For a few years now, I have dedicated a part of my research and publications to the problem of hate speech on social networks. I am currently outlining a new article on that. There is something that makes me worried. It seems obvious that there are easily labelable and traceable hate speeches (especially in cyberspace with the help of automatic word processing software). Many published works provide today relevant data that allows detecting hate speech and identifying potentially criminal users masked under pseudo anonymity.
My concern is whether there would be another way to better approach hate speech without departing from purely scientific objectives, without contributing to the materialization of a kind of Linguistic Court willing to rule on the acceptability of expressions, perhaps in order to cleaning, fixing and giving “splendour” to digital language, improving, incidentally, the public image of social platforms and regulating the coexistence in cyberspace in such a way that only “good people” could participate ?
The truth is that, in addition to those speeches that explicitly express hatred, there is an untraceable, ungrammaticalizable hatred that resists both Logic and Empiricism. The question I ask you is if there is someone else who, like me, fears the risks of such practices of identifying "bad speeches" that could be used to purify the language, limiting freedom of expression? (sorry for my English, which is a language I use very rarely)
I understand your point; I myself am quite aware of the fact that if we discuss hate speech, it is freedom of speech which is at stake. In my perspective, the term of hate speech has become too politicised. If you wish to try a new approach to the topic, I suggest elaborating collocation analyses of a high number of the social network posts/statuses. Delimiting key/thematic words at first and carrying out collocation research of them in the next step may give you a broader picture of the analysed phenomenon. This type of analysis may help uncover hidden links among words and the interior workings of the used language. I am not sure whether what you arrive at will be hate speech, but via this investigation, you will definitely take a more neutral stance to language research. If I could be of any help in your enterprise, please, feel free to send me a message.
please read this
Article Hate speech detection: Challenges and solutions
Michal Místecký Thanks for your answer. I take note of your suggestions. The risk I see is treating hate speech as a given sequence of words. It seems obvious to me that links will be established between these words beyond the simply syntactic. But would these links be the result of the singular act of using a certain sequence of words, or would they be given by a historicity of the words that precedes and exceeds the individual who uses them? Would a certain sequence of words that express hate actually constitute an act of hatred or is it simply the reiteration of a conventional expression of hatred without real power to hate (that is, without necessarily effects on the interlocutor) unless they were legitimized by any institution that can give performative value to said sequence?
Muhammad Abbas Khan Thanks for the link to your article that I am going to read with great curiosity. It will take a while, as I am now with other readings, but I will return to continue our discussion. Best regards.
it's a very good point you have highlighted. You are absolutely right as regards the accessibility of such materials. Searching a linguistic structure that the word negro is part of, the site blocked the search with this note: possibly inappropriate content. As Michal Místecký pointed out, the material "has become too polticised". Based on that, the block is justified ; on the other hand, the linguistic cleansing, as you mentioned, by a virtual "Linguistic Court" is unacceptable. This phenomenon (of banning and blocking) has been a long human history since the moment human become civilized (politicised). Many literary treasures , of some nations, had been lost under the policy of linguistic inquisition . I think there should be a conditional permission issued for scientific research. But the questions is who holds the keys to open Ali Bab cave.
Profe. There is no need to apologize in advance for your English. Es muy perfecto.
Juan-Manuel Lopez-Muñoz Thank you very much for your reaction. If you take it from that perspective, I would say that conventionalized hatred is still hatred, even though it is not individualized. However, if you wish to search for something more connected to somebody's idiolect, there are quantitative ways to investigate it, too (focusing on hapax legomena, using a collocational metric focusing on low-frequence collocates, searching for keywords, which are based upon a comparison of your text(s) with a different bunch of texts, etc.).
Michal Místecký Thank you, I am thinking about your last reply and I hope that we continue talking.
Juan-Manuel Lopez-Muñoz Thank you very much. I remain at your full disposal.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Indexes