view. “We haven’t just read about other people’s research; now we also know how a big research project works,” says Laurenz Derksen. “Although there was a lot of work involved, this experiment lit a fire in me and got me excited about ambitious and collaborative research,” Derksen continues.
Buket Buse Demirci, now a doctoral student, felt that the project went far beyond the normal scope of seminars. As an example, she cites the Pre-Analysis Plan: the public registration of every single research step before the start of the experiment, thus increasing the credibility of the statistical analyses as well as the reliability of the results. Another motivating factor, she says, is that all 13 students are listed as co-authors on the study detailing the results, which is published in one of the most prestigious interdisciplinary science journals. “I’ve contributed to a study that has not only been published in a scientific journal, but could also have an impact in the real world,” says Demirci.

Practical applications through NGO and media

Hangartner is aware that this type of research, embedded in a seminar, may sometimes also yield null results. Yet the experience is valuable for the students in any case, he says. It can help them anticipate what to expect in case they embark on PhD studies and provides hands-on research experience, which is an asset for many different careers inside and outside of academia.
The collaborative research seminar is part of a more comprehensive project to develop algorithms that detect hate speech, and to test and refine further counterspeech strategies. To this end, the research team is collaborating with the Swiss women’s umbrella organisation alliance F, which has initiated the civil society project Stop Hate Speechcall_made. Through this collaboration the scientists are able to directly translate their research insights into practice, and to provide an empirical basis for alliance F to optimise the design and content of their counterspeech messages.
“The research findings make me very optimistic. For the first time, we now have experimental evidence that show the efficacy of counterspeech in real-life conditions,” says Sophie Achermann, Executive Director of alliance F and co-initiator of Stop Hate Speech. Also involved in the research project, which was sponsored by the Swiss innovation agency Innosuisse, are the media companies Ringier and TX Group via their newspapers Blick and 20 Minuten respectively.


Reference​

Hangartner, D, Gennaro, G, Alasiri, S, Bahrich, N, Bornhoft, A, Boucher, J, Demirci, BB, Derkse, L, Hall, A, Jochum, M, Murias Munoz, M, Richter, M, Vogel, F, Wittwer, S, Wüthrich, F, Gilardi, F, Donnay, K. Empathy-based counterspeech can reduce racist hate speech in a social media field experiment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. PNAS December 14, 2021 118 (50) e2116310118. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2116310118call_made.
 
At least sympathy was honest. I would totally believe they feel sorry for me because they think I'm a poor little retard who doesn't know that actually I want exactly what they want and they're oppressing me for my own good.

I don't believe they feel with me at all, or else they'd stop insisting I have internalized racism/sexism. If they felt with me, they could disagree about my conclusions, but at least they'd admit that what they want for me is not what I want for myself.
They can't help it, even when they try to "help", the insincerity oozes around the sides of their mask.

They want you to either submit to their dogmas, or die off. Any "help" they offer is either North Korea-tier "reeducation" or purposeful neglect in the hopes it causes you to die off even faster.

They're juuuust cognizant enough about empathy to realize that saying that out loud won't work.... but are increasingly getting desperate and losing the ability to be subtle about is as they see the backlash that they , themselves, are the fault of about to wash back over them.
 
At least sympathy was honest. I would totally believe they feel sorry for me because they think I'm a poor little retard who doesn't know that actually I want exactly what they want and they're oppressing me for my own good.

I don't believe they feel with me at all, or else they'd stop insisting I have internalized racism/sexism. If they felt with me, they could disagree about my conclusions, but at least they'd admit that what they want for me is not what I want for myself.
They're not the ones who are supposed to be empathizing. That's you. They're supposed to be guilting you into feeling empathy.

Empathy for me, not for thee.

-------------
It's funny that half the people here are assuming the suggestion in the article is halfway intelligent and saying you should try and empathize with the people you want to convince. Instead it's just saying to guilt people into agreeing with you, which is the same tactic they've been using since every person on this forum has been alive.
 
Last edited:
(“How would you feel if people talked about you like that?”).
Probably wouldn't like it. But the truth is the truth. If the truth offends you then the problem is on your end, not the person talking.
Your post is very painful for Jewish people to read...”
As it is 'painful' for me when their co-tribals insist on ruining my culture and economy in the name of tikkun olam.
 
They're not the ones who are supposed to be empathizing. That's you. They're supposed to be guilting you into feeling empathy.

Empathy for me, not for thee.
Joke's on them, I saw through their crocodile tears and empathized with their hatred and contempt instead and now I have no shame or guilt over being a kiwi. I might be afraid of being found out because they'll smash me over the head with a bike lock and claim it was a consentual bdsm scene, but I'm not ashamed of it for being a bad person.

As it is 'painful' for me when their co-tribals insist on ruining my culture and economy in the name of tikkun olam.
Oh fuck tikkun olam. Don't forget that that's also the shit they use to justify turning low functioning autists into fucking ouija boards and engaging in statutory rape.
 
At least sympathy was honest. I would totally believe they feel sorry for me because they think I'm a poor little retard who doesn't know that actually I want exactly what they want and they're oppressing me for my own good.

I don't believe they feel with me at all, or else they'd stop insisting I have internalized racism/sexism. If they felt with me, they could disagree about my conclusions, but at least they'd admit that what they want for me is not what I want for myself.
It's not intentional, they just don't know what empathy is (it's emotional intelligence and is downstream from theory of mind) and they conflate it with sympathy (effectively pity) or think it's only meant to apply to sadness.
 
I've grown to despise the word "empathy". It's such a soy-filled bugman word.
At least sympathy was honest. I would totally believe they feel sorry for me because they think I'm a poor little retard who doesn't know that actually I want exactly what they want and they're oppressing me for my own good.

I don't believe they feel with me at all, or else they'd stop insisting I have internalized racism/sexism. If they felt with me, they could disagree about my conclusions, but at least they'd admit that what they want for me is not what I want for myself.
Before that it was sympathy, then they wore it out & went with empathy instead.
The people who scream "please show me empathy/sympathy" the loudest tend to be the most anti-sympathetic/empathetic people.
 
For example, hate speech authors could be encouraged to put themselves in the victim’s shoe or be asked to adopt an analogous perspective (“How would you feel if people talked about you like that?”).

but they do and you do nothing, so fair is fair
 
For the last decade the woke have been using emotional blackmail, intimidation, temper tantrums, and moralizing hypocrisy to win. Don't give me a lecture about empathy when you've made it crystal fucking clear that you don't have any for me.
 
Empathy driven language is one of those things that only makes sense if you are an autistic nerd. Trying to have any discussion with this type of language becomes impossible as both sides are just caught up in their own feelings. It is a way of communication which places yourself at the center of everything so watching two people try to use it at the same time is a test to see who will be emotionally manipulated first
 
I recognized this shit as pointless in elementary school. Telling a bully "I feel sad when you steal my stuff and destroy it." is the equivalent of telling them "Congratulations! You succeeded!" I can only imagine it's less effective over the internet where people can and will lie about anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom