The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Dangerous Speech
Abstract
The concept of “dangerous speech,” which I proposed in the early 2010s, illuminates a key fact that is often missed: hate speech (and related categories like toxic and extreme speech) affects people gradually, cumulatively, and by dint of repetition. Dangerous speech is defined based on the specific harm it engenders (inspiring intergroup violence) rather than its content alone or the intent of those who spread it, allowing for a more consistent definition and broader consensus that it should be addressed. In this article, I explain why this concept is useful; describe the five aspects of speech that must be evaluated in order to determine dangerousness; share examples of projects that have been conducted to monitor, evaluate, and counteract dangerous speech; and suggest future avenues for research.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“In fact, the algorithms and the inherent characteristics of digital platforms can amplify these harmful narratives (Benesch, 2023;UN Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute, 2020).”
From Exploring the Challenges of Generative AI on Public Sector Communication in Europe (2025) · cites this paper as Benesch, 2023
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Exploring the Challenges of Generative AI on Public Sector Communication in Europe
Lovari, A., & De Rosa, F. (2025) · Media and Communication · doi:10.17645/mac.9644 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Benesch, S.
- Venue
- Freie Universität Berlin
- Publisher
- Freie Universität Berlin
- Published
- 2023
- References
- 0
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
