skip to main content
10.1145/3362789.3362849acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesteemConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Hate Speech in Spain Against Aquarius Refugees 2018 in Twitter

Authors Info & Claims
Published:16 October 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

High-profile events can trigger online hate speech, which in turn modify attitudes and offline behavior towards stigmatized groups. This paper addresses the first path of this process by using manual and computational methods to analyze the complete stream of Twitter messages in Spanish referring the boat Aquarius (N = 24,254) From the rejection of Italy, until the arrival at the Spanish port of Valencia, which was a milestone for the entry of refugees and was highly covered by the media. We found that most of the messages revolved around few topics and were mostly positive, but a significant part of negative messages included hate speech towards refugees and rejection of politicians. Supporting our hypothesis, online hate speech grew after the announcement. The general positive sentiment paradoxically increased, and the language sentiment became less negative. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications, and acknowledge limitations referred to the examined timeframe, suggesting more longitudinal analyses.

References

  1. C. Calvert. 1997. Hate speech and its harms: A communication theory perspective. Journal of Communication, 47, 1, 4--19. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1997.tb02690.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. K. Müller and C. Schwarz. 2018. Fanning the Flames of Hate: Social Media and Hate Crime. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3082972Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. D. Gayo-Avello. 2012a. I Wanted to Predict Elections with Twitter and all I got was this Lousy Paper. A Balanced Survey on Election Prediction using Twitter Data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1204.6441Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. D. Gayo-Avello. 2012b. No, you cannot predict elections with Twitter. IEEE Internet Computing, 16, 6, 91--94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2012.137Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. M. Huberty. 2015. Can we vote with our tweet? On the perennial difficulty of election forecasting with social media. International Journal of Forecasting, 31, 3, 992--1007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2014.08.005Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. K. H. Brodersen, F. Gallusser, J. Koehler, N. Remy, S. L. Scott. 2015. Inferring causal impact using bayesian structural timeseries models. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 9, 1, 247--274.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. M. Eichler. 2012. Causal inference in time series analysis. In C. Berzuini, P. Dawid, L. Bernardinelli (eds.) Causality: Statistical perspectives and applications. Chichester, UK, John Wiley & Sons, 327--354.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. A. Nightingale, S Goodman and S. Parker. 2017. Beyond borders. PSYCHOLOGIST 30: 58--62.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. X. Zhang and L. Hellmueller. 2017. Visual framing of the European refugee crisis in Der Spiegel and CNN International: Global journalism in news photographs. The International Communication Gazette, 79, 5, 483--510. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048516688134Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. R. M. Entman. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of communication, 43, 4, 51--58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. W. Magdy, K. Darwish, N. Abokhodair, A. Rahimi, and T. Baldwin. 2016. "#isisisnotislam or #deportallmuslims? Predicting unspoken views". In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Web Science. WebSci '16, pp. 95--106, 8th ACM Conference on Web Science, Hannover, Germany, 22/05/16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2908131.2908150Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. A. Olteanu, C. Castillo, J. Boy and K.R. Varshney. 2018. "The effect of extremist violence on hateful speech online". In Twelfth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, USA. pp. 221--230. Retrieved from https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM18/paper/view/17908/17013Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. A. J. B. Chaney, and D. M. Blei. 2012. Visualizing topic models. In Sixth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media. Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland. pp. 419--422 Retrieved from: https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM12/paper/view/4645/5021Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. S. Arora, R. Ge, Y. Halpern, D. Mimno, A. Moitra, D. Sontag, Y. Wu, M. Zhu. 2013. "A practical algorithm for topic modeling with provable guarantees". In: 30th Intl conf on machine learning. Atlanta, USA. pp. 280--288. Retrieved from: http://proceedings.mlr.press/v28/arora13.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. C. Arcila-Calderón, E. Barbosa-Caro and F. Cabezuelo-Lorenzo. 2016. Técnicas big data: análisis de textos a gran escala para la investigación científica y periodística. El profesional de la información, 25, 4, 623--631. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3145/epi.2016.jul.12Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. D. M. Blei and J. D. Lafferty. 2006. Dynamic topic models. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning (pp. 113--120). ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. K. Makice. 2009. Twitter API: Up and running: Learn how to build applications with the Twitter API. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media, Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. M. Thelwall, K. Buckley, G. Paltoglou, D. Cai and A. Kappas. 2010. Sentiment strength detection in short informal text. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 12, 2544--2558Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. D. Vilares, M. Thelwall, and M. A. Alonso. 2015. The megaphone of the people? Spanish SentiStrength for real-time analysis of political tweets. Journal of Information Science, 41, 6, 799--813. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551515598926Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. A. J. Reagan, C. M. Danforth, B. Tivnan, J. R. Williams and P. S. Dodds, 2017. Sentiment analysis methods for understanding large-scale texts: a case for using continuum-scored words and word shift graphs. EPJ Data Science, 6, 1, 28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-017-0121-9Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Hate Speech in Spain Against Aquarius Refugees 2018 in Twitter

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

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

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          TEEM'19: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality
          October 2019
          1085 pages
          ISBN:9781450371919
          DOI:10.1145/3362789

          Copyright © 2019 ACM

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

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 16 October 2019

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate496of705submissions,70%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader