Cited by 73Hate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionPopulism, Right-Wing MovementsMisinformation and Its Impacts

Topic Modeling and Characterization of Hate Speech against Immigrants on Twitter around the Emergence of a Far-Right Party in Spain

Open access
Calderón, Carlos Arcila, de la Vega, Gonzalo, Herrero, David Blanco·2020·Social Sciences

Abstract

In this paper, we sought to model and characterize hate speech against immigrants on Twitter in Spain around the appearance of the far-right party Vox. More than 240,000 tweets that included the term ‘Vox’ between November 2018 and April 2019 were automatically collected and analyzed. Only 1% of the sample included hate speech expressions. Within this subsample of 1977 messages, we found offenses (56%), incitements to hate (42%), and violent speech (2%). The most frequent terms used were classified into five categories: Spain, Immigration, Government, Islam, and Insults. The most common features were foul language, false or doubtful information, irony, distasteful expressions, humiliation or contempt, physical or psychological threats, and incitement to violence. Using unsupervised topic modeling, we found that the four underlying topics (control of illegal immigration, economic assistance for immigrants, consequences of illegal immigration, and Spain as an arrival point for African immigrants and Islamist terrorism) were similar to those in the discourse of Vox. We conclude that the hate speech against immigrants produced around Vox, and not necessarily by Vox, followed the general patterns of this type of speech detected in previous works, including Islamophobia, offensive language more often than violent language, and the refusal to offer public assistance to these collectives.

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/socsci9110188

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?

  • Los mensajes de odio hacia personas musulmanas en redes sociales a menudo están cargados de prejuicios raciales y culturales que consolidan una narrativa negativa hacia las personas migrantes, amplificando su vulnerabilidad al discurso de odio.

    “Los mensajes de odio hacia personas musulmanas en redes sociales a menudo están cargados de prejuicios raciales y culturales que consolidan también una narrativa negativa hacia las personas migrantes, amplificando su vulnerabilidad al discurso de odio (Arcila-Calderón et al., 2020).”

    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 Arcila-Calderón et al., 2020

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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: 45

  1. CrossRef · DOI
  2. Arango, Joaquín Ramón Mahía, David Moya, and Elena Sánchez-Montijano. 2019. Inmigración, Elecciones Y Comportamiento Político. Anuario CIDOB De La Inmigración. Edited by En Joaquín Arango, Ramón Mahía, David Moya and Elena Sánchez-Montijano. Barcelona: CIDOB, pp. 16-30.
  3. CrossRef · DOI
  4. CrossRef · DOI
  5. CrossRef · DOI
  6. Awan, Imran, and Irene Zempi. 2015. The affinity between online and offline anti-Muslim hate crime: Dynamics and impacts. Aggression and Violent Behaviour 27: 1-8. [CrossRef · DOI · Paper page
  7. Ben-David, Anat, and Ariadna Matamoros-Fernandez. 2016. Hate speech and covert discrimination on social media: Monitoring the Facebook pages of extreme-right political parties in Spain. International Journal of Communication 10: 1167-93.
  8. Bird, Steven, Ewan Klein, and Edward Loper. 2009. Natural Language Processing with Python: Analyzing Text with the Natural Language Toolkit. Sebastopol: O'Reilly Media.
  9. Blei, David M., Andrew Y. Ng, and Michael I. Jordan. 2003. Latent Dirichlet Allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research 3: 993-1022.
  10. CrossRef · DOI
  11. Canini, Kevin, Lei Shi, and Thomas Griffiths. 2009. Online Inference of Topics with Latent Dirichlet Allocation. In Proceedings of the Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. Clearwater Beach: JMLR, pp. 65-72.
  12. Castromil, Antón R., Raquel Rodríguez-Díaz, and Paula Garrigós. 2020. La agenda política en las elecciones de abril de 2019 en España: programas electorales, visibilidad en Twitter y debates electorales. El Profesional de la Información 29: e290217. [CrossRef · DOI
  13. Collobert, Ronan, Jason Weston, Léon Bottou, Michael Karlen, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Pavel Kuksa. 2011. Natural language processing (almost) from scratch. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12: 2493-537.
  14. CrossRef · DOI
  15. Davidson, Thomas, Dana Warmsley, Michael Macy, and Ingmar Weber. 2017. Automated hate speech detection and the problem of offensive language. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. Palo Alto: AAAI, pp. 512-15.
  16. D'heer, Evelien, and Verdegem Pieter. 2014. Conversations about the elections on Twitter: Towards a structural understanding of Twitter's relation with the political and the media field. European Journal of Communication 29: 720-34. [CrossRef · DOI
  17. CrossRef · DOI
  18. Gallego, Mar, Estrella Gualda, and Carolina Rebollo. 2017. Women and Refugees in Twitter: Rhetorics on Abuse, Vulnerability and Violence from a Gender Perspective. Journal of Mediterranean Knowledge 2: 37-58.
  19. CrossRef · DOI
  20. Gualda, Estrella, and Carolina Rebollo. 2016. The Refugee Crisis on Twitter: A Diversity of Discourses At A European Crossroads. Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics 4: 199-212.
  21. CrossRef · DOI
  22. Keller, Tobias R., Valerie Hase, Jagadish Thaker, Daniela Mahl, and Mike S. Schäfer. 2020. News Media Coverage of Climate Change in India 1997-2016: Using Automated Content Analysis to Assess Themes and Topics. Environmental Communication 14: 219-235. [CrossRef · DOI
  23. CrossRef · DOI
  24. CrossRef · DOI
  25. McCombs, Maxwell E., and Donald L. Shawn. 1972. The agenda-setting function of the mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly 36: 176-87.
  26. CrossRef · DOI · Paper page
  27. Mondal, Mainack, Leandro Araújo Silva, and Fabrício Benevenuto. 2017. A Measurement Study of Hate Speech in Social Media. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media. New York: ACM, pp. 85-94.
  28. CrossRef · DOI
  29. Moyá, Miguel, and Susana Herrera. 2015. Cómo puede contribuir twitter a una comunicación política más avanzada. Arbor 191: a257. [CrossRef · DOI
  30. Müller, Karsten, and Carlo Schwarz. 2018. Fanning the Flames of Hate: Social Media and Hate Crime. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3082972 (accessed on 10 October 2020).
  31. CrossRef · DOI · Paper page
  32. CrossRef · DOI
  33. Olteanu, Alexandra, Carlos Castillo, Jeremy Boy, and Kush R. Varshney. 2018. The effect of extremist violence on hateful speech online. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. Palo Alto: AAAI, pp. 221-30.
  34. Peherson, Samuel, Rupert Brown, and Hanna Zagefka. 2011. When does national identification lead to the rejection of immigrants? Crosssectional and longitudinal evidence for the role of essentialist in-group definitions. British Journal of Social Psychology 48: 61-76.
  35. CrossRef · DOI
  36. Ramage, Daniel, David Hall, Ramesh Nallapati, and Christopher D. Manning. 2009. Labeled LDA: A supervised topic model for credit attribution in multi-labeled corpora. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Volume 1. Stroudsburg: ACL, pp. 248-56.
  37. Schmidt, Anna, and Michael Wiegand. 2017. A survey on hate speech detection using natural language processing. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Social Media. New York: ACM, pp. 1-10.
  38. Stevens, Keith, Philip Kegelmeyer, David Andrzejewski, and David Buttler. 2012. Exploring topic coherence over many models and many topics. In Proceedings of the 2012 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning. Stroudsburg: ACL, pp. 952-61.
  39. Turnbull-Dugarte, Stuart J. 2019. Explaining the end of Spanish exceptionalism and electoral support for Vox. Research & Politics 6. [CrossRef · DOI
  40. Turnbull-Dugarte, Stuart J., José Rama, and Andrés Santana. 2020. The Baskerville's dog suddenly started barking: Voting for VOX in the 2019 Spanish general elections. Political Research Exchange 2. [CrossRef · DOI
  41. CrossRef · DOI
  42. Warner, William, and Julia Hirschberg. 2012. Detecting hate speech on the world wide web. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Language in Social Media. Stroudsburg: ACL, pp. 19-26.
  43. Waseem, Zeerak, and Dirk Hovy. 2016. Hateful symbols or hateful people? predictive features for hate speech detection on twitter. In Proceedings of the NAACL Student Research Workshop. Stroudsburg: ACL, pp. 88-93.
  44. Webster, Jonathan J., and Chunyu Kit. 1992. Tokenization as the initial phase in NLP. In COLING 1992: The 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Nantes: ACL, pp. 1106-10.
  45. Zou, Chen. 2018. Analyzing research trends on drug safety using topic modeling. Expert Opinion on Drug Safety 17: 629-36. [CrossRef · DOI

Authors
Calderón, C. A., de la Vega, G., & Herrero, D. B.
Affiliations
  • Universidad de Salamanca (ES)
  • Department of Sociology and Communication, University of Salamanca, Campus Miguel de Unamuno, Paseo Francisco Tomás y Valiente, s/n, 37007 Salamanca, Spain
Corresponding author
Calderón, Carlos Arcila
Venue
Social Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-10-23
Volume
9
Issue
11
Pages
188
ISSN
2076-0760 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3094626248
Cited by
73
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 10 · 2017: 1
FWCI
3.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
European Commission (725217)
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 › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
hate speech, immigrants, vanadium oxide, far-right parties, Twitter, Islamophobia, immigration discourse, offensive language, jihadist terrorism, African immigrants, Spain

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