CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17Misinformation and Its ImpactsHate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionSocial Media and Politics

Online Hate: Is Hate an Infectious Disease? Is Social Media a Promoter?

Open access
Popa‐Wyatt, Mihaela·2023·Journal of Applied Philosophy
DOI 10.1111/japp.12679
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Our time is marked by a resurgence of hate that threatens to increase oppression. Social media has contributed to this by acting as a medium through which hate speech is spread. How should we model the spread of hate? This article considers two models. First, I consider a simple contagion model. In this model, hate spreads like a virus through a social network. This model, however, fails to capture the fact that people do not acquire hatred from a single infectious contact. Instead, it builds up in a person's beliefs and attitudes through time until the infection reaches a level where the subject themselves becomes a generator of hate speech. Second, to accommodate this, I consider an alternative model known as complex contagion. I argue that not only is a complex contagion model more explanatory and predictive, but it can be used to explain why certain features of social media cause it to be a promoter of hate. I conclude by sketching some mitigation strategies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/japp.12679

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Policing creates a self-reinforcing feedback loop: higher status is achieved within the group by strong adherence to the norms, and positive reinforcement for hateful expression and negative reward for adherence to nonhateful norms creates an arms race in which community members are incentivised to become more extreme.

    “[P]olicing creates a self-reinforcing feedback loop. Higher status is achieved within the group by strong adherence to the norms, and in turn, positive reinforcement for hateful expression - and negative reward for adherence to nonhateful or less hateful norms - creates an arms race in which community members are incentivised to become more extreme. [15, 11]”

    From Exploring incel group dynamics: a computational study of hierarchy and group-boundary policing (2025) · cites this paper as [15]

  • Community norms foster extreme content and harshly punish any opposition to the blackpill ideology.

    “The community norms foster extreme content and harshly punish any opposition to the blackpill ideology.”

    From Exploring incel group dynamics: a computational study of hierarchy and group-boundary policing (2025) · cites this paper as [15]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Popa‐Wyatt, M.
Affiliations
University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Popa‐Wyatt, Mihaela
ORCID
Popa‐Wyatt, Mihaela
Venue
Journal of Applied Philosophy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-07-25
Volume
40
Issue
5
Pages
788-812
ISSN
  • 0264-3758 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-5930
DOI
10.1111/japp.12679
OpenAlex
W4385248532
Cited by
17
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4
FWCI
7.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Philosophy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
Keywords
online hate, hate speech, social media, complex contagion, simple contagion, social networks, belief formation, oppression, mitigation measures

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review