Concerns have reached the mainstream about how social media are affecting political outcomes. One trajectory for this is the exposure of politicians to online abuse. In this paper we use 1.4 million tweets from the months before the 2015 and 2017 UK general elections to explore the abuse directed at politicians. This collection allows us to look at abuse broken down by both party and gender and aimed at specific Members of Parliament. It also allows us to investigate the characteristics of those who send abuse and their topics of interest. Results show that in both absolute and proportional terms, abuse increased substantially in 2017 compared with 2015. Abusive replies are somewhat less directed at women and those not in the currently governing party. Those who send the abuse may be issue-focused, or they may repeatedly target an individual. In the latter category, accounts are more likely to be throwaway. Those sending abuse have a wide range of topical triggers, including borders and terrorism.
Work exists regarding accurately identifying abusive messages automatically @cite_0 @cite_9 @cite_14 @cite_20 @cite_1 . The work of has been described as the state of the art, with precision recall of 0.63 being reported as equivalent to human performance. report a human interannotator agreement of only 0.69 in annotating racial slurs, and report a human agreement of 0.8 with a Krippendorf's alpha of 0.25 on UK data, demonstrating that the limiting factor is the complexity of the task definition. Burnap and Williams particularly focus on hate speech with regards to protected characteristics such as race, disability and sexual orientation. Waseem and Hovy also focus on hate speech, and share a gold standard UK Tweet corpus. seek to identify the problem accounts rather than the problem material. Schmidt and Wiegand provide a review of prior work and methods.
@cite_14 @cite_9 @cite_1 @cite_0 @cite_20
2786315637 2622349515 2595653137 2951737564
Hate speech, offensive language, sexism, racism and other types of abusive behavior have become a common phenomenon in many online social media platforms. In recent years, such diverse abusive behaviors have been manifesting with increased frequency and levels of intensity. This is due to the openness and willingness of popular media platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, to host content of sensitive or controversial topics. However, these platforms have not adequately addressed the problem of online abusive behavior, and their responsiveness to the effective detection and blocking of such inappropriate behavior remains limited. In the present paper, we study this complex problem by following a more holistic approach, which considers the various aspects of abusive behavior. To make the approach tangible, we focus on Twitter data and analyze user and textual properties from different angles of abusive posting behavior. We propose a deep learning architecture, which utilizes a wide variety of available metadata, and combines it with automatically-extracted hidden patterns within the text of the tweets, to detect multiple abusive behavioral norms which are highly inter-related. We apply this unified architecture in a seamless, transparent fashion to detect different types of abusive behavior (hate speech, sexism vs. racism, bullying, sarcasm, etc.) without the need for any tuning of the model architecture for each task. We test the proposed approach with multiple datasets addressing different and multiple abusive behaviors on Twitter. Our results demonstrate that it largely outperforms the state-of-art methods (between 21 and 45 improvement in AUC, depending on the dataset). Automatic abusive language detection is a difficult but important task for online social media. Our research explores a two-step approach of performing classification on abusive language and then classifying into specific types and compares it with one-step approach of doing one multi-class classification for detecting sexist and racist languages. With a public English Twitter corpus of 20 thousand tweets in the type of sexism and racism, our approach shows a promising performance of 0.827 F-measure by using HybridCNN in one-step and 0.824 F-measure by using logistic regression in two-steps. A key challenge for automatic hate-speech detection on social media is the separation of hate speech from other instances of offensive language. Lexical detection methods tend to have low precision because they classify all messages containing particular terms as hate speech and previous work using supervised learning has failed to distinguish between the two categories. We used a crowd-sourced hate speech lexicon to collect tweets containing hate speech keywords. We use crowd-sourcing to label a sample of these tweets into three categories: those containing hate speech, only offensive language, and those with neither. We train a multi-class classifier to distinguish between these different categories. Close analysis of the predictions and the errors shows when we can reliably separate hate speech from other offensive language and when this differentiation is more difficult. We find that racist and homophobic tweets are more likely to be classified as hate speech but that sexist tweets are generally classified as offensive. Tweets without explicit hate keywords are also more difficult to classify. A key challenge for automatic hate-speech detection on social media is the separation of hate speech from other instances of offensive language. Lexical detection methods tend to have low precision because they classify all messages containing particular terms as hate speech and previous work using supervised learning has failed to distinguish between the two categories. We used a crowd-sourced hate speech lexicon to collect tweets containing hate speech keywords. We use crowd-sourcing to label a sample of these tweets into three categories: those containing hate speech, only offensive language, and those with neither. We train a multi-class classifier to distinguish between these different categories. Close analysis of the predictions and the errors shows when we can reliably separate hate speech from other offensive language and when this differentiation is more difficult. We find that racist and homophobic tweets are more likely to be classified as hate speech but that sexist tweets are generally classified as offensive. Tweets without explicit hate keywords are also more difficult to classify.