Miljana Mladenović
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Cyber-aggression, cyberbullying, and cyber-grooming are distinctive and similar phenomena that represent the objectionable content appearing on online social media. Timely detection of the objectionable content is very important for its prevention and reduction. This article explores and spotlights diversity of definitions of cyber-aggression, cyberbulling, and cyber-grooming; analyzes current categorization systems and taxonomies; identifies the targets, target categories, and subcategories of the subjects of the objectionable content research; analyzes the ambiguity of the linguistic terms in the domain; reviews present databases gathered for researching the field; explores types of features used for modeling systems for automatic detection; and examines methods for automatic detection and/or prediction of the objectionable content. The results point to directions of system development for tracing transformations of objectionable content over time on different online social platforms.
- Niyati Aggrawal. 2018. Detection of offensive Tweets: A comparative study. Comput. Rev. J. 1, 1 (2018), 75--89.Google Scholar
- Sweta Agrawal and Amit Awekar. 2018. Deep learning for detecting cyberbullying across multiple social media platforms. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Retrieval. Springer, 141--153.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mohammed Ali Al-garadi, Kasturi Dewi Varathan, and Sri Devi Ravana. 2016. Cybercrime detection in online communications: The experimental case of cyberbullying detection in the Twitter network. Comput. Hum. Behav. 63 (2016), 433--443.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ika Alfina, Rio Mulia, Mohamad Ivan Fanany, and Yudo Ekanata. 2017. Hate speech detection in the Indonesian language: A dataset and preliminary study. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems (ICACSIS’17) 2017.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Thais G. Almeida, Bruno À. Souza, Fabíola G. Nakamura, and Eduardo F. Nakamura. 2017. Detecting hate, offensive, and regular speech in short comments. In Proceedings of the 23rd Brazillian Symposium on Multimedia and the Web. ACM, 225--228.Google Scholar
- Hamza H. M. Altarturi, Muntadher Saadoon, and Nor Badrul Anuar. 2020. Cyber parental control: A bibliometric study. Childr. Youth Serv. Rev. 116 (2020).Google Scholar
- Segun Taofeek Aroyehun and Alexander Gelbukh. 2018. Aggression detection in social media: Using deep neural networks, data augmentation, and pseudo labeling. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Trolling, Aggression and Cyberbullying (TRAC’18). 90--97.Google Scholar
- Varsha S. Babar and Roshani Ade. 2015. A review on imbalanced learning methods. In Proceedings of the International Journal of Computer Applications (0975–8887) National Conference on Advances in Computing (NCAC’15).Google Scholar
- Pinkesh Badjatiya, Shashank Gupta, Manish Gupta, and Vasudeva Varma. 2017. Deep learning for hate speech detection in tweets. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion. 759--760.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bartlomiej Balcerzak and Wojciech Jaworski. 2015. Application of linguistic cues in the analysis of language of hate groups. Comput. Sci. 16, 2 (2015).Google Scholar
- Koray Balci and Albert Ali Salah. 2015. Automatic analysis and identification of verbal aggression and abusive behaviors for online social games. Comput. Hum. Behav. 53 (2015), 517--526.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Connie S. Barber and Silvia Cristina Bettez. 2014. Deconstructing the online grooming of youth: Toward improved information systems for detection of online sexual predators. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS’14).Google Scholar
- Alexei Bastidas, Edward Dixon, Chris Loo, and John Ryan. 2016. Harassment detection: A benchmark on the #HackHarassment dataset. ArXiv, abs/1609.02809.Google Scholar
- Sofia Berne, Ann Frisén, Anja Schultze-Krumbholz, Herbert Scheithauer, Karin Naruskov, Piret Luik, Catarina Katzer, Rasa Erentaite, and Rita Zukauskiene. 2013. Cyberbullying assessment instruments: A systematic review. Aggress. Violent Behav. 18, 2 (2013), 320--334.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Catherine Blaya. 2019. Cyberhate: A review and content analysis of intervention strategies. Aggress. Violent Behav. 45 (2019), 163--172.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dasha Bogdanova, Paolo Rosso, and Thamar Solorio. 2014. Exploring high-level features for detecting cyberpedophilia. Comput. Speech Lang. 28, 1 (2014), 108--120.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Peter Bourgonje, Julian Moreno-Schneider, Ankit Srivastava, and Georg Rehm. 2017. Automatic classification of abusive language and personal attacks in various forms of online communication. In Proceedings of the German Society for Computational Linguistics and Language Technology (GSCL’17). Springer, 180--191.Google Scholar
- Patrick Bours and Halvor Kulsrud. 2019. Detection of cyber grooming in online conversation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security (WIFS’19). 1--6.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pete Burnap and Matthew L. Williams. 2015. Cyber hate speech on twitter: An application of machine classification and statistical modeling for policy and decision making. Policy Internet 7, 2 (2015), 223--242.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pete Burnap and Matthew L. Williams. 2016. Us and them: Identifying cyber hate on Twitter across multiple protected characteristics. EPJ Data Sci. 5, 1 (2016), 11.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Erik Cambria, Praphul Chandra, Avinash Sharma, and Amir Hussain. 2010. Do not feel the trolls. In Proceedings of the SDoW2010: The 9th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’10) Workshop, Vol. 664.Google Scholar
- Amparo Elizabeth Cano, Miriam Fernandez, and Harith Alani. 2014. Detecting child grooming behaviour patterns on social media. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Informatics. Springer, 412--427.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Claudia Cardei and Traian Rebedea. 2017. Detecting sexual predators in chats using behavioral features and imbalanced learning. Natur. Lang. Eng. 23, 4 (2017), 589--616.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michael Castelle. 2018. The linguistic ideologies of deep abusive language classification. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Abusive Language Online (ALW2’18). 160--170.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Despoina Chatzakou, Nicolas Kourtellis, Jeremy Blackburn, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Gianluca Stringhini, and Athena Vakali. 2017. Mean birds: Detecting aggression and bullying on twitter. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Web Science Conference. ACM, 13--22.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ying Chen, Yilu Zhou, Sencun Zhu, and Heng Xu. 2012. Detecting offensive language in social media to protect adolescent online safety. In Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Social Computing, Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust (PASSAT’12). IEEE, 71--80.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yun-Gyung Cheong, Alaina K. Jensen, Elín Rut Gudnadóttir, Byung-Chull Bae, and Julian Togelius. 2015. Detecting predatory behavior in game chats. IEEE Trans. Comput. Intell. AI Games 7, 3 (2015), 220--232.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Isobelle Clarke and Jack Grieve. 2017. Dimensions of abusive language on Twitter. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Abusive Language Online (ALW1’17). ACL, 1--10.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lucie Corcoran, Conor Mc Guckin, and Garry Prentice. 2015. Cyberbullying or cyber aggression?: A review of existing definitions of cyber-based peer-to-peer aggression. Societies 5, 2 (2015), 245--255.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maral Dadvar, de F. M. G. Jong, Roeland Ordelman, and Dolf Trieschnigg. 2012. Improved cyberbullying detection using gender information. In Proceedings of the 12th Dutch-Belgian Information Retrieval Workshop (DIR’12). University of Ghent.Google Scholar
- Maral Dadvar, Rudolf Berend Trieschnigg, and Franciska M. G. de Jong. 2013. Expert knowledge for automatic detection of bullies in social networks. In Proceedings of the 25th Benelux Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC’13). TU Delft.Google Scholar
- Thomas Davidson, Dana Warmsley, Michael W. Macy, and Ingmar Weber. 2017. Automated hate speech detection and the problem of offensive language. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM’17).Google Scholar
- Ona de Gibert, Naiara Perez, Aitor García Pablos, and Montse Cuadros. 2018. Hate speech dataset from a white supremacy forum. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Abusive Language Online (ALW2’18). ACL, 11--20.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rogers Prates de Pelle and Viviane P. Moreira. 2017. Offensive comments in the Brazilian Web: A dataset and baseline results. In Proceedings of the WS on BraSNAM in Conjunction with CSBC. 510--519.Google Scholar
- Tom De Smedt, Guy De Pauw, and Pieter Van Ostaeyen. 2018. Automatic detection of online Jihadist hate speech. arXiv:1803.04596. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.04596.Google Scholar
- Tom De Smedt, Sylvia Jaki, Eduan Kotzé, Leïla Saoud, Maja Gwóźdź, Guy De Pauw, and Walter Daelemans. 2018. Multilingual cross-domain perspectives on online hate speech. arXiv:1809.03944. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.03944.Google Scholar
- Karthik Dinakar, Birago Jones, Catherine Havasi, Henry Lieberman, and Rosalind Picard. 2012. Common sense reasoning for detection, prevention, and mitigation of cyberbullying. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 2, 3 (2012), 18.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Karthik Dinakar, Roi Reichart, and Henry Lieberman. 2011. Modeling the detection of textual cyberbullying. Soc. Mobile Web 11, 02 (2011), 11--17.Google Scholar
- Nemanja Djuric, Jing Zhou, Robin Morris, Mihajlo Grbovic, Vladan Radosavljevic, and Narayan Bhamidipati. 2015. Hate speech detection with comment embeddings. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 29--30.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jiangjiao Duan and Jianping Zeng. 2013. Web objectionable text content detection using topic modeling technique. Expert Syst. Appl. 40, 15 (2013), 6094--6104.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mohammadreza Ebrahimi, Ching Y. Suen, Olga Ormandjieva, and Adam Krzyzak. 2016. Recognizing predatory chat documents using semi-supervised anomaly detection. In Proceedings of IS8T International Symposium on Electronic Imaging Science and Technology 2016: Document Recognition and Retrieval XXIII. Ingenta, 1--9.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Matthew Edwards, Awais Rashid, and Paul Rayson. 2015. A systematic survey of online data mining technology intended for law enforcement. ACM Comput. Surv. 48, 1 (2015).Google Scholar
- Mai ElSherief, Vivek Kulkarni, Dana Nguyen, William Yang Wang, and Elizabeth Belding. 2018. Hate lingo: A target-based linguistic analysis of hate speech in social media. arXiv:1804.04257. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.04257.Google Scholar
- Escalante, Hugo Jair and Villatoro-Tello, Esaú and Garza, Sara E. and López-Monroy, A. Pastor and Montes-y-Gómez, Manuel and Villaseñor-Pineda, Luis. 2017. Early detection of deception and aggressiveness using profile-based representations. Expert Syst. Appl. 89, C (2017), 99--111.Google Scholar
- Ali Fauzi and Anny Yuniarti. 2018. Ensemble method for Indonesian Twitter hate speech detection. J. Electrochem. Energy Convers. Stor. 11, 1 (2018), 294--299.Google Scholar
- Darja Fišer, Tomaž Erjavec, and Nikola Ljubešić. 2017. Legal framework, dataset and annotation schema for socially unacceptable online discourse practices in slovene. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Abusive Language Online. 46--51.Google ScholarCross Ref
- International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children. 2017. Annual Report. Retrieved Feb. 25, 2019 from https://www.icmec.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/2017-Annual-Report-Final-Digital.pdf.Google Scholar
- Paula Fortuna and Sérgio Nunes. 2018. A survey on automatic detection of hate speech in text. ACM Comput. Surv. 51, 4 (2018), 85:1–85:30.Google Scholar
- Paula Cristina Teixeira Fortuna. 2017. Automatic Detection of Hate Speech in Text: An Overview of the Topic and Dataset Annotation with Hierarchical Classes. Master’s thesis. Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto.Google Scholar
- Antigoni-Maria Founta, Despoina Chatzakou, Nicolas Kourtellis, Jeremy Blackburn, Athena Vakali, and Ilias Leontiadis. 2018. A unified deep learning architecture for abuse detection. arXiv, 1802.00385v2.Google Scholar
- Antigoni-Maria Founta, Constantinos Djouvas, Despoina Chatzakou, Ilias Leontiadis, Jeremy Blackburn, Gianluca Stringhini, Athena Vakali, Michael Sirivianos, and Nicolas Kourtellis. 2018. Large scale crowdsourcing and characterization of Twitter abusive behavior. arXiv:1802.00393. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.00393.Google Scholar
- Simona Frenda, Ghanem Bilal, et al. 2018. Exploration of misogyny in Spanish and English tweets. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Evaluation of Human Language Technologies for Iberian Languages (IberEval’18), Vol. 2150. 260--267.Google Scholar
- Patxi Galán-García, José Gaviria de la Puerta, Carlos Laorden Gómez, Igor Santos, and Pablo García Bringas. 2014. Supervised machine learning for the detection of troll profiles in Twitter social network: Application to a real case of cyberbullying. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference SOCO’13-CISIS’13-ICEUTE’13. Springer International Publishing, 419--428.Google Scholar
- Björn Gambäck and Utpal Kumar Sikdar. 2017. Using convolutional neural networks to classify hate-speech. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Abusive Language Online (ALW1’17). 85--90.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lei Gao and Ruihong Huang. 2017. Detecting online hate speech using context aware models. arXiv:1710.07395. Retrieved from https://arxov.org/abs/1710.07395.Google Scholar
- Lei Gao, Alexis Kuppersmith, and Ruihong Huang. 2017. Recognizing explicit and implicit hate speech using a weakly supervised two-path bootstrapping approach. arXiv:1710.07394. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.07394.Google Scholar
- Njagi Dennis Gitari, Zhang Zuping, Hanyurwimfura Damien, and Jun Long. 2015. A lexicon-based approach for hate speech detection. Int. J. Multimedia Ubiq. Eng. 10, 4 (2015), 215--230.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jennifer Golbeck, Zahra Ashktorab, Rashad O. Banjo, Alexandra Berlinger, Siddharth Bhagwan, Cody Buntain, Paul Cheakalos, Alicia A. Geller, Quint Gergory, Rajesh Kumar Gnanasekaran, et al. 2017. A large labeled corpus for online harassment research. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Web Science Conference. ACM, 229--233.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Denis Gordeev. 2016. Automatic detection of verbal aggression for Russian and American imageboards. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 236 (2016), 71--75.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mario Graff, Sabino Miranda-Jiménez, Eric S. Tellez, Daniela Moctezuma, Vladimir Salgado, José Ortiz-Bejar, and Claudia N. Sánchez. 2018. Ingeotec at mex-a3t: Author profiling and aggressiveness analysis in twitter using tc and evomsa. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Evaluation of Human Language Technologies for Iberian Languages (WS on IberEval’18).Google Scholar
- Edel Greevy and Alan F. Smeaton. 2004. Classifying racist texts using a support vector machine. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. ACM, 468--469.Google Scholar
- Dorothy Wunmi Grigg. 2010. Cyber-aggression: Definition and concept of cyberbullying. Austr. J. Guid. Counsel. 20, 2 (2010), 143--156.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fergyanto E. Gunawan, Livia Ashianti, Sevenpri Candra, and Benfano Soewito. 2016. Detecting online child grooming conversation. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Knowledge, Information and Creativity Support Systems (KICSS’16). IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Aditi Gupta, Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, and Ashish Sureka. 2012. Characterizing pedophile conversations on the Internet using online grooming. CoRR abs/1208.4324 (2012).Google Scholar
- Batoul Haidar, Maroun Chamoun, and Ahmed Serhrouchni. 2017. A multilingual system for cyberbullying detection: Arabic content detection using machine learning. Adv. Sci. Technol. Eng. Syst. J. 2, 6 (2017), 275--284.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Homa Hosseinmardi, Sabrina Arredondo Mattson, Rahat Ibn Rafiq, Richard Han, Qin Lv, and Shivakant Mishr. 2015. Prediction of cyberbullying incidents on the Instagram social network. arXiv:1508.06257. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06257.Google Scholar
- Qianjia Huang, Diana Inkpen, Jianhong Zhang, and David Van Bruwaene. 2018. Cyberbullying Intervention interface based on convolutional neural networks. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING’18) (2018), 42.Google Scholar
- Muhammad Okky Ibrohim and Indra Budi. 2018. A dataset and preliminaries study for abusive language detection in Indonesian social media. Proc. Comput. Sci. 135 (2018), 222--229.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Borna Jafarpour, Stan Matwin, et al. 2018. Boosting text classification performance on sexist tweets by text augmentation and text generation using a combination of knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Abusive Language Online (ALW2’18). 107--114.Google Scholar
- Harri Jalonen, Jarkko Paavola, Tuomo Helo, Mika Sartonen, and Aki-Mauri Huhtinen. 2016. Understanding the trolling phenomenon: The automated detection of bots and cyborgs in the social media. J. Inf. Warfare 15, 4 (2016), 100--111.Google Scholar
- Akshita Jha and Radhika Mamidi. 2017. When does a compliment become sexist? Analysis and classification of ambivalent sexism using twitter data. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on NLP and Computational Social Science. 7--16.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Jinju Joby and Jyothi Korra. 2015. Article: Message filtering on social media content. Proceedings of the International Conference on Current Trends in Advanced Computing (ICCTAC’15).1--4.Google Scholar
- Mladen Karan and Jan Šnajder. 2018. Cross-domain detection of abusive language online. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Abusive Language Online (ALW2’18). 132--137.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Imrul Kayes, Nicolas Kourtellis, Daniele Quercia, Adriana Iamnitchi, and Francesco Bonchi. 2015. The social world of content abusers in community question answering. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web. 570--580.Google ScholarDigital Library
- George J. Kennedy, Andrew W. McCollough, Edward Dixon, A. M. Parra Bastidas, J. Mark Ryan, and Chris Loo. 2017. Hack harassment: Technology solutions to combat online harassment. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Abusive Language Online (ALW1’17). ACL, 73--77.Google ScholarCross Ref
- April Kontostathis. 2009. ChatCoder: Toward the tracking and categorization of internet predators. In Proceedings of the Text Mining Workshop 2009 Held in Conjunction with the Ninth Siam International Conference on Data Mining.Google Scholar
- April Kontostathis, Lynne Edwards, and Amanda Leatherman. 2010. Text mining and cybercrime. Text Mining: Applications and Theory. John Wiley 8 Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
- Ritesh Kumar, Aishwarya N. Reganti, Akshit Bhatia, and Tushar Maheshwari. 2018. Aggression-annotated corpus of Hindi-English code-mixed data. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’18). ELRA.Google Scholar
- Irene Kwok and Yuzhou Wang. 2013. Locate the hate: Detecting tweets against blacks. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’13).Google Scholar
- Amanda Kay Leatherman. 2009. Luring language and virtual victims: Analyzing cyber-predators' online communicative behavior. Ursinus College, PA.Google Scholar
- Younghun Lee, Seunghyun Yoon, and Kyomin Jung. 2018. Comparative studies of detecting abusive language on Twitter. arXiv:1808.10245. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.10245.Google Scholar
- Dan Liu, Ching Yee Suen, and Olga Ormandjieva. 2017. A novel way of identifying cyber predators. CoRR abs/1712.03903.Google Scholar
- Ping Liu, Joshua Guberman, Libby Hemphill, and Aron Culotta. 2018. Forecasting the presence and intensity of hostility on Instagram using linguistic and social features. arXiv:1804.06759. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.06759.Google Scholar
- Rijul Magu, Kshitij Joshi, and Jiebo Luo. 2017. Detecting the hate code on social media. arXiv:1703.05443. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.05443.Google Scholar
- Alessandro Maisto, Serena Pelosi, Simonetta Vietri, Pierluigi Vitale, and Via Giovanni Paolo II. 2017. Mining offensive language on social media. In Proceedings of the Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics (CLiC-it’17) 252.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Shervin Malmasi and Marcos Zampieri. 2017. Detecting hate speech in social media. arXiv:1712.06427. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.06427.Google Scholar
- Shervin Malmasi and Marcos Zampieri. 2018. Challenges in discriminating profanity from hate speech. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. 30, 2 (2018), 187--202.Google ScholarCross Ref
- India McGhee, Jennifer Bayzick, April Kontostathis, Lynne Edwards, Alexandra McBride, and Emma Jakubowski. 2011. Learning to identify internet sexual predation. Int. J. Electr. Commerce 15, 3 (2011), 103--122.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yashar Mehdad and Joel Tetreault. 2016. Do characters abuse more than words? In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue (SIGDIAL’16). 299--303.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maxime Meyer. 2015. Machine learning to detect online grooming. Retrieved February 25, 2019 http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-260390.Google Scholar
- Md Waliur Rahman Miah, John Yearwood, and Sid Kulkarni. 2011. Detection of child exploiting chats from a mixed chat dataset as a text classification task. In Proceedings of the Australasian Language Technology Association Workshop 2011. 157--165.Google Scholar
- Mainack Mondal, Leandro Araújo Silva, and Fabrício Benevenuto. 2017. A measurement study of hate speech in social media. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media. ACM, 85--94.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Joaquın Padilla Montani. 2018. TUWienKBS at GermEval 2018: German abusive tweet detection. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Natural Language Processing. Austrian Academy of Sciences, 45--50.Google Scholar
- Colin Morris. 2013. Identifying Online Sexual Predators by svm Classification with Lexical and Behavioral Features. Master of Science Thesis, University of Toronto, Canada (2013).Google Scholar
- Zewdie Mossie and Jenq-Haur Wang. 2018. Social network hate speech detection for Amharic language. In Proceedings of The 4th International Conference on Natural Language Computing. AIRCC Publishing Corporation, 41--55.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hamdy Mubarak, Kareem Darwish, and Walid Magdy. 2017. Abusive language detection on Arabic social media. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Abusive Language Online (ALW1’17). ACL, 52--56.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Samaneh Nadali, Masrah Azrifah Azmi Murad, Nurfadhlina Mohamad Sharef, Aida Mustapha, and Somayeh Shojaee. 2013. A review of cyberbullying detection: An overview. In Proceedings of the 2013 13th International Conference on Intellient Systems Design and Applications. 325--330.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Vinita Nahar, Xue Li, and Chaoyi Pang. 2013. An effective approach for cyberbullying detection. Commun. Inf. Sci. Manage. Eng. 3, 5 (2013), 238.Google Scholar
- Parma Nand, Rivindu Perera, and Abhijeet Kasture. 2016. “How bullying is this message?”: A psychometric thermometer for bullying. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING’16): Technical Papers. 695--706.Google Scholar
- Cnythia Hombakazi Ngejane, Gugulethu Mabuza-Hocquet, Jan H. P. Eloff, and Samuel Lefophane. 2018. Mitigating online sexual grooming cybercrime on social media using machine learning: A desktop survey. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, Computing and Data Communication Systems (icABCD’18), 1--6.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chikashi Nobata, Joel Tetreault, Achint Thomas, Yashar Mehdad, and Yi Chang. 2016. Abusive language detection in online user content. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on the World Wide Web. 145--153.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cicero Nogueira dos Santos, Igor Melnyk, and Inkit Padhi. 2018. Fighting offensive language on social media with unsupervised text style transfer. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers). ACLs, 189--194.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. I. of Criminology (AIC). 2008. Online Child Grooming Laws. Technical Report.Google Scholar
- Loreen N. Olson, Joy L. Daggs, Barbara L. Ellevold, and Teddy K. K. Rogers. 2007. Entrapping the innocent: Toward a theory of child sexual predators’ luring communication. Commun. Theory 17, 3 (2007), 231--251.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rachel O’Connell. 2003. A Typology of Child Cybersexploitation and Online Grooming Practices. Technical Report. University of Central Lancashire.Google Scholar
- Jure Pajić, Mateo Šimonović, and Rafael Slekovac. 2016. Offensive text detection with Naive bayes classifier. In Proceedings of the TAR 2016. University of Zagreb, 55--57.Google Scholar
- Endang Wahyu Pamungkas, Alessandra Teresa Cignarella, Valerio Basile, and Viviana Patti. 2018. 14-ExLab@ UniTo for AMI at IberEval2018: Exploiting lexical knowledge for detecting misogyny in English and Spanish tweets. Proceedings of the Evaluation of Human Language Technologies for Iberian Languages (IberEval’18). 234--241.Google Scholar
- Alexander Panchenko, Richard Beaufort, and Cedrick Fairon. 2012. Detection of child sexual abuse media on p2p networks: Normalization and classification of associated filenames. In Proceedings of the LREC Workshop on Language Resources for Public Security Applications. 27--31.Google Scholar
- Javier Parapar, David E. Losada, and Alvaro Barreiro. 2012. A learning-based approach for the identification of sexual predators in chat logs. In Proceedings of the Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum (CLEF’12) (Online Working Notes/Labs/Workshop).Google Scholar
- Javier Parapar, David E. Losada, and Alvaro Barreiro. 2014. Combining psycho-linguistic, content-based and chat-based features to detect predation in chatrooms.J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 20, 2 (2014), 213--239.Google Scholar
- Ji Ho Park and Pascale Fung. 2017. One-step and two-step classification for abusive language detection on Twitter. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Abusive Language Online (ALW1’17). ACL, 41--45.Google ScholarCross Ref
- John Pavlopoulos, Prodromos Malakasiotis, and Ion Androutsopoulos. 2017. Deep learning for user comment moderation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Abusive Language Online (ALW1’17). ACL, 25--35.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nick Pendar. 2007. Toward spotting the pedophile telling victim from predator in text chats. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC’07). IEEE, 235--241.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Georgios K. Pitsilis, Heri Ramampiaro, and Helge Langseth. 2018. Effective hate-speech detection in Twitter data using recurrent neural networks. Appl. Intell. 48, 12 (2018), 4730--4742.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fabio Poletto, Marco Stranisci, Manuela Sanguinetti, Viviana Patti, and Cristina Bosco. 2017. Hate speech annotation: Analysis of an Italian Twitter corpus. In Proceedings of the CEUR Workshop(CEUR-WS’17), Vol. 2006. 1--6.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nektaria Potha and Manolis Maragoudakis. 2014. Cyberbullying detection using time series modeling. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshop (ICDMW’14). IEEE, 373--382.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michal Ptaszynski, Juuso Kalevi Kristian Eronen, and Fumito Masui. 2017. Learning deep on cyberbullying is always better than brute force. In Proceedings of the IJCAI 2017 3rd Workshop on Linguistic and Cognitive Approaches to Dialogue Agents (LaCATODA’17). 19--25.Google Scholar
- Michal Ptaszynski, Fumito Masui, Taisei Nitta, Suzuha Hatakeyama, Yasutomo Kimura, Rafal Rzepka, and Kenji Araki. 2016. Sustainable cyberbullying detection with category-maximized relevance of harmful phrases and double-filtered automatic optimization. Int. J. Child-Comput. Interact. 8 (2016), 15--30.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jing Qian, Mai ElSherief, Elizabeth Belding, and William Yang Wang. 2018. Hierarchical CVAE for fine-grained hate speech classification. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. ACL, 3550--3559.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kashyap Raiyani, Teresa Gonçalves, Paulo Quaresma, and Vitor Beires Nogueira. 2018. Fully connected neural network with advance preprocessor to identify aggression over facebook and twitter. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Trolling, Aggression and Cyberbullying (TRAC’18). 28--41.Google Scholar
- Amir H. Razavi, Diana Inkpen, Sasha Uritsky, and Stan Matwin. 2010. Offensive language detection using multi-level classification. In Proceedings of the Canadian Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 16--27.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kelly Reynolds, April Kontostathis, and Lynne Edwards. 2011. Using machine learning to detect cyberbullying. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications and Workshops (ICMLA’11), Vol. 2. IEEE, 241--244.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mohammadreza Rezvan, Saeedeh Shekarpour, Lakshika Balasuriya, Krishnaprasad Thirunarayan, Valerie L. Shalin, and Amit Sheth. 2018. A quality type-aware annotated corpus and lexicon for harassment research. In Proceedings of the International ACM Conference on Web Science (WebSci’18). ACM, 33--36.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Manoel Ribeiro, Pedro Calais, Yuri Santos, Virgílio Almeida, and Wagner Meira Jr. 2018. Characterizing and detecting hateful users on Twitter. CoRR, abs/1803.08977.Google Scholar
- Manoel Horta Ribeiro, Pedro H. Calais, Yuri A. Santos, Virgílio A. F. Almeida, and Wagner Meira Jr.2018. “Like sheep among wolves”: Characterizing hateful users on Twitter. CoRR abs/1801.00317.Google Scholar
- Julian Risch and Ralf Krestel. 2018. Delete or not delete? Semi-automatic comment moderation for the newsroom. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Trolling, Aggression and Cyberbullying (TRAC’18). 166--176.Google Scholar
- David Robinson, Ziqi Zhang, and Jonathan Tepper. 2018. Hate speech detection on Twitter: Feature engineering vs feature selection. In Proceedings of the European Semantic Web Conference. Springer, 46--49.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Björn Ross, Michael Rist, Guillermo Carbonell, Benjamin Cabrera, Nils Kurowsky, and Michael Wojatzki. 2016. Measuring the reliability of hate speech annotations: The case of the European refugee crisis. CoRR abs/1701.08118.Google Scholar
- Semiu Salawu, Yulan He, and Joanna Lumsden. 2018. Approaches to automated detection of cyberbullying: A survey. IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput. 11, 1 (2018), 3--24.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Haji Mohammad Saleem, Kelly P. Dillon, Susan Benesch, and Derek Ruths. 2017. A web of hate: Tackling hateful speech in online social spaces. arxiv:1709.10159. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1709.10159.Google Scholar
- Joni Salminen, Hind Almerekhi, Milica Milenkovic, Soon-gyo Jung, Jisun An, Haewoon Kwak, and Bernard J. Jansen. 2018. Anatomy of online hate: Developing a taxonomy and machine learning models for identifying and classifying hate in online news media. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM’18). 330--339.Google Scholar
- Niloofar Safi Samghabadi, Suraj Maharjan, Alan Sprague, Raquel Diaz-Sprague, and Thamar Solorio. 2017. Detecting nastiness in social media. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Abusive Language Online. 63--72.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Manuela Sanguinetti, Fabio Poletto, Cristina Bosco, Viviana Patti, and Marco Stranisci. 2018. An Italian Twitter corpus of hate speech against immigrants. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’18).Google Scholar
- Sasha Sax. 2016. Flame Wars: Automatic Insult Detection.Google Scholar
- Anna Schmidt and Michael Wiegand. 2017. A survey on hate speech detection using natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Social Media. 1--10.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Leandro Araújo Silva, Mainack Mondal, Denzil Correa, Fabrício Benevenuto, and Ingmar Weber. 2016. Analyzing the targets of hate in online social media. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM’16). 687--690.Google Scholar
- Sugan Sirihattasak, Mamoru Komachi, and Hiroshi Ishikawa. 2018. Annotation and classification of toxicity for Thai Twitter. In Proceedings of LREC 2018 Workshop and the 2nd Workshop on Text Analytics for Cybersecurity and Online Safety (TA-COS’18).Google Scholar
- Peter Smith, Jess Mahdavi, Manuel Carvalho, Sonja Fisher, Shanette Russell, and Neil Tippett. 2008. Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatr. Allied Discipl. 49, 4 (2008), 376--85.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sara Owsley Sood, Judd Antin, and Elizabeth F. Churchill. 2012. Using crowdsourcing to improve profanity detection. In Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium: Wisdom of the Crowd, Vol. 12. 06.Google Scholar
- Frederik Stjernfelt and Anne Mette Lauritzen. 2020. Your Post has been Removed: Tech Giants and Freedom of Speech. Springer.Google Scholar
- Hui-Po Su, Zhen-Jie Huang, Hao-Tsung Chang, and Chuan-Jie Lin. 2017. Rephrasing profanity in Chinese text. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Abusive Language Online (ALW1’17). ACL, 18--24.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andrej Švec, Matúš Pikuliak, Marian Simko, and Maria Bielikova. 2018. Improving moderation of online discussions via interpretable neural models. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Abusive Language Online (ALW2’18). Association for Computational Linguistics, 60--65.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michele Tomaiuolo, Gianfranco Lombardo, Monica Mordonini, Stefano Cagnoni, and Agostino Poggi. 2020. A survey on troll detection. Fut. Internet 12, 2 (2020).Google Scholar
- Jan Tomljanovic, Luka Zuanovic, and Tomislav Šebrek. 2016. Sexual predator identification using word2vec features. In Proceedings of the Text Analysis and Retrieval 2016 (TAR'16). University of Zagreb, 70--72.Google Scholar
- Stéphan Tulkens, Lisa Hilte, Elise Lodewyckx, Ben Verhoeven, and Walter Daelemans. 2016. The automated detection of racist discourse in dutch social media. Comput. Ling. Netherlands J. 6, 1 (2016), 3--20.Google Scholar
- Elise Fehn Unsvåg and Björn Gambäck. 2018. The effects of user features on Twitter hate speech detection. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Abusive Language Online (ALW2’18). ACL, 75--85.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Betty van Aken, Julian Risch, Ralf Krestel, and Alexander Löser. 2018. Challenges for toxic comment classification: An in-depth error analysis. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Abusive Language Online (ALW2’18). Association for Computational Linguistics, 33--42.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cynthia Van Hee, Els Lefever, Ben Verhoeven, Julie Mennes, Bart Desmet, Guy De Pauw, Walter Daelemans, and Véronique Hoste. 2015. Automatic detection and prevention of cyberbullying. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human and Social Analytics (HUSO’15). IARIA, 13--18.Google Scholar
- Fabio Del Vigna, Andrea Cimino, Felice Dell’Orletta, Marinella Petrocchi, and Maurizio Tesconi. 2017. Hate me, hate me not: Hate speech detection on Facebook. In Proceedings of the Italian Conference on CyberSecurity (ITASEC’17).Google Scholar
- Esaú Villatoro-Tello, Antonio Juárez-González, Hugo Jair Escalante, Manuel Montes-y Gómez, and Luis Villasenor Pineda. 2012. A two-step approach for effective detection of misbehaving users in chats. In Proceedings of the Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum (CLEF’12) (Online Working Notes/Labs/Workshop).Google Scholar
- William Warner and Julia Hirschberg. 2012. Detecting hate speech on the world wide web. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Language Analysis in Social Media (LASM’12). ACL, 19--26.Google Scholar
- Zeerak Waseem, Thomas Davidson, Dana Warmsley, and Ingmar Weber. 2017. Understanding abuse: A typology of abusive language detection subtasks. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Abusive Language Online (ALW1’17). ACL, 78--84.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zeerak Waseem and Dirk Hovy. 2016. Hateful symbols or hateful people? Predictive features for hate speech detection on Twitter. In Proceedings of the NAACL Student Research Workshop. 88--93.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hajime Watanabe, Mondher Bouazizi, and Tomoaki Ohtsuki. 2018. Hate speech on Twitter: A pragmatic approach to collect hateful and offensive expressions and perform hate speech detection. IEEE Access 6 (2018), 13825--13835.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ellery Wulczyn, Nithum Thain, and Lucas Dixon. 2017. Ex machina: Personal attacks seen at scale. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 1391--1399.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Guang Xiang, Bin Fan, Ling Wang, Jason Hong, and Carolyn Rose. 2012. Detecting offensive tweets via topical feature discovery over a large scale twitter corpus. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, 1980--1984.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zhi Xu and Sencun Zhu. 2010. Filtering offensive language in online communities using grammatical relations. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual Collaboration, Electronic Messaging, Anti-Abuse and Spam Conference. 1--10.Google Scholar
- Fan Yang, Xiaochang Peng, Gargi Ghosh, Reshef Shilon, Hao Ma, Eider Moore, and Goran Predovic. 2019. Exploring deep multimodal fusion of text and photo for hate speech classification. In Proceedings of the 3th Workshop on Abusive Language Online. ACL, 11--18.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dawei Yin, Zhenzhen Xue, Liangjie Hong, Brian D. Davison, April Kontostathis, and Lynne Edwards. 2009. Detection of harassment on Web 2.0. Proc. Content Anal. Web 2.0 2, 1 (2009), 1--7.Google Scholar
- Patricio Zambrano, Jenny Torres, Luis Tello-Oquendo, Rubeén Jácome, Marco E. Benalcázar, Roberto Andrade, and Walter Fuertes. 2019. Technical mapping of the grooming anatomy using machine learning paradigms: An information security approach. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 142129--142146.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Xhemal Zenuni, Jaumin Ajdari, Florije Ismaili, and Bujar Raufi. 2017. Automatic hate speech detection in online contents using latent semantic analysis. PressAcad. Proc. 5, 1 (2017), 368--371.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ziqi Zhang, David Robinson, and Jonathan Tepper. 2018. Detecting hate speech on Twitter using a convolution-GRU based deep neural network. In Proceedings of the European Semantic Web Conference. Springer, 745--760.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Haoti Zhong, Hao Li, Anna Cinzia Squicciarini, Sarah Michele Rajtmajer, Christopher Griffin, David J. Miller, and Cornelia Caragea. 2016. Content-driven detection of cyberbullying on the Instagram social network. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’16). 3952--3958.Google Scholar
- Steven Zimmerman, Udo Kruschwitz, and Chris Fox. 2018. Improving hate speech detection with deep learning ensembles. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’18).Google Scholar
- Zheming Zuo, Jie Li, Philip Anderson, Longzhi Yang, and Nitin Naik. 2018. Grooming detection using fuzzy-rough feature selection and text classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE’18). IEEE, 1--8.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Cyber-aggression, Cyberbullying, and Cyber-grooming: A Survey and Research Challenges
Recommendations
Cyber-aggression towards women: Measurement and psychological predictors in gaming communities
AbstractApproximately 52% of young women report receiving threatening messages, sharing of their private photos by others without their consent, or sexual harassment online – examples of cyber-aggression towards women. A scale to measure ...
Highlights- A YouTuber streaming themselves doing the survey to thousands necessitated splitting Study 1 and Study 2.
Parental mediation, cyberbullying, and cybertrolling
Researchers are concerned with identifying the risk and protective factors associated with adolescents' involvement in cyberharassment. One such factor is parental mediation of children's electronic technology use. Little attention has been given to how ...
Cyber-harassment victimization in Portugal
Cyber-harassment is one of today's problems in adolescent health. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of cyber-victimization among Portuguese adolescents. It also explored its nature, patterns and victim's reactions of fear and help-seeking. A ...
Comments