Insights Into Incitement: A Computational Perspective on Dangerous Speech on Twitter in India
Open accessAbstract
Dangerous speech on social media platforms can be framed as blatantly inflammatory, or be couched in innuendo. It is also centrally tied to who engages it – it can be driven by openly sectarian social media accounts, or through subtle nudges by influential accounts, allowing for complex means of reinforcing vilification of marginalized groups, an increasingly significant problem in the media environment in the Global South. We identify dangerous speech by influential accounts on Twitter in India around three key events, examining both the language and networks of messaging that condones or actively promotes violence against vulnerable groups. We characterize dangerous speech users by assigning Danger Amplification Belief scores and show that dangerous users are more active on Twitter as compared to other users as well as most influential in the network, in terms of a larger following as well as volume of verified accounts. We find that dangerous users have a more polarized viewership, suggesting that their audience is more susceptible to incitement. Using a mix of network centrality measures and qualitative analysis, we find that most dangerous accounts tend to either be in mass media related occupations or allied with low-ranking, right-leaning politicians, and act as “broadcasters” in the network, where they are best positioned to spearhead the rapid dissemination of dangerous speech across the platform.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The Risk of Racial Bias in Hate Speech Detection
Sap, M., Card, D., Gabriel, S., Choi, Y., & Smith, N. A. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1163 · Cited by 817 · see citing works
Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media
Rathje, S., Van Bavel, J. J., & van der Linden, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2024292118 · Cited by 560 · see citing works
Buchanan, T., & Benson, V. (2019) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305119888654 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Orian Harel, T., Maoz, I., & Halperin, E. (2020) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.11.013 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 49
- Syeda Zainab Akbar, Anmol Panda, Divyanshu Kukreti, Azhagu Meena, and Joyojeet Pal. 2021. Misinformation as a Window into Prejudice: COVID-19 and the Information Environment in India. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW3 (2021), 1-28.
- Ilo Alexandre, Joseph Jai-sung Yoo, and Dhiraj Murthy. 2021. Make Tweets Great Again: Who Are Opinion Leaders, and What Did They Tweet About Donald Trump? Social Science Computer Review (2021), 08944393211008859.
- Ali Alshehri, El Moatez Billah Nagoudi, and Muhammad Abdul-Mageed. 2020. Understanding and Detecting Dangerous Speech in Social Media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.06608 (2020). · arXiv
- Amarnath Amarasingam and Marc-André Argentino. 2020. The QAnon conspiracy theory: A security threat in the making. CTC Sentinel 13, 7 (2020), 37-44.
- Oxford Analytica. [n. d.]. Twitter's India tensions have wider implications. Emerald Expert Briefings oxan-es ([n. d.]).
- Eytan Bakshy, Jake M Hofman, Winter A Mason, and Duncan J Watts. 2011. Everyone's an influencer: quantifying influence on twitter. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining. 65-74.
- Shakuntala Banaji. 2018. Vigilante publics: Orientalism, modernity and Hindutva fascism in India. Javnost-The Public 25, 4 (2018), 333-350.
- Shubhanker Banerjee, Bharathi Raja Chakravarthi, and John P McCrae. 2020. Comparison of pretrained embeddings to identify hate speech in Indian code-mixed text. In 2020 2nd International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communication Control and Networking (ICACCCN). IEEE, 21-25.
- Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris, and Hal Roberts. 2018. Network propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicaliza- tion in American politics. Oxford University Press.
- Sophie Bishop. 2018. Anxiety, panic and self-optimization: Inequalities and the YouTube algorithm. Convergence 24, 1 (2018), 69-84.
- Aditya Bohra, Deepanshu Vijay, Vinay Singh, Syed Sarfaraz Akhtar, and Manish Shrivastava. 2018. A dataset of hindi- english code-mixed social media text for hate speech detection. In Proceedings of the second workshop on computational modeling of people's opinions, personality, and emotions in social media. 36-41.
- Antoine Buyse. 2014. Words of violence: Fear speech, or how violent conflict escalation relates to the freedom of expression. Hum. Rts. Q. 36 (2014), 779.
- Daniel Cer, Yinfei Yang, Sheng-yi Kong, Nan Hua, Nicole Limtiaco, Rhomni St John, Noah Constant, Mario Guajardo- Céspedes, Steve Yuan, Chris Tar, et al. 2018. Universal sentence encoder. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.11175 (2018). · arXiv
- Paula Chakravartty and Srirupa Roy. 2015. Mr. Modi goes to Delhi: Mediated populism and the 2014 Indian elections. Television & New Media 16, 4 (2015), 311-322.
- Ipsita Chatterjee. 2012. How are they othered? Globalisation, identity and violence in an Indian city. The Geographical Journal 178, 2 (2012), 134-146.
- Sanjay Chaturvedi. 2002. Process of othering in the case of India and Pakistan. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie 93, 2 (2002), 149-159.
- Philipp Darius and Fabian Stephany. 2019. "Hashjacking" the Debate: Polarisation Strategies of Germany's Political Far-Right on Twitter. In International Conference on Social Informatics. Springer, 298-308.
- Saloni Dash, Dibyendu Mishra, Gazal Shekhawat, and Joyojeet Pal. 2021. Divided We Rule: Influencer Polarization on Twitter During Political Crises in India. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.08361 (2021). · arXiv
- Morris H DeGroot. 1974. Reaching a consensus. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 69, 345 (1974), 118-121.
- Suman Dowlagar and Radhika Mamidi. 2021. OFFLangOne@ DravidianLangTech-EACL2021: Transformers with the Class Balanced Loss for Offensive Language Identification in Dravidian Code-Mixed text.. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Speech and Language Technologies for Dravidian Languages. 154-159.
- Benjamin Golub and Matthew O Jackson. 2010. Naive learning in social networks and the wisdom of crowds. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 2, 1 (2010), 112-49.
- Andre Gonawela, Joyojeet Pal, Udit Thawani, Elmer van der Vlugt, Wim Out, and Priyank Chandra. 2018. Speaking their Mind: Populist Style and Antagonistic Messaging in the Tweets of Donald Trump, Narendra Modi, Nigel Farage, and Geert Wilders. Comput. Support. Cooperative Work. 27, 3-6 (2018), 293-326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-018-9316-2 · DOI
- Thomas Blom Hansen. 1999. The saffron wave. Princeton University Press.
- Libby Hemphill, Aron Culotta, and Matthew Heston. 2016. #Polar Scores: Measuring partisanship using social media content. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 13, 4 (2016), 365-377.
- George F Jenks. 1967. The data model concept in statistical mapping. International yearbook of cartography 7 (1967), 186-190.
- Sanjeev Kumar. 2013. Constructing the Nation's Enemy: Hindutva, popular culture and the Muslim 'other'in Bollywood cinema. Third World Quarterly 34, 3 (2013), 458-469.
- L John Martin. 1982. Disinformation: An instrumentality in the propaganda arsenal. Political Communication 2, 1 (1982), 47-64.
- Binny Mathew, Anurag Illendula, Punyajoy Saha, Soumya Sarkar, Pawan Goyal, and Animesh Mukherjee. 2020. Hate begets hate: A temporal study of hate speech. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (2020), 1-24.
- Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781 (2013). · arXiv
- Taberez Ahmed Neyazi. 2020. Digital propaganda, political bots and polarized politics in India. Asian Journal of Communication 30, 1 (2020), 39-57.
- Tharaileth Koshy Oommen. 1986. Insiders and outsiders in India: Primordial collectivism and cultural pluralism in nation-building. International sociology 1, 1 (1986), 53-74.
- Henna Paakki, Heidi Vepsäläinen, and Antti Salovaara. 2021. Disruptive online communication: How asymmetric trolling-like response strategies steer conversation off the track. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) (2021), 1-37.
- Anmol Panda, A'ndre Gonawela, Sreangsu Acharyya, Dibyendu Mishra, Mugdha Mohapatra, Ramgopal Chan- drasekaran, and Joyojeet Pal. 2020. NivaDuck -A Scalable Pipeline to Build a Database of Political Twitter Handles for India and the United States. In International Conference on Social Media and Society (Toronto, ON, Canada) (SMSociety'20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 200-209. https://doi.org/10.1145/3400806.3400830 · DOI
- Matti Pohjonen and Sahana Udupa. 2017. Extreme speech online: An anthropological critique of hate speech debates. International Journal of Communication 11 (2017), 19.
- Ajnesh Prasad. 2020. The organization of ideological discourse in times of unexpected crisis: Explaining how COVID-19 is exploited by populist leaders. Leadership 16, 3 (2020), 294-302.
- Ammar Rashed, Mucahid Kutlu, Kareem Darwish, Tamer Elsayed, and Cansın Bayrak. 2020. Embeddings-Based Clustering for Target Specific Stances: The Case of a Polarized Turkey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.09649 (2020). · arXiv
- Manoel Horta Ribeiro, Pedro H Calais, Yuri A Santos, Virgílio AF Almeida, and Wagner Meira Jr. 2017. " Like Sheep Among Wolves": Characterizing Hateful Users on Twitter. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.00317 (2017). · arXiv
- Punyajoy Saha, Binny Mathew, Kiran Garimella, and Animesh Mukherjee. 2021. "Short is the Road that Leads from Fear to Hate": Fear Speech in Indian WhatsApp Groups. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021. 1110-1121.
- TYSS Santosh and KVS Aravind. 2019. Hate speech detection in hindi-english code-mixed social media text. In Proceedings of the ACM India Joint International Conference on Data Science and Management of Data. 310-313.
- Omar Sharif, Eftekhar Hossain, and Mohammed Moshiul Hoque. 2021. NLP-CUET@ DravidianLangTech-EACL2021: Offensive Language Detection from Multilingual Code-Mixed Text using Transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.00455 (2021). · arXiv
- Felipe Bonow Soares and Raquel Recuero. 2021. Hashtag Wars: Political Disinformation and Discursive Strug- gles on Twitter Conversations During the 2018 Brazilian Presidential Campaign. Social Media+ Society 7, 2 (2021), 20563051211009073.
- Felipe Bonow Soares, Raquel Recuero, and Gabriela Zago. 2019. Asymmetric polarization on Twitter and the 2018 Brazilian presidential elections. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on social media and society. 67-76.
- Abhishek Srivastava, Kalika Bali, and Monojit Choudhury. 2020. Understanding script-mixing: A case study of Hindi- English bilingual Twitter users. In Proceedings of the The 4th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Code Switching. 36-44.
- Louise Tillin and Christophe Olivier Jaffrelot. 2017. Populism in India. In Oxford Handbook of Populism. Oxford University Press.
- Alice Tontodimamma, Eugenia Nissi, Annalina Sarra, and Lara Fontanella. 2021. Thirty years of research into hate speech: topics of interest and their evolution. Scientometrics 126, 1 (2021), 157-179.
- Sahana Udupa. 2016. Archiving as history-making: Religious politics of social media in India. Communication, Culture & Critique 9, 2 (2016), 212-230.
- Ashutosh Varshney. 2008. Ethnic conflict and civic life. Yale University Press.
- Prashanth Vijayaraghavan, Soroush Vosoughi, and Deb Roy. 2016. Automatic detection and categorization of election- related tweets. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 10.
- Ingmar Weber, Venkata R Kiran Garimella, and Alaa Batayneh. 2013. Secular vs. islamist polarization in egypt on twitter. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/ACM international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining. 290-297.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rebollo Diaz, C. (2026) · Redes. Revista hispana para el análisis de redes sociales · doi:10.5565/rev/redes.1130
- Authors
- Dash, S., Grover, R., Shekhawat, G., Kaur, S., Mishra, D., & Pal, J.
- Affiliations
- Microsoft Research (India) (IN)
- London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
- University of Michigan (US)
- Venue
- ACM SIGCAS/SIGCHI Conference on Computing and Sustainable Societies (COMPASS)
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2022-06-29
- Pages
- 103-121
- OpenAlex
- W3214062599
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 1.24
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- ACM SIGCAS/SIGCHI Conference on Computing and Sustainable Societies (COMPASS) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Keywords
- dangerous speech, incitement, Twitter, India, online hate speech, violence against marginalized groups, influential accounts, network centrality, polarization
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