pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.03687 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-04 · 💻 cs.HC

Echoes of Norms: Investigating Counterspeech Bots' Influence on Bystanders in Online Communities

Mengyao Wang , Shuai Ma , Nuo Li , Peng Zhang , Chenxin Li , Ning Gu , Tun Lu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 17:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords counterspeech botsbystander influenceonline communitieshate speechcivilbotstrategy frameworknormative effects
0
0 comments X

The pith

Bystanders perceive counterspeech bots as credible and normative, though shallow reasoning limits persuasiveness and behavioral effects depend on the strategy used.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper explores how counterspeech bots affect bystanders in online communities exposed to hate speech. It introduces a strategy framework and deploys Civilbot in a within-subjects study to assess perceptions and behaviors. Bystanders found the bot credible and normative but noted its shallow reasoning reduced persuasiveness. Effects on behavior were subtle, with good performance guiding or replacing participation and poor performance potentially discouraging or motivating intervention. Cognitive strategies with positive tone emerged as relatively effective, informing designs to better mobilize bystanders.

Core claim

The paper establishes that bystanders generally view Civilbot as credible and normative, although its shallow reasoning limits persuasiveness. Behavioral effects prove subtle and strategy-dependent, as strong performance can guide participation or act as a stand-in while weak performance can discourage bystanders or motivate them to intervene. Cognitive strategies that appeal to reason, particularly when paired with a positive tone, are relatively effective, whereas mismatches between context and strategy weaken the overall impact.

What carries the argument

Civilbot, the counterspeech chatbot built on a mixed strategy framework to intervene in hate speech scenarios and measure bystander responses.

If this is right

  • Cognitive strategies paired with positive tone are relatively effective at influencing bystanders.
  • Mismatches of contexts and strategies weaken impact.
  • Effective bot performance can guide bystander participation or serve as a stand-in.
  • Ineffective performance can discourage bystanders or motivate them to step in.
  • Design should prioritize reasoning-driven and context-aware strategies for mobilizing bystanders.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Improving the depth of reasoning in counterspeech bots could increase their persuasiveness with bystanders.
  • The subtle behavioral effects suggest that such bots might contribute to broader norm-setting in online spaces over time.
  • Extending the study to diverse real-world communities could identify additional contextual factors influencing effectiveness.
  • Hybrid approaches combining bots with human counterspeech might enhance overall impact on discourse.

Load-bearing premise

The within-subjects study design and participant responses in the simulated community accurately reflect real-world bystander reactions without distortion from the specific setup or content.

What would settle it

Conducting a live deployment in an actual online community and finding no measurable change in bystander intervention rates compared to no-bot conditions would falsify the influence findings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.03687 by Chenxin Li, Mengyao Wang, Ning Gu, Nuo Li, Peng Zhang, Shuai Ma, Tun Lu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Sample interface of the simulated discussion platform, showing: (a) an excerpted question; (b) neutral answers; (c) a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The overall experiment procedure, including four phases: (A) Pre-survey, (B) Introduction, (C) Experiment sessions, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Overview of results for RQ1–R3. RQ1 shows overall effects on bystanders, Civilbot’s roles for them, and perceived [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Heatmap of the correlation between mean scores of different variables and the eight strategy groups. On the y-axis, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Heatmap of pairwise paired t-tests between counterspeech types across the three questionnaire measures. Significant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of participants’ interactions across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Counterspeech offers a non-repressive approach to moderate hate speech in online communities. Research has examined how counterspeech chatbots restrain hate speakers and support targets, but their impact on bystanders remains unclear. Therefore, we developed a counterspeech strategy framework and built \textit{Civilbot} for a mixed-method within-subjects study. Bystanders generally viewed Civilbot as credible and normative, though its shallow reasoning limited persuasiveness. Its behavioural effects were subtle: when performing well, it could guide participation or act as a stand-in; when performing poorly, it could discourage bystanders or motivate them to step in. Strategy proved critical: cognitive strategies that appeal to reason, especially when paired with a positive tone, were relatively effective, while mismatch of contexts and strategies could weaken impact. Based on these findings, we offer design insights for mobilizing bystanders and shaping online discourse, highlighting when to intervene and how to do so through reasoning-driven and context-aware strategies.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a counterspeech strategy framework and implements it in Civilbot, then reports a mixed-method within-subjects study of the bot's effects on bystanders in simulated online communities. Bystanders rated Civilbot as generally credible and normative, but its shallow reasoning reduced persuasiveness; behavioral effects were subtle and strategy-dependent, with cognitive strategies paired with positive tone relatively effective at guiding participation or serving as a stand-in, while mismatches or poor performance could discourage bystanders or prompt them to intervene instead.

Significance. If the behavioral findings hold under stronger controls, the work supplies concrete design guidance for counterspeech bots aimed at mobilizing bystanders rather than only addressing hate speakers or targets. It extends the counterspeech literature by focusing on normative influence and strategy-tone interactions, and the mixed-method data offer both directional quantitative patterns and qualitative mechanisms that could inform platform interventions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] The within-subjects design (described in the Methods) exposes each participant to multiple bot conditions in one session inside a pre-scripted simulated community; this creates a plausible risk of demand characteristics and contrast effects that could inflate credibility and normative ratings beyond what would occur in an unaware, between-subjects, or live-platform setting. The abstract's own qualifiers ('subtle' effects, 'shallow reasoning limited persuasiveness') are consistent with such an artifact, so the central claim that Civilbot exerts genuine normative influence on bystanders rests on a design choice that requires explicit mitigation or validation.
  2. [Results] The reported strategy-dependent behavioral shifts (cognitive + positive tone relatively effective) are presented as actionable design insights, yet the manuscript does not report exclusion criteria, full statistical details, or power analysis for the within-subjects comparisons; without these, it is difficult to assess whether the 'relatively effective' pattern is robust or merely directional.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and discussion would benefit from a brief statement of the exact sample size, demographic composition, and how the simulated community content was selected, to allow readers to judge ecological validity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive review. The comments highlight important considerations for the study design and reporting. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of our findings while acknowledging limitations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] The within-subjects design (described in the Methods) exposes each participant to multiple bot conditions in one session inside a pre-scripted simulated community; this creates a plausible risk of demand characteristics and contrast effects that could inflate credibility and normative ratings beyond what would occur in an unaware, between-subjects, or live-platform setting. The abstract's own qualifiers ('subtle' effects, 'shallow reasoning limited persuasiveness') are consistent with such an artifact, so the central claim that Civilbot exerts genuine normative influence on bystanders rests on a design choice that requires explicit mitigation or validation.

    Authors: We agree that within-subjects exposure in a simulated setting carries risks of demand characteristics and contrast effects, which could influence ratings. The design was chosen to enable direct comparison of strategies within participants while controlling for individual differences, and we randomized condition order with filler tasks between exposures to reduce carryover. However, we acknowledge this as a genuine limitation for generalizability to unaware or live settings. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the Limitations section to discuss these risks explicitly, added details on procedural mitigations (e.g., deception elements and post-session debriefing), and qualified the normative influence claims more cautiously. We also suggest future between-subjects or field validations as valuable extensions. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results] The reported strategy-dependent behavioral shifts (cognitive + positive tone relatively effective) are presented as actionable design insights, yet the manuscript does not report exclusion criteria, full statistical details, or power analysis for the within-subjects comparisons; without these, it is difficult to assess whether the 'relatively effective' pattern is robust or merely directional.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation on reporting completeness. The original submission included summary statistics and qualitative themes but omitted full details for brevity. In the revision, we have added a Statistical Analysis subsection to Methods describing exclusion criteria (attention checks and incomplete responses), full within-subjects ANOVA results with effect sizes and post-hoc tests, and a sensitivity power analysis for the observed sample. These additions confirm the strategy-tone interaction patterns as directional yet consistent, supporting the design insights while clarifying their scope. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical study with independent data collection

full rationale

The paper reports a mixed-method within-subjects user study on bystander reactions to a counterspeech bot. It draws the strategy framework from prior external literature rather than self-citation chains, collects fresh participant ratings and qualitative responses, and presents findings as observational rather than derived from fitted parameters or self-defined quantities. No equations, predictions that reduce to inputs by construction, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation. The work is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard HCI assumptions about participant behavior in simulated scenarios and the validity of self-reported perceptions; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced beyond the bot implementation itself.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Participant responses in a controlled within-subjects simulation reflect genuine bystander reactions in live online communities.
    Invoked implicitly when generalizing study results to real-world design insights.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5484 in / 1243 out tokens · 36805 ms · 2026-05-15T17:07:41.161844+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 97 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Abdullah Albanyan, Ahmed Hassan, and Eduardo Blanco. 2023. Finding Authen- tic Counterhate Arguments: A Case Study with Public Figures. InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino, and Kalika Bali (Eds.). Association for Computational Lin- guistics, Singapore, 13862–13876. doi:10.18653...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.855 2023

  2. [2]

    Ana Aleksandric, Hanani Pankaj, Gabriela Mustata Wilson, and Shirin Nilizadeh

    work page

  3. [3]

    arXiv:2310.11436 doi:10.48550/arXiv.2310.11436

    Sadness, Anger, or Anxiety: Twitter Users’ Emotional Responses to Toxicity in Public Conversations. arXiv:2310.11436 doi:10.48550/arXiv.2310.11436

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.11436

  4. [4]

    Ana Aleksandric, Sayak Saha Roy, Hanani Pankaj, Gabriela Mustata Wilson, and Shirin Nilizadeh. 2024. Users’ Behavioral and Emotional Response to Toxicity in Twitter Conversations. InProceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 18. 29–42

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Zahra Ashktorab, Casey Dugan, James Johnson, Qian Pan, Wei Zhang, Sadhana Kumaravel, and Murray Campbell. 2021. Effects of Communication Directionality and AI Agent Differences in Human-AI Interaction. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–15. doi...

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445256 2021

  6. [6]

    Michelle Baddeley. 2010. Herding, Social Influence and Economic Decision- Making: Socio-Psychological and Neuroscientific Analyses.Philosophical Trans- actions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences365, 1538 (Jan. 2010), 281–290. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0169

    work page doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0169 2010

  7. [7]

    Dominik Bär, Abdurahman Maarouf, and Stefan Feuerriegel. 2024. Generative AI May Backfire for Counterspeech. arXiv:2411.14986 doi:10.48550/arXiv.2411.14986

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.14986 2024

  8. [8]

    Susan Benesch. 2014. Countering Dangerous Speech: New Ideas for Genocide Prevention. social science research network:3686876 doi:10.2139/ssrn.3686876

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.3686876 2014

  9. [9]

    Michael Bennie, Demi Zhang, Bushi Xiao, Jing Cao, Chryseis Xinyi Liu, Jian Meng, and Alayo Tripp. 2025. PANDA – Paired Anti-hate Narratives Dataset from Asia: Using an LLM-as-a-Judge to Create the First Chinese Counterspeech Dataset. arXiv:2501.00697 doi:10.48550/arXiv.2501.00697

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.00697 2025

  10. [10]

    George Berry and Sean J. Taylor. 2017. Discussion Quality Diffuses in the Digital Public Square. InProceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Perth Australia, 1371–1380. doi:10.1145/3038912.3052666

    work page doi:10.1145/3038912.3052666 2017

  11. [11]

    Patrick Biernacki and Dan Waldorf. 1981. Snowball Sampling: Problems and Techniques of Chain Referral Sampling.Sociological Methods & Research10, 2 (Nov. 1981), 141–163. doi:10.1177/004912418101000205

    work page doi:10.1177/004912418101000205 1981

  12. [12]

    Michał Bilewicz, Patrycja Tempska, Gniewosz Leliwa, Maria Dowgiałło, Michalina Tańska, Rafał Urbaniak, and Michał Wroczyński. 2021. Artificial Intelligence against Hate: Intervention Reducing Verbal Aggression in the Social Network Environment.Aggressive Behavior47, 3 (May 2021), 260–266. doi:10.1002/ab. 21948

    work page doi:10.1002/ab 2021

  13. [13]

    Helena Bonaldi, Yi-Ling Chung, Gavin Abercrombie, and Marco Guerini. 2024. NLP for Counterspeech against Hate: A Survey and How-To Guide. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024, Kevin Duh, Helena Gomez, and Steven Bethard (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, Mexico City, Mexico, 3480–3499. doi:10.18653/v1/202...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-naacl.221 2024

  14. [14]

    David Bromell. 2022. Counter-Speech Is Everyone’s Responsibility. InRegulating Free Speech in a Digital Age: Hate, Harm and the Limits of Censorship, David Bromell (Ed.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 191–215

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Bianca Cepollaro, Maxime Lepoutre, and Robert Mark Simpson. 2023. Counter- speech.Philosophy Compass18, 1 (2023), e12890. doi:10.1111/phc3.12890

    work page doi:10.1111/phc3.12890 2023

  16. [16]

    Justin Cheng, Michael Bernstein, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, and Jure Leskovec. 2017. Anyone Can Become a Troll: Causes of Trolling Behavior in Online Discussions. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1217–1230. doi:10....

    work page doi:10.1145/2998181 2017

  17. [17]

    Yi-Ling Chung, Gavin Abercrombie, Florence Enock, Jonathan Bright, and Ver- ena Rieser. 2023. Understanding Counterspeech for Online Harm Mitigation. arXiv:2307.04761 doi:10.48550/arXiv.2307.04761

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.04761 2023

  18. [18]

    Yi-Ling Chung, Elizaveta Kuzmenko, Serra Sinem Tekiroglu, and Marco Guerini

    work page

  19. [19]

    CONAN - CO unter NA rratives through Nichesourcing: a Multilingual Dataset of Responses to Fight Online Hate Speech

    CONAN - COunter NArratives through Nichesourcing: A Multilingual Dataset of Responses to Fight Online Hate Speech. InProceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Anna Korho- nen, David Traum, and Lluís Màrquez (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, Florence, Italy, 2819–2829. doi:10.18653/v1/P19-1271

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1271

  20. [20]

    Lorenzo Cima, Alessio Miaschi, Amaury Trujillo, Marco Avvenuti, Felice Dell’Orletta, and Stefano Cresci. 2025. Contextualized Counterspeech: Strategies for Adaptation, Personalization, and Evaluation. InProceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025 (WWW ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 5022–5033. doi:10.1145/3696410.3714507

    work page doi:10.1145/3696410.3714507 2025

  21. [21]

    Jacob Cohen. 1992. Statistical Power Analysis.Current Directions in Psychological Science1, 3 (1992), 98–101. jstor:20182143

    work page 1992

  22. [22]

    2024.The Effectiveness of Counterspeech in Mitigating Online Hate: Insights From a Multi-Method Investigation

    Niklas Felix Cypris. 2024.The Effectiveness of Counterspeech in Mitigating Online Hate: Insights From a Multi-Method Investigation. Ph. D. Dissertation. Technische Universität München

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Valdemar Danry, Pat Pataranutaporn, Yaoli Mao, and Pattie Maes. 2023. Don’t Just Tell Me, Ask Me: AI Systems That Intelligently Frame Explanations as Questions Improve Human Logical Discernment Accuracy over Causal AI Explanations. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machiner...

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3580672 2023

  24. [24]

    Wherry, and Natalya N

    Dominic DiFranzo, Samuel Hardman Taylor, Franccesca Kazerooni, Olivia D. Wherry, and Natalya N. Bazarova. 2018. Upstanding by Design: Bystander Intervention in Cyberbullying. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. doi:10.1145/3173574.3173785

    work page doi:10.1145/3173574.3173785 2018

  25. [25]

    Garibaldi and J

    Xiaohan Ding, Kaike Ping, Uma Sushmitha Gunturi, Buse Carik, Sophia Stil, Lance T. Wilhelm, Taufiq Daryanto, James Hawdon, Sang Won Lee, and Eugenia H. Rho. 2025. CounterQuill: Investigating the Potential of Human-AI Collaboration in Online Counterspeech Writing. arXiv:2410.03032 doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410. 03032

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410 2025

  26. [26]

    Daisy Dixon. 2022. Artistic (Counter) Speech.The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism80, 4 (Sept. 2022), 409–419. doi:10.1093/jaac/kpac038

    work page doi:10.1093/jaac/kpac038 2022

  27. [27]

    Mekselina Doğanç and Ilia Markov. 2023. From Generic to Personalized: Inves- tigating Strategies for Generating Targeted Counter Narratives against Hate Speech. InProceedings of the 1st Workshop on CounterSpeech for Online Abuse (CS4OA), Yi-Ling Chung, Helena Bonaldi, Gavin Abercrombie, and Marco Guerini (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, ...

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Joseph L. Fleiss. 1971. Measuring Nominal Scale Agreement among Many Raters. 76, 5 (1971), 378–382. doi:10.1037/h0031619

    work page doi:10.1037/h0031619 1971

  29. [29]

    Gloria Gennaro, Laurenz Derksen, Aya Abdelrahman, Emma Broggini, Mariya Alexandra Green, Victoria Andrea Haerter, Elia Heer, Isabel Heidler, Fiona Kauer, Han-Nuri Kim, Benjamin Landry, Alessio Levis, Jiazhen Li, Şevval Şimşir, Iva Srbinovska, Robin Anna Vital, Karsten Donnay, Fabrizio Gilardi, and Dominik Hangartner. 2025. Counterspeech Encouraging Users ...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-025-05041-w 2025

  30. [30]

    1992.ANOV A

    Ellen Girden. 1992.ANOV A. SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:10.4135/9781412983419

    work page doi:10.4135/9781412983419 1992

  31. [31]

    Jawad Golzar, Shagofah Noor, and Omid Tajik. 2022. Convenience Sampling. International Journal of Education & Language Studies1, 2 (Dec. 2022), 72–77. doi:10.22034/ijels.2022.162981

    work page doi:10.22034/ijels.2022.162981 2022

  32. [32]

    Jarod Govers, Eduardo Velloso, Vassilis Kostakos, and Jorge Goncalves. 2024. AI-Driven Mediation Strategies for Audience Depolarisation in Online Debates. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–18. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642322

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642322 2024

  33. [33]

    Nitesh Goyal, Leslie Park, and Lucy Vasserman. 2022. ”You Have to Prove the Threat Is Real”: Understanding the Needs of Female Journalists and Activists to Document and Report Online Harassment. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–17. doi:10.114...

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3517517 2022

  34. [34]

    Shad Akhtar

    Rishabh Gupta, Shaily Desai, Manvi Goel, Anil Bandhakavi, Tanmoy Chakraborty, and Md. Shad Akhtar. 2023. Counterspeeches up My Sleeve! Intent Distribution Learning and Persistent Fusion for Intent-Conditioned Counterspeech Gener- ation. InProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), Ann...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.318 2023

  35. [35]

    Sadaf MD Halim, Saquib Irtiza, Yibo Hu, Latifur Khan, and Bhavani Thurais- ingham. 2023. WokeGPT: Improving Counterspeech Generation Against On- line Hate Speech by Intelligently Augmenting Datasets Using a Novel Met- ric. In2023 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). 1–10. doi:10.1109/IJCNN54540.2023.10191114

    work page doi:10.1109/ijcnn54540.2023.10191114 2023

  36. [36]

    Soo-Hye Han and LeAnn M. Brazeal. 2015. Playing Nice: Modeling Civility in Online Political Discussions.Communication Research Reports32, 1 (Jan. 2015), 20–28. doi:10.1080/08824096.2014.989971

    work page doi:10.1080/08824096.2014.989971 2015

  37. [37]

    Dominik Hangartner, Gloria Gennaro, Sary Alasiri, Nicholas Bahrich, Alexandra Bornhoft, Joseph Boucher, Buket Buse Demirci, Laurenz Derksen, Aldo Hall, Matthias Jochum, Maria Murias Munoz, Marc Richter, Franziska Vogel, Salomé Wittwer, Felix Wüthrich, Fabrizio Gilardi, and Karsten Donnay. 2021. Empathy- Based Counterspeech Can Reduce Racist Hate Speech in...

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2116310118 2021

  38. [38]

    David Hartmann, Amin Oueslati, Dimitri Staufer, Lena Pohlmann, Simon Munz- ert, and Hendrik Heuer. 2025. Lost in Moderation: How Commercial Content Moderation APIs Over- and Under-Moderate Group-Targeted Hate Speech and Linguistic Variations. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computin...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713998 2025

  39. [39]

    Bing He, Caleb Ziems, Sandeep Soni, Naren Ramakrishnan, Diyi Yang, and Sri- jan Kumar. 2022. Racism Is a Virus: Anti-Asian Hate and Counterspeech in Social Media during the COVID-19 Crisis. InProceedings of the 2021 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New Y...

    work page doi:10.1145/3487351.3488324 2022

  40. [40]

    Lingzi Hong, Pengcheng Luo, Eduardo Blanco, and Xiaoying Song. 2024. Outcome-Constrained Large Language Models for Countering Hate Speech. arXiv:2403.17146 doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.17146

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.17146 2024

  41. [41]

    Angel Hsing-Chi Hwang and Andrea Stevenson Won. 2021. IdeaBot: Investigating Social Facilitation in Human-Machine Team Creativity. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–16. doi:10.1145/3411764.3445270

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445270 2021

  42. [42]

    Shagun Jhaver, Amy Bruckman, and Eric Gilbert. 2019. Does Transparency in Moderation Really Matter? User Behavior After Content Removal Explanations on Reddit.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.3, CSCW (Nov. 2019), 150:1–150:27. doi:10.1145/3359252

    work page doi:10.1145/3359252 2019

  43. [43]

    Shagun Jhaver, Himanshu Rathi, and Koustuv Saha. 2024. Bystanders of Online Moderation: Examining the Effects of Witnessing Post-Removal Explanations. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–9. doi:10. 1145/3613904.3642204

    work page arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Yue Jia and Sandy Schumann. 2025. Tackling Hate Speech Online: The Effect of Counter-Speech on Subsequent Bystander Behavioral Intentions.Cyberpsychol- ogy: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace19, 1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    Ji-Youn Jung, Sihang Qiu, Alessandro Bozzon, and Ujwal Gadiraju. 2022. Great Chain of Agents: The Role of Metaphorical Representation of Agents in Conver- sational Crowdsourcing. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–22. doi:10.1145/3491102.3517653

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3517653 2022

  46. [46]

    David Jurgens, Eshwar Chandrasekharan, and Libby Hemphill. 2019. A Just and Comprehensive Strategy for Using NLP to Address Online Abuse. arXiv:1906.01738 doi:10.48550/arXiv.1906.01738

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1906.01738 2019

  47. [47]

    Sameena Khokhar, Habibullah Pathan, Arsalan Raheem, and Abdul Malik Abbasi

    work page

  48. [48]

    3, 3 (2020), 423–433

    Theory Development in Thematic Analysis: Procedure and Practice. 3, 3 (2020), 423–433. doi:10.47067/ramss.v3i3.79

    work page doi:10.47067/ramss.v3i3.79 2020

  49. [49]

    Adam D. I. Kramer, Jamie E. Guillory, and Jeffrey T. Hancock. 2014. Experimen- tal Evidence of Massive-Scale Emotional Contagion through Social Networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111, 24 (June 2014), 8788–8790. doi:10.1073/pnas.1320040111

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1320040111 2014

  50. [50]

    Rae Langton. 2018. Blocking as Counter-Speech.New work on speech acts144 (2018), 156

    work page 2018

  51. [51]

    2021.Democratic Speech in Divided Times

    Maxime Lepoutre. 2021.Democratic Speech in Divided Times. Oxford University Press

    work page 2021

  52. [52]

    Yaqiong Li, Peng Zhang, Hansu Gu, Tun Lu, Siyuan Qiao, Yubo Shu, Yiyang Shao, and Ning Gu. 2025. DeMod: A Holistic Tool with Explainable Detection and Personalized Modification for Toxicity Censorship.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.9, 2 (May 2025), CSCW061:1–CSCW061:24. doi:10.1145/3710959

    work page doi:10.1145/3710959 2025

  53. [53]

    Claire Liang, Julia Proft, Erik Andersen, and Ross A. Knepper. 2019. Implicit Communication of Actionable Information in Human-AI Teams. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. doi:10.1145/ 3290605.3300325

    work page arXiv 2019

  54. [54]

    Link and Jo C

    Bruce G. Link and Jo C. Phelan. 2001. Conceptualizing Stigma.Annual Review of Sociology27, 1 (Aug. 2001), 363–385. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363 2001

  55. [55]

    Binny Mathew, Navish Kumar, Ravina, Pawan Goyal, and Animesh Mukher- jee. 2018. Analyzing the Hate and Counter Speech Accounts on Twitter. arXiv:1812.02712 doi:10.48550/arXiv.1812.02712

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1812.02712 2018

  56. [56]

    Binny Mathew, Punyajoy Saha, Hardik Tharad, Subham Rajgaria, Prajwal Sing- hania, Suman Kalyan Maity, Pawan Goyal, and Animesh Mukherjee. 2019. Thou Shalt Not Hate: Countering Online Hate Speech.Proceedings of the Inter- national AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media13 (July 2019), 369–380. doi:10.1609/icwsm.v13i01.3237

    work page doi:10.1609/icwsm.v13i01.3237 2019

  57. [57]

    Jennings

    Rocío Galarza Molina and Freddie J. Jennings. 2018. The Role of Civility and Metacommunication in Facebook Discussions.Communication Studies69, 1 (Jan. 2018), 42–66. doi:10.1080/10510974.2017.1397038

    work page doi:10.1080/10510974.2017.1397038 2018

  58. [58]

    Jimin Mun, Cathy Buerger, Jenny T Liang, Joshua Garland, and Maarten Sap

    work page

  59. [59]

    Chan, Theo Saarinen, Allen Hsiao, Jasjeet Sekhon, Ambrose H

    Counterspeakers’ Perspectives: Unveiling Barriers and AI Needs in the Fight against Online Hate. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–22. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642025

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642025 2024

  60. [60]

    Kevin Munger. 2017. Tweetment Effects on the Tweeted: Experimentally Reducing Racist Harassment.Political Behavior39, 3 (Sept. 2017), 629–649. doi:10.1007/ s11109-016-9373-5

    work page 2017

  61. [61]

    Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann. 1974. The Spiral of Silence a Theory of Public Opinion. Journal of communication24, 2 (1974), 43–51

    work page 1974

  62. [62]

    Anna-Marie Ortloff, Florin Martius, Mischa Meier, Theo Raimbault, Lisa Geier- haas, and Matthew Smith. 2025. Small, Medium, Large? A Meta-Study of Effect Sizes at CHI to Aid Interpretation of Effect Sizes and Power Calculation. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–28

    work page 2025

  63. [63]

    Petty and John T

    Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo. 1986.The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. Springer New York, New York, NY, 1–24

    work page 1986

  64. [64]

    Kaike Ping, James Hawdon, and Eugenia H Rho. 2025. Perceiving and Countering Hate: The Role of Identity in Online Responses.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 9, 2 (May 2025), CSCW147:1–CSCW147:28. doi:10.1145/3711045

    work page doi:10.1145/3711045 2025

  65. [65]

    Kaike Ping, Anisha Kumar, Xiaohan Ding, and Eugenia Rho. 2024. Behind the Counter: Exploring the Motivations and Barriers of Online Counterspeech Writing. arXiv:2403.17116 doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.17116

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.17116 2024

  66. [68]

    Jing Qian, Anna Bethke, Yinyin Liu, Elizabeth Belding, and William Yang Wang

    work page

  67. [69]

    A Benchmark Dataset for Learning to Intervene in Online Hate Speech. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Pro- cessing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), Kentaro Inui, Jing Jiang, Vincent Ng, and Xiaojun Wan (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, Ho...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1482 2019

  68. [70]

    Dillon Dillon, Lucas Wright Wright, and Susan Benesch Benesch

    Derek Ruths Ruths, Haji Mohammed Saleem Saleem, Kelly P. Dillon Dillon, Lucas Wright Wright, and Susan Benesch Benesch. 2016.Counterspeech on Twitter: A Field Study. Technical Report. Dangerous Speech Project, Washington, DC USA

    work page 2016

  69. [71]

    Koustuv Saha, Pranshu Gupta, Gloria Mark, Emre Kiciman, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2024. Observer Effect in Social Media Use. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1–20. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642078

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642078 2024

  70. [72]

    Punyajoy Saha, Abhilash Datta, Abhik Jana, and Animesh Mukherjee. 2024. CrowdCounter: A Benchmark Type-Specific Multi-Target Counterspeech Dataset. arXiv:2410.01400 doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.01400

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.01400 2024

  71. [73]

    Punyajoy Saha, Kanishk Singh, Adarsh Kumar, Binny Mathew, and Animesh Mukherjee. 2022. CounterGeDi: A Controllable Approach to Generate Polite, Detoxified and Emotional Counterspeech. InThirty-First International Joint Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 6. 5157–5163. doi:10.24963/ijcai.2022/716

    work page doi:10.24963/ijcai.2022/716 2022

  72. [75]

    Julia Sasse and Jens Grossklags. 2023. Breaking the Silence: Investigating Which Types of Moderation Reduce Negative Effects of Sexist Social Media Content. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.7, CSCW2 (Oct. 2023), 327:1–327:26. doi:10. 1145/3610176

    work page 2023

  73. [76]

    Martin Saveski, Brandon Roy, and Deb Roy. 2021. The Structure of Toxic Conversations on Twitter. InProceedings of the Web Conference 2021 (WWW ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1086–1097. doi:10.1145/3442381.3449861

    work page doi:10.1145/3442381.3449861 2021

  74. [77]

    Carla Schieb and Mike Preuss. 2016. Governing hate speech by means of coun- terspeech on Facebook. (2016), 1–23

    work page 2016

  75. [78]

    Chang, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, and Karen Levy

    Charlotte Schluger, Jonathan P. Chang, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, and Karen Levy. 2022. Proactive Moderation of Online Discussions: Existing Practices and the Potential for Algorithmic Support.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.6, CSCW2 (Nov. 2022), 370:1–370:27. doi:10.1145/3555095

    work page doi:10.1145/3555095 2022

  76. [79]

    Joseph Seering, Robert Kraut, and Laura Dabbish. 2017. Shaping Pro and Anti- Social Behavior on Twitch Through Moderation and Example-Setting. InPro- ceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 111–125. doi:10.1145/2998181.2998277

    work page doi:10.1145/2998181.2998277 2017

  77. [80]

    Cláudia Silva. 2023. Fighting Against Hate Speech: A Case for Harnessing Interactive Digital Counter-Narratives. InInteractive Storytelling, Lissa Holloway- Attaway and John T. Murray (Eds.). Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 159–174. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47655-6_10

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47655-6_10 2023

  78. [81]

    Weissman, Nicolas Cheutin, and Andrew J

    Nicolas Sommet, David L. Weissman, Nicolas Cheutin, and Andrew J. Elliot

    work page

  79. [82]

    doi:10.1177/25152459231178728

    How Many Participants Do I Need to Test an Interaction? Conducting an Appropriate Power Analysis and Achieving Sufficient Power to Detect an Interaction.Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science6, 3 (July 2023), 25152459231178728. doi:10.1177/25152459231178728

    work page doi:10.1177/25152459231178728 2023

  80. [83]

    Let’s Make the Difference!

    Carmela Sportelli, Paolo Giovanni Cicirelli, Marinella Paciello, Giuseppe Cor- belli, and Francesca D’Errico. 2025. “Let’s Make the Difference!” Promoting Hate Counter-Speech in Adolescence Through Empathy and Digital Intergroup Contact.Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology35, 1 (2025), e70028. doi:10.1002/casp.70028

    work page doi:10.1002/casp.70028 2025

Showing first 80 references.