Cited by 83Media Discourse and Social AnalysisMisinformation and Its ImpactsPopulism, Right-Wing Movements

Hate in a Tweet: Exploring Internet-Based Islamophobic Discourses

Open access
Evolvi, Giulia·2018·Religions

Abstract

Islamophobia is the unfounded hostility against Muslims. While anti-Muslim feelings have been explored from many perspectives and in different settings, Internet-based Islamophobia remains under-researched. What are the characteristics of online Islamophobia? What are the differences (if any) between online and offline anti-Muslim narratives? This article seeks to answer these questions through a qualitative analysis of tweets written in the aftermath of the 2016 British referendum on European Union membership (also known as “Brexit”), which was followed by a surge of Islamophobic episodes. The analysis of the tweets suggests that online Islamophobia largely enhances offline anti-Islam discourses, involving narratives that frame Muslims as violent, backward, and unable to adapt to Western values. Islamophobic tweets also have some peculiar characteristics: they foster global networks, contain messages written by so-called “trolls” and “bots,” and contribute to the spreading of “fake news.” The article suggests that, in order to counteract online Islamophobia, it is important to take into account the networked connections among social media, news media platforms, and offline spaces.

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 · 10.3390/rel9100307

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • Partisan social media users tend to interact across the ideological divide, but this interaction tends to be contentious and conflictual rather than rational deliberation.

    “Research on social media data tells a similar story: while partisan social media users do tend to interact across the ideological divide (62), this interaction is not characterized by rational arguments and deliberation but tends to be contentious and conflictual, suggesting that users may not be engaging in good faith attempts at seeing things through other perspectives (98–100).”

    From How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting (2022) · cites this paper as [98]

    Section 3 (Brexit and Twitter Islamophobia; page unavailable) says Islamophobic Twitter groups rarely converse with Muslims and instead establish an antagonistic relationship with them. Section 5.2 describes derogatory tweets intended to upset other users. This supports the contentious-interaction portion of the citing sentence, but the paper’s post-Brexit Islamophobia findings do not establish that characterization for partisan social media users generally. The separate claim that users interact across the ideological divide is cited to another source (62). (LLM, conf=0.85)

    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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. Allen, Chris. 2014. Britain First: The 'Frontline Resistance' to the Islamification of Britain. The Political Quarterly 85: 354-61.
  2. CrossRef · DOI
  3. Allen, Chris. 2015. 'People Hate You Because of the Way You Dress': Understanding the Invisible Experiences of Veiled British Muslim Women Victims of Islamophobia. International Review of Victimology 21: 287-301.
  4. CrossRef · DOI
  5. Beydoun, Khaled A. 2018. American Islamophobia: Understanding the Roots and Rise of Fear, 1st ed.Oakland: University of California Press.
  6. Dostal, Jörg Michael. 2015. The Pegida Movement and German Political Culture: Is Right-Wing Populism Here to Stay? The Political Quarterly 86: 523-31.
  7. CrossRef · DOI
  8. Douglas, Christopher. 2018. Religion and Fake News: Faith-Based Alternative Information Ecosystems in the US and Europe. The Review of Faith & International Affairs 16: 61-73. [CrossRef · DOI
  9. CrossRef · DOI
  10. Esposito, John L., and Ibrahim Kalin, eds. 2011. Islamophobia: The Challenge of Pluralism in the 21st Century, 1st ed. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
  11. CrossRef · DOI · Paper page
  12. Evolvi, Giulia. 2018. Blogging My Religion: Secular, Muslim, and Catholic Media Spaces in Europe, 1st ed.Abingdon: Routledge.
  13. Farida, Vis, Liesbet van Zoonen, and Sabina Mihelj. 2011. Women Responding to the Anti-Islam Film 'Fitna': Voices and Acts of Citizenship on YouTube. Feminist Review 97: 110-29.
  14. CrossRef · DOI
  15. CrossRef · DOI
  16. Golf-Papez, Maja, and Ekant Veer. 2017. Don't Feed the Trolling: Rethinking How Online Trolling Is Being Defined and Combated. Journal of Marketing Management 33: 1336-54. [CrossRef · DOI
  17. Hopkins, Nick, and Vered Kahani-Hopkins. 2006. Minority Group Members' Theories of Intergroup Contact: A Case Study of British Muslims' Conceptualizations of Islamophobia and Social Change. British Journal of Social Psychology 45: 245-64. [CrossRef] PubMed · DOI
  18. Howard, Philip N., and Bence Kollanyi. 2016. Bots, #StrongerIn, and #Brexit: Computational Propaganda during the UK-EU Referendum. arXiv, arXiv:1606.06356. · arXiv
  19. CrossRef · DOI
  20. Hussain, Yasmin, and Paul Bagguley. 2012. Securitized Citizens: Islamophobia, Racism and the 7/7 London Bombings. The Sociological Review 60: 715-34.
  21. CrossRef · DOI
  22. CrossRef · DOI
  23. CrossRef · DOI
  24. Magdy, Walid, Kareem Darwish, and Norah Abokhodair. 2015. Quantifying Public Response towards Islam on Twitter after Paris Attacks. arXiv, arXiv:1512.04570. · arXiv
  25. Maltby, John, Liz Day, Ruth M. Hatcher, Sarah Tazzyman, Heather D. Flowe, Emma J. Palmer, Caren A. Frosch, Michelle O'Reilly, Ceri Jones, Chloe Buckley, and et al. 2016. Implicit Theories of Online Trolling: Evidence That Attention-Seeking Conceptions Are Associated with Increased Psychological Resilience. British Journal of Psychology 107: 448-66. [CrossRef] PubMed · DOI
  26. Meer, Nasar, and Tehseen Noorani. 2008. A Sociological Comparison of Anti-Semitism and Anti-Muslim Sentiment in Britain1. The Sociological Review 56: 195-219.
  27. CrossRef · DOI
  28. Mondon, Aurelien, and Aaron Winter. 2017. Articulations of Islamophobia: From the Extreme to the Mainstream? Ethnic and Racial Studies 40: 2151-79. [CrossRef · DOI
  29. Pennington, Rosemary. 2018. Making Space in Social Media: #MuslimWomensDay in Twitter. Journal of Communication Inquiry 42: 199-217.
  30. CrossRef · DOI
  31. Philander, Kahlil, and YunYing Zhong. 2016. Twitter Sentiment Analysis: Capturing Sentiment from Integrated Resort Tweets. International Journal of Hospitality Management 55: 16-24.
  32. CrossRef · DOI
  33. CrossRef · DOI
  34. CrossRef · DOI
  35. Wilkinson, David, and Mike Thelwall. 2012. Trending Twitter Topics in English: An International Comparison. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63: 1631-46.
  36. CrossRef · DOI
  37. Wood, C., and Mick Finlay. 2008. British National Party Representations of Muslims in the Month after the London Bombings: Homogeneity, Threat, and the Conspiracy Tradition. British Journal of Social Psychology 47: 707-26. [CrossRef] PubMed · DOI
  38. Würschinger, Quirin, Mohammad Fazleh Elahi, Desislava Zhekova, and Hans-Jörg Schmid. 2016. Using the Web and Social Media as Corpora for Monitoring the Spread of Neologisms. The Case of 'Rapefugee', 'Rapeugee', and 'Rapugee'. Paper presented at 10th Web as Corpus Workshop, Berlin, Germany, August 12; pp. 35-43.
  39. Zempi, Irene, and Imran Awan. 2016. Islamophobia: Lived Experiences of Online and Offline Victimisation. Bristol: Policy Press.
  40. Van Zoonen, Liesbet, Farida Vis, and Sabina Mihelj. 2011. YouTube Interactions between Agonism, Antagonism and Dialogue: Video Responses to the Anti-Islam Film Fitna. New Media & Society 13: 1283-300. [CrossRef · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Evolvi, G.
Affiliations
Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
Corresponding author
Evolvi, Giulia
Venue
Religions
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2018-10-10
Volume
9
Issue
10
Pages
307
ISSN
2077-1444 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2897915990
Cited by
83
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 1
FWCI
10.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Religions (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Discourse and Social Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
Keywords
anti-Muslim rhetoric, Twitter, Brexit, Brexit referendum, hate speech, trolling, bots, fake news, stereotypes of Muslims, 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