CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 57Misinformation and Its ImpactsHate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionSocial Media and Politics

Antisemitism on Twitter: Collective Efficacy and the Role of Community Organisations in Challenging Online Hate Speech

Open access
Ozalp, Sefa, Williams, Matthew L., Burnap, Pete, Liu, Han, Mostafa, Mohamed·2020·Social Media + Society
DOI 10.1177/2056305120916850
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In this article, we conduct a comprehensive study of online antagonistic content related to Jewish identity posted on Twitter between October 2015 and October 2016 by UK-based users. We trained a scalable supervised machine learning classifier to identify antisemitic content to reveal patterns of online antisemitism perpetration at the source. We built statistical models to analyze the inhibiting and enabling factors of the size (number of retweets) and survival (duration of retweets) of information flows in addition to the production of online antagonistic content. Despite observing high temporal variability, we found that only a small proportion (0.7%) of the content was antagonistic. We also found that antagonistic content was less likely to disseminate in size or survive for a longer period. Information flows from antisemitic agents on Twitter gained less traction, while information flows emanating from capable and willing counter-speech actors—that is, Jewish organizations—had a significantly higher size and survival rates. This study is the first to demonstrate that Sampson’s classic sociological concept of collective efficacy can be observed on social media (SM). Our findings suggest that when organizations aiming to counter harmful narratives become active on SM platforms, their messages propagate further and achieve greater longevity than antagonistic messages. On SM, counter-speech posted by credible, capable and willing actors can be an effective measure to prevent harmful narratives. Based on our findings, we underline the value of the work by community organizations in reducing the propagation of cyberhate and increasing trust in SM 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 · 10.1177/2056305120916850

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.

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?

  • Los mensajes de contranarrativa emitidos por organizaciones o actores creíbles tienen mayor longevidad en las plataformas, alcanzan un público más amplio y generan un impacto más duradero.

    “Según Ozalp et al. (2020), los mensajes emitidos por estas entidades no solo tienen una mayor longevidad en las plataformas, sino que también alcanzan un público más amplio y generan un impacto más duradero.”

    From Redes de odio y contranarrativas en Twitter sobre el ataque a iglesias católicas en Algeciras: Dinámicas de conectividad, influencia y polarización (2026) · cites this paper as Ozalp et al. (2020)

    The Conclusion reports that retweet flows from Jewish organizations were larger and survived longer, supporting wider spread and greater longevity on Twitter. It does not establish a lasting impact beyond the measured survival of those flows. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • La efectividad de las contranarrativas se ve significativamente potenciada cuando son promovidas por organizaciones o actores creíbles.

    “La efectividad de las contranarrativas se ve significativamente potenciada cuando son promovidas por organizaciones o actores creíbles.”

    From Redes de odio y contranarrativas en Twitter sobre el ataque a iglesias católicas en Algeciras: Dinámicas de conectividad, influencia y polarización (2026) · cites this paper as Ozalp et al. (2020)

    The Conclusion reports that counter-speech from Jewish organizations had significantly greater retweet size and survival, and suggests that posts by credible organizations can help counter online antisemitism. It does not establish that credibility itself significantly increases effectiveness: the measured outcomes were information spread and longevity on Twitter, not a comparison of credible and noncredible promoters. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Ozalp et al. (2020) señalaba que los mensajes emitidos por este tipo de perfiles no solo tienen una mayor longevidad en las redes, sino que tienen potencial para llegar a un público más amplio y generar un impacto más duradero.

    “En esta línea, Ozalp et al. (2020) señalaba que los mensajes emitidos por este tipo de perfiles no solo tienen una mayor longevidad en las redes, sino que tienen potencial para llegar a un público más amplio y generar un impacto más duradero.”

    From Redes de odio y contranarrativas en Twitter sobre el ataque a iglesias católicas en Algeciras: Dinámicas de conectividad, influencia y polarización (2026) · cites this paper as Ozalp et al. (2020)

    The Discussion and Conclusion report that messages from Jewish organizations challenging antisemitism lasted longer and spread further on Twitter than antagonistic messages. This supports greater longevity and potential reach for those profiles, but the paper does not establish a more lasting impact beyond the messages’ survival and spread. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Boyd, D., Golder, S., & Lotan, G. (2010, January). Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on twitter. In Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1-10). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ HICSS.2010.412 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Burnap, P., Rana, O., Williams, M., Housley, W., Edwards, A., Morgan, J., Sloan, L., & Conejero, J. (2015). COSMOS: Towards an integrated and scalable service for analysing social media on demand. International Journal of Parallel, Emergent and Distributed Systems, 30(2), 80-100. https://doi.org/10.108 0/17445760.2014.902057 · DOI
  3. Burnap, P., & Williams, M. L. (2015). Cyber hate speech on twitter: An application of machine classification and statistical model- ing for policy and decision making. Policy and Internet, 7(2), 223-242. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.85 · DOI
  4. Burnap, P., & Williams, M. L. (2016). Us and them: Identifying cyber hate on Twitter across multiple protected characteristics. EPJ Data Science, 5, Article 11. http://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/ s13688-016-0072-6 · DOI
  5. Burnap, P., Williams, M. L., Sloan, L., Rana, O., Housley, W., Edwards, A., Knight, V., Procter, R., & Voss, A. (2014). Tweeting the terror: Modelling the social media reaction to the Woolwich terrorist attack. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 4(1), 2544-2558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-014- 0206-4 · DOI
  6. Costello, M., Hawdon, J., & Ratliff, T. N. (2017). Confronting online extremism: The effect of self-help, collective effi- cacy, and guardianship on being a target for hate speech. Social Science Computer Review, 35(5), 587-605. https://doi. org/10.1177/0894439316666272 · DOI
  7. Douglas, K. M., Mcgarty, C., Bliuc, A.-M., & Lala, G. (2005). Understanding cyberhate: Social competition and social cre- ativity in online white supremacist groups. Social Science Computer Review, 23(1), 68-76.
  8. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (Ed.). (2013). Discrimination and hate crime against Jews in EU member states: Experiences and perceptions of antisemitism.
  9. Finkelstein, J., Zannettou, S., Bradlyn, B., & Blackburn, J. (2018). A quantitative approach to understanding online antisemitism. arxiv: 1809.01644 [cs]. http://arxiv.org/abs/1809.01644 · arXiv
  10. Flatley, J. (2014). British Crime Survey. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 194-203). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1- 4614-5690-2_449 · DOI
  11. Gerstenfeld, P. B. (2017). Hate crimes: Causes, controls, and con- troversies. SAGE.
  12. Ginsberg, J., Mohebbi, M. H., Patel, R. S., Brammer, L., Smolinski, M. S., & Brilliant, L. (2009). Detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query data. Nature, 457(7232), 1012-1014. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07634 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Hanes, E., & Machin, S. (2014). Hate crime in the wake of terror attacks: Evidence from 7/7 and 9/11. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 30(3), 247-267. https://doi.org/10.1177 /1043986214536665 · DOI
  14. King, R. D., & Sutton, G. M. (2013). High times for hate crimes: Explaining the temporal clustering of hate-motivated offend- ing: High times for hate crimes. Criminology, 51(4), 871-894. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12022 · DOI
  15. Leets, L. (2001). Explaining perceptions of racist speech. Communication Research, 28(5), 676-706. https://doi.org /10.1177/009365001028005005 · DOI
  16. Legewie, J. (2013). Terrorist events and attitudes toward immi- grants: A natural experiment. American Journal of Sociology, 118(5), 1199-1245. https://doi.org/10.1086/669605 · DOI
  17. Maguire, M. (2007). Crime data and statistics. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R Reiner. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminol- ogy (4th ed., pp. 240-301). Oxford University Press.
  18. Mazerolle, L., Wickes, R., & McBroom, J. (2010). Community variations in violence: The role of social ties and collec- tive efficacy in comparative context. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47(1), 3-30. https://doi.org/10.1177 /0022427809348898 · DOI
  19. McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (1998). Coming out in the age of the Internet: Identity "demarginalization" through virtual group participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 681-694. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.681 · DOI
  20. Noguchi, T., Stewart, N., Olivola, C. Y., Moat, H. S., & Preis, T. (2014). Characterizing the time-perspective of nations with search engine query data. PLOS ONE, 9(4), Article e95209. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095209 · DOI
  21. Perry, B. (2001). In the name of hate: Understanding hate crimes. Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9780203905135
  22. Sampson, R. J. (2001). Crime and public safety: Insights from community-level perspectives on social capital. In S. Saegert, J. Phillip Thompson, & M. R. Warren (Eds.), Social capital and poor communities (pp. 89-114).
  23. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of col- lective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918-924. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.277.5328.918 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.
  25. Tilley, N., & Tseloni, A. (2016). Choosing and using statisti- cal sources in criminology: What can the crime survey for England and Wales tell us? Legal Information Management, 16(2), 78-90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1472669616000219 · DOI
  26. Wall, D. S., & Williams, M. (2007). Policing diversity in the digital age: Maintaining order in virtual communities. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 7(4), 391-415. https://doi.org/10.1177 /1748895807082064 · DOI
  27. Williams, M. L., & Burnap, P. (2016). Cyberhate on social media in the aftermath of Woolwich: A case study in computational criminology and big data. British Journal of Criminology, 56(2), 211-238. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azv059 · DOI
  28. Williams, M. L., Burnap, P., & Sloan, L. (2017). Crime sensing with big data: The affordances and limitations of using open source communications to estimate crime patterns. British Journal of Criminology, 57(2), 320-340. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/ azw031 · DOI
  29. Williams, M. L., & Tregidga, J. (2014). Hate crime victimization in Wales: Psychological and physical impacts across seven hate crime victim types. British Journal of Criminology, 54(5), 946-967. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azu043 · DOI
  30. Yang, J., & Counts, S. (2010, May). Predicting the speed, scale, and range of information diffusion in Twitter. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (p.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ozalp, S., Williams, M. L., Burnap, P., Liu, H., & Mostafa, M.
Affiliations
Cardiff University (GB)
Corresponding author
Ozalp, Sefa
ORCID
Venue
Social Media + Society
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2020-04
Volume
6
Issue
2
ISSN
2056-3051 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/2056305120916850
OpenAlex
W3011359269
Cited by
57
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2
FWCI
11.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Social Media + Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • european regional development fund
  • Community Security Trust
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
antisemitism, online hate speech, Twitter, collective efficacy, counterspeech, Jewish community organizations, retweets, cyberhate, trust in social media

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