Science Fear is more effective than hate

  • 🏰 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

SOCIAL NETWORKS​

Fear is more effective than hate​

Negative emotions spread particularly quickly via social networks, but there are gradations here, too: According to a new study, fear spreads faster than hate.​

For the study (archive), a U.S. team analyzed 400,000 posts intended to spread fear and 700,000 hate speech posts on the social network "Gab." "Gab" was chosen because posts with hateful language are not removed due to the loose moderation, unlike other platforms. The structure of "Gab" is reminiscent of Twitter: text posts with a length of up to 3,000 characters can be posted. These posts can be shared, and it is possible to mention other users, thus speeding up dissemination. "Gab" was used in 2021 to plan the storming of the U.S. Capitol. The study also included data from Twitter. Moderation there is stricter; posts that violate the guidelines are removed.

Fear speech vs. hate speech
The goal of "fear speech" is to spread fear of certain minorities - for example, by publishing statements based on false allegations. In addition, these posts often include links to websites that contain further misinformation, up to and including conspiracy theories. Posts with fear speech are more often liked and shared on "Gab" than hate speech posts. In addition, users who post a lot of content with the aim of spreading fear usually have more followers than those who frequently post hateful posts. People who post "fear speech" often mention other users in it. People who spread hate speech on the platform rarely do so.

Under the radar
"Fear speech" also occurs on other social networks like Facebook and Twitter in addition to "Gab." While hate speech is usually removed quickly and effectively there with moderation systems, however, these systems do not recognize fear speech. This is because these posts often refrain from using derogatory language. In addition, they are usually more subtle, which is why the algorithms of the moderation systems cannot distinguish fear speech posts from normal posts. According to the research team, it is necessary to take measures against the spread of "fear speech" in social media because fear, just like hate, can lead to radicalization.
Georg Binder, Ö1 Science​

Source (German)
 
Click to expand...
Pretty mediocre for baby's first article. The scope of this "research" is limited, no definition of "good moderation" policies or "hate speech" is ever defined, and the results that the author saw regarding hate speech are most likely biased in some way or another because of Twitter and Facebook's algorithms that affect what each individual person sees.

Then again, the original author is German, and Gerrys shit themselves at the merest wrong-think almost as much as Brits do.
 
Of course it does. Fear is real and everybody knows what it means. Hate, as used here just means ‘opinions I dislike.’
 
I suspect this will be used to suppress information of black criminality and homosexuals molesting kids.

"Anti radicalization" is trying to prevent the masses being red pilled, and showing stories of the above triggers people's (rational and healthy) fears.
 
Last edited:
More effective at what? Getting likes on Gab?

What is even the difference?

If I say "trannies are mentally ill perverts praying on women and or kids", is it fear? Is it hate?

I am confused. This research does not seem very well researched.
 
Ishtar said:
Looking at PNAS social science section, it is utterly astounding to me how pozzed the fields of sociology and its subdisciplines are.
Click to expand...
Modern sociology is a meme. I have no doubt if one starts looking closer into history there will be a plethora of articles stating that people love Hitler and Stalin, written by independant sociologists and study groups from USSR and Third Reich.
 
I like how their definition of fear speech is just "something spooky about minorities, especially fake shit" - when you have IRL examples of little girls getting smeared into the fucking pavement by muslim terrorists with zero fabrication involved.

Obviously pointing out minority violence, economic damage, and the immediately obvious and demonstrable physical degradation and decay of every major city in the west does a better job convincing people to be more conservative than posting the 'total nigger death' copypasta.
 
It's almost as if 99% of us modern-day bigots don't actually hate anyone based on skin color or bedroom activities but rather.. ah never mind I don't wanna spoil the surprise
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom