Abstract
Counter-speech is considered a promising tool to address hate speech online, notably, by promoting bystander reactions that could attenuate the prevalence or further dissemination of hate. However, it remains unclear which types of counter-speech are most effective in attaining these goals and which might backfire. Advancing the literature, we examined the effect of four types of counter-speech (i.e., educating the perpetrator, calling on others to intervene, diverting the conversation, and abusing the perpetrator) on a range of bystander behavioral intentions in an experimental study (N = 250, UK-based adults). Overall, counter-speech did not affect bystanders’ subsequent responses to hate speech. Having said this, as expected, diversionary counter-speech increased intentions to ignore hate speech, which suggests unintended consequences. The study illustrates that counter-speech may not be sufficiently impactful in regulating bystanders’ reactions to hate speech online.
The findings reinforce a few things that I’ve seen in this series of videos, about the Alt-Right Playbook; one of them is that engaging the perpetrator is mostly a waste of time.
Thanks for reminding me of that video series.
Recognizing what is NOT effective is important . But what is effective?
But what is effective?
The video that I’ve linked directly proposes, near the end:
- if you can remove the bullshit, do it. (i.e. deplatform those muppets.)
- address your audience, without referring to the bullshit; in this situation a detailed explanation sounds better, as it isn’t being contrasted with a sound bite.
