CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 103Hate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionPopulism, Right-Wing MovementsSocial Media and Politics

Assessing the Extent and Types of Hate Speech in Fringe Communities: A Case Study of Alt-Right Communities on 8chan, 4chan, and Reddit

Open access
Rieger, Diana, Kümpel, Anna Sophie, Wich, Maximilian, Kiening, Toni, Groh, Georg·2021·Social Media + Society
DOI 10.1177/20563051211052906
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Recent right-wing extremist terrorists were active in online fringe communities connected to the alt-right movement. Although these are commonly considered as distinctly hateful, racist, and misogynistic, the prevalence of hate speech in these communities has not been comprehensively investigated yet, particularly regarding more implicit and covert forms of hate. This study exploratively investigates the extent, nature, and clusters of different forms of hate speech in political fringe communities on Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan. To do so, a manual quantitative content analysis of user comments ( N = 6,000) was combined with an automated topic modeling approach. The findings of the study not only show that hate is prevalent in all three communities (24% of comments contained explicit or implicit hate speech), but also provide insights into common types of hate speech expression, targets, and differences between the studied communities.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/20563051211052906

Cites

38 of 38 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?

  • The findings are consistent with prior research showing that alternative social media and particularly fringe communities like 4Chan provide a welcoming environment for the spread of toxic content, likely due to their self-positioning as safe havens for such statements and their corresponding loose moderation rules.

    “Thus, our findings are consistent with prior research showing that alternative social media and particularly fringe communities like 4Chan provide a welcoming environment for the spread of toxic content (Finkelstein et al., 2020; Rieger et al., 2021; Zannettou et al., 2018), likely due to their self-positioning as safe havens for such statements and their corresponding loose moderation rules (Fris”

    From The Seed of Doubt: Examining the Role of Alternative Social and News Media for the Birth of a Conspiracy Theory (2024) · cites this paper as Rieger et al., 2021

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Rieger, D., Kümpel, A. S., Wich, M., Kiening, T., & Groh, G.
Affiliations
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
  • Technische Universität Dresden (DE)
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
ORCID
Venue
Social Media + Society
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2021-10
Volume
7
Issue
4
ISSN
2056-3051 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/20563051211052906
OpenAlex
W3209715443
Cited by
102
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 14
FWCI
5.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Social Media + Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
Keywords
hate speech, alt-right, 4chan, Reddit, right-wing extremism, implicit hate speech, online comments, topic modeling

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