Cited by 46Hate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionMisinformation and Its ImpactsEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Hate Raids on Twitch: Echoes of the Past, New Modalities, and Implications for Platform Governance

Open access
Han, Catherine, Seering, Joseph, Kumar, Deepak, Hancock, Jeffrey T., Durumeric, Zakir·2023·Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Abstract

In the summer of 2021, users on the livestreaming platform Twitch were targeted by a wave of "hate raids," a form of attack that overwhelms a streamer's chatroom with hateful messages, often through the use of bots and automation. Using a mixed-methods approach, we combine a quantitative measurement of attacks across the platform with interviews of streamers and third-party bot developers. We present evidence that confirms that some hate raids were highly-targeted, hate-driven attacks, but we also observe another mode of hate raid similar to networked harassment and specific forms of subcultural trolling. We show that the streamers who self-identify as LGBTQ+ and/or Black were disproportionately targeted and that hate raid messages were most commonly rooted in anti-Black racism and antisemitism. We also document how these attacks elicited rapid community responses in both bolstering reactive moderation and developing proactive mitigations for future attacks. We conclude by discussing how platforms can better prepare for attacks and protect at-risk communities while considering the division of labor between community moderators, tool-builders, and platforms.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3579609

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Livestreaming platforms like Twitch feature a third-party market for content moderation tools to help streamers manage chatting audiences, even as such tools risk redundancy from Twitch's in-house offerings.

    “Similarly, livestreaming platforms like Twitch feature a third-party market for content moderation tools to help streamers manage their chatting audiences (Han et al., 2023), even as such tools risk redundancy from Twitch's in-house offerings (Partin, 2020).”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Julian Dibbell. 1993. A Rape in Cyberspace: How an Evil Clown, a Haitian Trickster Spirit, Two Wizards, and a Cast of Dozens Turned a Database Into a Society. The Village Voice December 23 (1993), 36-42. https://www.villagevoice.com/ 2005/10/18/a-rape-in-cyberspace/
  2. Chris Kanich, Christian Kreibich, Kirill Levchenko, Brandon Enright, Geoffrey M Voelker, Vern Paxson, and Stefan Savage. 2008. Spamalytics: An empirical analysis of spam marketing conversion. In 15th ACM conference on Computer and communications security.
  3. Richard MacKinnon. 1997. Virtual Rape. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2, 4 (1997), 1-2. https: //doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00200.x · DOI
  4. Enrico Mariconti, Guillermo Suarez-Tangil, Jeremy Blackburn, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Nicolas Kourtellis, Ilias Leon- tiadis, Jordi Luque Serrano, and Gianluca Stringhini. [n.d.]. "You Know What to Do" Proactive Detection of YouTube Videos Targeted by Coordinated Hate Attacks. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction CSCW ([n. d.]).
  5. David Moore, Colleen Shannon, Douglas J Brown, Geoffrey M Voelker, and Stefan Savage. 2006. Inferring internet denial-of-service activity. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS) (2006).
  6. Leysia Palen, Sarah Vieweg, Jeannette Sutton, Sophia B Liu, and Amanda Hughes. 2007. Crisis informatics: Studying crisis in a networked world. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on E-Social Science. 7-9.
  7. Sarah T. Roberts. 2016. Commercial Content Moderation: Digital Laborers' Dirty Work. In The Intersectional Internet: Race, Sex, Class and Culture Online, Safiya Umoja Noble and Brendesha M. Tynes (Eds.). Peter Lang Digital Formations series, New York, NY, USA, 147-160.
  8. Joseph Seering, Brianna Dym, Geoff Kaufman, and Michael Bernstein. 2022. Pride and Professionalization in Volunteer Moderation: Lessons for Effective in Platform-User Collaboration. Journal of Online Trust and Safety (2022).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Han, C., Seering, J., Kumar, D., Hancock, J. T., & Durumeric, Z.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
Published
2023-04-14
Volume
7
Issue
CSCW1
Pages
1-28
ISSN
2573-0142 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4366004207
Cited by
46
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 2
FWCI
4.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Computing Research Association (2127309,2030859)
  • National Science Foundation (DGE-1656518)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
Twitch, live streaming, online harassment, anti-Black racism, antisemitism, platform governance, community moderation, targeted attacks, division of labor

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