Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Mapping the Italian Telegram Ecosystem: Communities, Toxicity, and Hate Speech

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Italian Telegram communities split by ideology, share hate targets.

desk verdict A genuinely new national Telegram map with useful descriptive findings, but the headline toxicity-normalization claim is not supported by the paper's own Gini values. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19594 v2 pith:NYRY6VJV submitted 2025-04-28 cs.SI cs.AI

Lorenzo Alvisi , Serena Tardelli , Maurizio Tesconi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SIcs.AI
keywords TelegramItalian-languagesocialmediacommunitydetectionideologicalhomophilytoxicitynormalizationhatespeechtargetsforwardingnetworkonlinepoliticalpolarization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to map an entire national Telegram sphere rather than a single fringe phenomenon. Using 186 million Italian-language messages from 13,151 public chats collected across 2023, it builds a forwarding network, detects 15 communities, and labels each chat's topic, political leaning, toxicity, and hate-speech targets. It aims to show that political communities split along far-left and far-right lines except for a geopolitical Warfare community where both extremes converge; that toxicity in the most toxic communities is spread evenly across many chats rather than concentrated in a few; and that Black, Jewish, and gay people are the most consistent targets of hate. These findings matter because they locate online harm not only in extremist bubbles but also in mainstream entertainment and sports spaces, and because they tie Italian online hostility to long-standing internal regional divisions.

What carries the argument

The central object is a directed, weighted forwarding network G = (N, E), where each node is a Telegram chat and each edge n → m carries the number of messages forwarded from n to m; communities are detected with a weighted directed Louvain algorithm. The quantitative engine for the toxicity claim is the pairing of each community's mean toxicity percentage with the Gini index of toxicity across its chats: the negative correlation between the two is what elevates the observation 'toxic chats exist' to the structural claim 'toxicity is normalized.' Toxicity is measured with the Perspective API's Toxicity attribute at a score threshold of 0.7. Topic labels come from Mixtral, political labels from ChatGPT-4o with a 50-percent chat threshold for calling a community political, and hate targets from an instruction-tuned LLM whose free-form outputs are mapped to standardized identity categories.

What would settle it

Recompute the community-level regression of mean toxicity on Gini index after removing the Adult community, and separately after removing the largest General community; if the negative correlation (Pearson = -0.8721) loses significance in either removal, the 'toxicity is normalized' conclusion depends on a single community rather than a general mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Italian public Telegram ecosystem, sampled through message forwarding, is structured by thematic and ideological homophily: chats that forward to each other cluster into 15 communities, and the three political communities separate into a far-right alternative-news cluster (AltNews), a far-left activism cluster (Activism), and a geopolitical Warfare community in which far-left and far-right rhetoric coexist, especially around Ukraine and Israel. A second claim is structural: comparing each community's mean toxicity with the Gini index of toxicity across its chats yields a strong negative correlation (Pearson = -0.8721, $R^{2}$ = 0.7605, p < 0.0001), so the most toxic communities are toxic because many chats are moderately toxic rather than because a few chats are extremely toxic. Third, hate-speech targets are stable across communities: Black and African American people, Jewish people, and gay men (the term often standing in for the whole LGBTQ+ community) are attacked everywhere, while nationality-based hate is context-dependent and includes a striking pattern of Italians attacking other Italians along regional lines.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's ideological mapping (the far-left/far-right Warfare mix and the far-right/far-left labels) assumes the ChatGPT-4o political labels, applied to chat name, description, and a random 5,000-character message sample with no human agreement check, are accurate enough that labeling a community 'political' when at least half of its chats show a leaning does not distort the result.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Moderation in highly toxic Italian Telegram communities should be community-wide cultural intervention, since toxicity is spread across many chats; targeted bans on a few outlier chats would miss most of the harm.
  • Entertainment, adult, and sports communities carry toxicity comparable to or above political spaces, so safety research and policy cannot concentrate only on extremist political channels.
  • Because Black, Jewish, and gay people are attacked consistently across all communities, hate-speech detection on Italian Telegram should treat these groups as default high-priority targets independent of topic.
  • The coexistence of far-left and far-right rhetoric in the Warfare community means geopolitical crises can create cross-spectrum convergence, so studies of polarization should measure mixed-ideology communities, not only single-leaning clusters.
  • The attack pattern of Italians on other Italians indicates that national identity is not a protective category in this ecosystem; regional and intra-national frames belong in hate-speech taxonomies for Italy.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the political labels are validated by human annotation, the Warfare mixing result suggests a testable mechanism: attention to the Ukraine and Israel conflicts may override domestic ideological divides, so the same mixed community should appear in other national Telegram ecosystems during the same period.
  • The Gini-toxicity relationship is framed cross-sectionally; a longitudinal extension could test whether communities become toxic by a few chats first (high Gini) and then spread (low Gini), which would give the 'normalization' claim a temporal direction the current data cannot support.
  • The 'gay' target dominance may partly be an artifact of Italian hate vocabulary using 'gay' generically; a lexicon study could separate attacks aimed at gay men specifically from slurs aimed at the whole LGBTQ+ community.
  • The intra-Italian hostility result suggests that for Telegram studies in other countries, nationality-based hate should be broken into subnational and regional categories rather than a single 'compatriot' target.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a large-scale descriptive mapping of the Italian public Telegram ecosystem. The authors collected 186 million messages from 15,378 chats in 2023, built a directed weighted forwarding network, detected 15 communities with Louvain, labeled chat topics with Mixtral:8x7B, labeled political leaning with ChatGPT-4o, scored toxicity and identity attacks with the Perspective API, and identified hate-speech targets with Llama-3.1-Nemotron-70B. The main empirical claims are: (i) strong thematic and ideological homophily, including a mixed far-left/far-right geopolitical community (Warfare); (ii) toxicity is widely spread across chats in highly toxic communities rather than concentrated in a few outliers; and (iii) hate speech consistently targets Black, Jewish, and gay individuals across all communities, together with intra-national hostility against Italians.

Significance. If the findings hold, this would be a valuable first comprehensive map of a national Telegram ecosystem, providing a rare bird's-eye view that connects community structure, political orientation, toxicity, and hate-speech targets. The paper's strengths include the size and scope of the dataset, the explicit research questions, transparently reported prompts, and the commitment to release an anonymized network. The descriptive network construction and community detection are straightforward and largely reproducible. However, the three headline conclusions rest on two unvalidated LLM-based labeling pipelines and a single toxicity API with no Italian-language validation, and one of the main toxicity-distribution claims is internally contradicted by the reported Gini values. These issues make the current evidence insufficient to support the central claims as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3, Table A2] The political-orientation labels that drive RQ1 and the ideological-homophily and mixed-ideology findings are produced by ChatGPT-4o with no human validation, no agreement metrics, and no robustness checks. A community is classified as political if at least 50% of its chats receive a political label, but the accuracy of those chat-level labels for Italian-language chats is never established. Since the far-left/far-right coexistence in Warfare and the classification of AltNews as far-right and Activism as far-left are headline results, the absence of any validation of the labeling pipeline is load-bearing. The authors should report a human-annotated validation sample with inter-annotator agreement, or at minimum a sensitivity analysis over the 50% threshold and the labeling prompt.
  2. [Section 5.3, Figure 6] The claim that toxicity is 'widely normalized within highly toxic communities' and 'evenly spread across many chats' is not supported by the reported Gini indices, which all lie between 0.6 and 0.9. A Gini index in this range indicates substantial concentration: a Gini near 0.7 is compatible with roughly 70% of chats carrying zero toxicity and 30% carrying all toxicity, and a Gini near 0.9 with even stronger concentration. The negative correlation (Pearson r = -0.872) shows only that high-toxicity communities are relatively less concentrated in chat-level toxicity than low-toxicity communities; it does not establish that toxicity is shared by most chats in any absolute sense. Moreover, the analysis uses unweighted chat-level toxicity percentages, so a 10-message chat and a million-message chat contribute equally, and the Gini cannot rule out that a few large chats account for most toxic messages. The authors should report the share of chats with at least one toxic message, the message-weighted concentration, and the full distribution, not just the Gini mean correlation.
  3. [Sections 4.4 and 4.5, Figures 7-11] The toxicity and hate-speech findings depend on Perspective API scores with a threshold of 0.7, but no validation of this threshold or of the API's accuracy on Italian-language Telegram messages is provided. Likewise, the identity-target extraction by Llama-3.1-Nemotron-70B and the subsequent ChatGPT-4o label standardization have no human evaluation or agreement metrics. Given that the paper's cross-community claims about Black, Jewish, and gay targets are potentially sensitive and are used to draw conclusions about Italian online discourse, the authors should provide precision/recall or agreement numbers against a human-annotated Italian sample, and should report how sensitive the results are to the 0.7 threshold.
  4. [Section 5.3, Figure 5] The Mann-Whitney U tests in Figure 5 compare each community's chat-toxicity distribution against the distribution across all chats in the network, but the community's own chats are included in the comparison distribution. This creates a non-independence problem that can bias the reported p-values, especially for large communities such as General, which contains about a third of the chats. The authors should either use a hold-out baseline excluding the community being tested or report effect sizes and confidence intervals instead of relying on these significance stars.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sections 3.5, 4.1] The number of chats is inconsistent across the paper: the abstract says 13,151 chats, Section 3.5 says 15,378 chats, and Section 4.1 reports 13,144 nodes after removing disconnected chats and 11,305 after community filtering. Please clarify which number corresponds to which stage of the pipeline.
  2. [Section 5.3, Figure 5 caption] The caption of Figure 5b says 'statistical significance levels indicate communities with notably higher or lower toxicity than average,' but the panel shows identity attack percentages, not toxicity. Please correct the wording.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical and grammatical errors, including 'A the end of this process' (Section 3.5), 'corresponfing' (Section 5.3), 'rethoric' (Section 5.2), and 'hl(e.g.,' (Section 5.4). A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  4. [Section 4.2, Table A1] The topic-labeling prompt allows up to three categories per chat, but the community-level analysis appears to use only the majority topic. Please clarify how ties and multi-label outputs are handled when aggregating to the community level.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: empirical findings are measured from data, not reduced to fitted inputs or a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an empirical measurement pipeline: chat topics are assigned by Mixtral from external catalog categories, political leanings by ChatGPT-4o from a MediaBiasFactCheck-derived label set, toxicity by Perspective API scores with a fixed 0.7 threshold, and hate targets by Nemotron plus ChatGPT-4o standardization. None of these quantities is defined in terms of a target conclusion, and no fitted parameter is later renamed as a prediction. The toxicity-normalization claim in Section 5.3 is an observed negative correlation (Pearson = -0.8721, R2 = 0.7605) between two separately computed community-level statistics, mean chat toxicity and the Gini index; it is not derived by equating one to the other. The only reuse of the authors' prior work is the snowball-forwarding collection framework from reference [4], cited as a methodology and as a proxy for homophily. That self-citation is not load-bearing for the central empirical claims: the Louvain communities are computed from actual forward edges, and their political or thematic alignment is an empirical outcome, not a tautology. The skeptic's concern about the Gini index concerns the absolute interpretation of concentration, and the lack of human validation of ChatGPT-4o political labels is a correctness/validity risk, not circularity. Overall, no target result reduces by construction to its input, so the paper receives a low circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis depends on a chain of hand-set thresholds and unvalidated automated classifiers; none are fitted to the target findings, but several (toxicity threshold, political threshold, sample sizes) directly shape the reported numbers.

free parameters (6)
  • toxicity_threshold = 0.7
    Messages with Perspective API toxicity >= 0.7 are labeled toxic; chosen from API guidelines, not fitted to Italian data; directly determines all toxicity counts and community means.
  • identity_attack_threshold = 0.7
    Messages with identity attack score >= 0.7 are treated as hate; same threshold for all communities; no Italian-specific calibration.
  • community_political_threshold = 0.5
    A community is political if at least 50% of its chats have a non-null political label; this determines which communities are classified as political.
  • minimum_community_size = 1% (132 chats)
    Communities below 1% of nodes are excluded from analysis; affects the 15-community structure.
  • seed_validity_min_messages = 10
    Chats with fewer than 10 Italian messages are discarded; affects the seed set.
  • message_sample_characters = 4000 (topic) / 5000 (political)
    Random message samples are capped at these character counts for LLM labeling; affects label reliability.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Forwarding edges in the network reflect homophily and shared interests between chats.
    The entire network construction and community detection (Sections 3.5, 4.1) assume that the forwarding mechanism is a valid proxy for community structure.
  • domain assumption The seed catalogs Telegram Italia and TGStat, plus forward snowballing, provide a representative sample of the Italian public Telegram ecosystem.
    Section 3.2-3.5 relies on this to claim a comprehensive mapping; the paper acknowledges coverage limits in Section 6.1.
  • ad hoc to paper ChatGPT-4o political labels are accurate for Italian chats with no human validation.
    Section 4.3 uses the LLM without validation; the RQ1 conclusions and mixed-ideology Warfare finding depend on it.
  • domain assumption Perspective API toxicity and identity-attack scores are valid for Italian-language text at the 0.7 threshold.
    Sections 4.4-4.5 assume cross-lingual validity; no Italian-specific performance evidence is provided.
  • standard math Louvain community detection yields meaningful communities for this directed weighted network.
    Section 4.1 uses a fine-tuned directed Louvain; standard algorithm, but no stability or significance analysis of detected partitions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mapping the Italian Telegram Ecosystem: Communities, Toxicity, and Hate Speech." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NYRY6VJV

@misc{pith2026250419594,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mapping the Italian Telegram Ecosystem: Communities, Toxicity, and Hate Speech},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NYRY6VJV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19594}
}
read the original abstract

Telegram has become a major space for political discourse and alternative media. However, its lack of moderation allows misinformation, extremism, and toxicity to spread. While prior research focused on these particular phenomena or topics, these have mostly been examined separately, and a broader understanding of the Telegram ecosystem is still missing. In this work, we fill this gap by conducting a large-scale analysis of the Italian Telegram sphere, leveraging a dataset of 186 million messages from 13,151 chats collected in 2023. Using network analysis, Large Language Models, and toxicity detection tools, we examine how different thematic communities form, align ideologically, and engage in harmful discourse within the Italian cultural context. Results show strong thematic and ideological homophily. We also identify mixed ideological communities where far-left and far-right rhetoric coexist on particular geopolitical issues. Beyond political analysis, we find that toxicity, rather than being isolated in a few extreme chats, appears widely normalized within highly toxic communities. Moreover, we find that Italian discourse primarily targets Black people, Jews, and gay individuals independently of the topic. Finally, we uncover common trend of intra-national hostility, where Italians often attack other Italians, reflecting regional and intra-regional cultural conflicts that can be traced back to old historical divisions. This study provides the first large-scale mapping of the Italian Telegram ecosystem, offering insights into ideological interactions, toxicity, and identity-targets of hate and contributing to research on online toxicity across different cultural and linguistic contexts on Telegram.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Dark Personality Traits and Online Toxicity: Linking Self-Reports to Reddit Activity

    cs.CY 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Dark personality traits show weak, mostly non-significant links to toxicity in Reddit comments, while self-reported engagement with incivility strongly aligns with measurable toxic language.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Journal of Open Humanities Data 7 (2021)

    Scheffler, T., Solopova, V., Popa-Wyatt, M.: The telegram chronicles of online harm. Journal of Open Humanities Data 7 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 28(4), 1103–1126 (2022)

    Schulze, H., Hohner, J., Greipl, S., Girgnhuber, M., Desta, I., Rieger, D.: Far-right conspiracy groups on fringe platforms: A longitudinal analysis of radicalization dynam- ics on telegram. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 28(4), 1103–1126 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM Web Science Conference 2023, pp

    Hoseini, M., Melo, P., Benevenuto, F., Feldmann, A., Zannettou, S.: On the globalization of the qanon conspiracy theory through telegram. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM Web Science Conference 2023, pp. 75–85 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Unraveling the Italian and English Telegram Conspiracy Spheres through Message Forwarding

    Alvisi, L., Tardelli, S., Tesconi, M.: Unraveling the italian and english telegram conspiracy spheres through message forwarding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18602 (2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Information, communication & society 25(7), 904–923 (2022) 24

    Urman, A., Katz, S.: What they do in the shadows: examining the far-right networks on telegram. Information, communication & society 25(7), 904–923 (2022) 24

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Perspectives on Terrorism 15(2), 100–124 (2021)

    Walther, S., McCoy, A.: Us extremism on telegram. Perspectives on Terrorism 15(2), 100–124 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    IEEE Internet Computing 25(2), 84–91 (2020)

    Ng, L.H.X., Loke, J.Y.: Analyzing public opinion and misinformation in a covid-19 telegram group chat. IEEE Internet Computing 25(2), 84–91 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    First Monday (2022)

    Willaert, T., Peeters, S., Seijbel, J., Van Raemdonck, N.: Disinformation networks: A quali-quantitative investigation of antagonistic dutch-speaking telegram channels. First Monday (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Journal of Computational Social Science, 1–26 (2024)

    Ng, L.H.X., Kloo, I., Clark, S., Carley, K.M.: An exploratory analysis of covid bot vs human disinformation dissemination stemming from the disinformation dozen on telegram. Journal of Computational Social Science, 1–26 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Heliyon8(2) (2022)

    Zihiri, S., Lima, G., Han, J., Cha, M., Lee, W.: Qanon shifts into the mainstream, remains a far-right ally. Heliyon8(2) (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    European Journal of Public Health 30(Supplement 5), 165–066 (2020)

    Calamusa, A., Tardelli, S., Avvenuti, M., Cresci, S., Federigi, I., Tesconi, M., Verani, M., Carducci, A.: Twitter monitoring evidence of covid-19 infodemic in italy. European Journal of Public Health 30(Supplement 5), 165–066 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Journal of big data 9(1), 113 (2022)

    Corti, L., Zanetti, M., Tricella, G., Bonati, M.: Social media analysis of twitter tweets related to asd in 2019–2020, with particular attention to covid-19: topic modelling and sentiment analysis. Journal of big data 9(1), 113 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Journal of Big Data 10(1), 125 (2023)

    Hashemi, M.: Geographical visualization of tweets, misinformation, and extremism during the usa 2020 presidential election using lstm, nlp, and gis. Journal of Big Data 10(1), 125 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Computer Communications 217, 25–40 (2024)

    Gambini, M., Tardelli, S., Tesconi, M.: The anatomy of conspiracy theorists: unveiling traits using a comprehensive twitter dataset. Computer Communications 217, 25–40 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Terrorism and Political Violence 31(6), 1242–1254 (2019)

    Bloom, M., Tiflati, H., Horgan, J.: Navigating isis’s preferred platform: Telegram1. Terrorism and Political Violence 31(6), 1242–1254 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Challenges to national defence in contemporary geopolitical situation2022(1), 227–231 (2022)

    Vavryk, P.: Mapping growth of the russian domestic propaganda apparatus on telegram. Challenges to national defence in contemporary geopolitical situation2022(1), 227–231 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Cybersecurity and Law 10 (2023)

    Castagna, S., Porrino, G., Borgonovo, F.: The italian pro-russia digital ecosystem on telegram. Cybersecurity and Law 10 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Applied Network Science 7(1), 76 (2022)

    Bovet, A., Grindrod, P.: Organization and evolution of the uk far-right network on telegram. Applied Network Science 7(1), 76 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    IEEE access 8, 113230–113245 25 (2020)

    Nizzoli, L., Tardelli, S., Avvenuti, M., Cresci, S., Tesconi, M., Ferrara, E.: Charting the landscape of online cryptocurrency manipulation. IEEE access 8, 113230–113245 25 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Institute for Strategic Dialogue 26 (2020)

    Guhl, J., Davey, J.: A safe space to hate: White supremacist mobilisation on telegram. Institute for Strategic Dialogue 26 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6(CSCW1), 1–31 (2022)

    Pasquetto, I.V., Olivieri, A.F., Tacchetti, L., Riotta, G., Spada, A.: Disinformation as infrastructure: Making and maintaining the qanon conspiracy on italian digital media. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6(CSCW1), 1–31 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Social Media+ Society 8(4), 20563051221138758 (2022)

    Vergani, M., Martinez Arranz, A., Scrivens, R., Orellana, L.: Hate speech in a telegram conspiracy channel during the first year of the covid-19 pandemic. Social Media+ Society 8(4), 20563051221138758 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Morgia, M.L., Mei, A., Mongardini, A.M.: TGDataset: a Collection of Over One Hundred Thousand Telegram Channels (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol

    Baumgartner, J., Zannettou, S., Squire, M., Blackburn, J.: The pushshift telegram dataset. In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol. 14, pp. 840–847 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    EPJ Data Science 13(1), 33 (2024)

    Tardelli, S., Nizzoli, L., Avvenuti, M., Cresci, S., Tesconi, M.: Multifaceted online coordinated behavior in the 2020 us presidential election. EPJ Data Science 13(1), 33 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    EPJ Data Science 13(1), 63 (2024)

    Pierri, F.: Drivers of hate speech in political conversations on twitter: the case of the 2022 italian general election. EPJ Data Science 13(1), 63 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Nature 628(8008), 582–589 (2024)

    Avalle, M., Di Marco, N., Etta, G., Sangiorgio, E., Alipour, S., Bonetti, A., Alvisi, L., Scala, A., Baronchelli, A., Cinelli, M.,et al.: Persistent interaction patterns across social media platforms and over time. Nature 628(8008), 582–589 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Cavalini, A., Donadia, T., Comarela, G.: Characterizing the toxicity of the brazilian extremist communities on telegram (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol

    Wich, M., Gorniak, A., Eder, T., Bartmann, D., Cakici, B.E., Groh, G.: Introducing an abusive language classification framework for telegram to investigate the german hater community. In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol. 16, pp. 11...

    2022

  22. [30]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23638 (2024)

    Blas, L., Luceri, L., Ferrara, E.: Unearthing a billion telegram posts about the 2024 us presidential election: Development of a public dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23638 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS), pp

    La Morgia, M., Mei, A., Mongardini, A.M., Wu, J.: It’sa trap! detection and analysis of fake channels on telegram. In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS), pp. 97–104 (2023). IEEE

    2023

  24. [32]

    In: Analysis of Images, Social Networks and Texts: 9th International Conference, AIST 2020, Skolkovo, Moscow, Russia, October 15–16, 2020, Revised Selected Papers 9, pp

    Tikhomirova, K., Makarov, I.: Community detection based on the nodes role in a network: 26 The telegram platform case. In: Analysis of Images, Social Networks and Texts: 9th International Conference, AIST 2020, Skolkovo, Moscow, Russia, October 15–16, 2020, Revised Selected Pa...

    2021

  25. [33]

    PhD thesis, Universit´e d’Orl´eans (2015)

    Dugu ´e, N., Perez, A.: Directed louvain: maximizing modularity in directed networks. PhD thesis, Universit´e d’Orl´eans (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04088 (2024)

    Jiang, A.Q., Sablayrolles, A., Roux, A., Mensch, A., Savary, B., Bamford, C., Chaplot, D.S., Casas, D.d.l., Hanna, E.B., Bressand, F., et al.: Mixtral of experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04088 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    In: Analyzing Social Media Data and Web Networks, pp

    Ackland, R., Shorish, J.: Political homophily on the web. In: Analyzing Social Media Data and Web Networks, pp. 25–46. Springer, ??? (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    Journal of public economics 143, 73–88 (2016)

    Halberstam, Y., Knight, B.: Homophily, group size, and the diffusion of political infor- mation in social networks: Evidence from twitter. Journal of public economics 143, 73–88 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    Accessed: 2024-02-10 (2024)

    OpenAI: ChatGPT-4o: OpenAI’s Multimodal Conversational AI. Accessed: 2024-02-10 (2024). https://openai.com

    2024

  30. [38]

    Political Science Research and Methods, 1–18 (2024)

    Burnham, M.: Stance detection: a practical guide to classifying political beliefs in text. Political Science Research and Methods, 1–18 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03087 (2023)

    Zhang, B., Fu, X., Ding, D., Huang, H., Dai, G., Yin, N., Li, Y., Jing, L.: Investigat- ing chain-of-thought with chatgpt for stance detection on social media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03087 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121(20), 2307038121 (2024)

    Tardelli, S., Nizzoli, L., Tesconi, M., Conti, M., Nakov, P., Da San Martino, G., Cresci, S.: Temporal dynamics of coordinated online behavior: Stability, archetypes, and influence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121(20), 2307038121 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.07676 (2020)

    Schick, T., Sch¨ utze, H.: Exploiting cloze questions for few shot text classification and natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.07676 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp

    Lees, A., Tran, V.Q., Tay, Y., Sorensen, J., Gupta, J., Metzler, D., Vasserman, L.: A new generation of perspective api: Efficient multilingual character-level transformers. In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 3197–3207 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol

    Hua, Y., Ristenpart, T., Naaman, M.: Towards measuring adversarial twitter interactions against candidates in the us midterm elections. In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol. 14, pp. 272–282 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    In: Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, pp

    Saveski, M., Roy, B., Roy, D.: The structure of toxic conversations on twitter. In: Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, pp. 1086–1097 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp

    Nobata, C., Tetreault, J., Thomas, A., Mehdad, Y., Chang, Y.: Abusive language detection 27 in online user content. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 145–153 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    Academy of management review 14(1), 20–39 (1989)

    Ashforth, B.E., Mael, F.: Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of management review 14(1), 20–39 (1989)

    1989

  39. [47]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.01257

    Wang, Z., Bukharin, A., Delalleau, O., Egert, D., Shen, G., Zeng, J., Kuchaiev, O., Dong, Y.: HelpSteer2-Preference: Complementing Ratings with Preferences (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.01257

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16819 (2024)

    Parmar, J., Prabhumoye, S., Jennings, J., Patwary, M., Subramanian, S., Su, D., Zhu, C., Narayanan, D., Jhunjhunwala, A., Dattagupta, A., et al.: Nemotron-4 15b technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16819 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    EPJ Data Science 10(1), 4 (2021)

    Gallagher, R.J., Frank, M.R., Mitchell, L., Schwartz, A.J., Reagan, A.J., Danforth, C.M., Dodds, P.S.: Generalized word shift graphs: a method for visualizing and explaining pairwise comparisons between texts. EPJ Data Science 10(1), 4 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    The annals of mathematical statistics, 50–60 (1947)

    Mann, H.B., Whitney, D.R.: On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. The annals of mathematical statistics, 50–60 (1947)

    1947

  43. [51]

    Communication & Sport 11(2), 402–430 (2023)

    Kearns, C., Sinclair, G., Black, J., Doidge, M., Fletcher, T., Kilvington, D., Liston, K., Lynn, T., Rosati, P.: A scoping review of research on online hate and sport. Communication & Sport 11(2), 402–430 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    In: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp

    Beres, N.A., Frommel, J., Reid, E., Mandryk, R.L., Klarkowski, M.: Don’t you know that you’re toxic: Normalization of toxicity in online gaming. In: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–15 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Contributo Allo Studio delle Distribuzioni e delle Relazioni Statistiche

    Gini, C.: Variabilit `a e Mutabilit `a. Contributo Allo Studio delle Distribuzioni e delle Relazioni Statistiche. Tipografia di P. Cuppini, Bologna (1912)

    1912

  46. [54]

    Ethnologia Europaea 18(1), 149–160 (1988)

    Tak, H.: Changing campanilismo. Ethnologia Europaea 18(1), 149–160 (1988)

    1988

  47. [55]

    stereotypes and prejudices between northern and southern italy

    Villano, P., Passini, S.: Competent in the north, passionate in the south. stereotypes and prejudices between northern and southern italy. Psicologia sociale13(2), 91–106 (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    Office of Management and Budget: Revisions to the Standards for the Classifi- cation of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity

    U.S. Office of Management and Budget: Revisions to the Standards for the Classifi- cation of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-1997-10-30/pdf/97-28653.pdf. Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 210, October 30, 1997 (1997)

    1997

  49. [57]

    https://www

    Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT): Annuario statistico italiano 2023. https://www. istat.it/storage/ASI/2023/ASI 2023.pdf. Edizione n. 145, Roma (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol

    Silva, L., Mondal, M., Correa, D., Benevenuto, F., Weber, I.: Analyzing the targets of hate in online social media. In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol. 10, pp. 687–690 (2016) 28

    2016

  51. [59]

    spiral of silence

    Chaudhry, I., Gruzd, A.: Expressing and challenging racist discourse on facebook: How social media weaken the “spiral of silence” theory. Policy & Internet 12(1), 88–108 (2020)

    2020

  52. [60]

    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health15(10), 2133 (2018)

    Aparicio-Garc ´ıa, M.E., D ´ıaz-Ramiro, E.M., Rubio-Valdehita, S., L ´opez-N´ u˜nez, M.I., Garc´ıa-Nieto, I.: Health and well-being of cisgender, transgender and non-binary young people. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health15(10), 2133 (2018)

    2018

  53. [61]

    International Review of Psychiatry28(1), 95–102 (2016)

    Richards, C., Bouman, W.P., Seal, L., Barker, M.J., Nieder, T.O., T’Sjoen, G.: Non-binary or genderqueer genders. International Review of Psychiatry28(1), 95–102 (2016)

    2016

  54. [62]

    Social Science Computer Review 39(2), 245–258 (2021)

    Nadim, M., Fladmoe, A.: Silencing women? gender and online harassment. Social Science Computer Review 39(2), 245–258 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    Perspectives on Politics 21(3), 896–912 (2023) 29

    Erikson, J., H ˚akansson, S., Josefsson, C.: Three dimensions of gendered online abuse: Analyzing swedish mps’ experiences of social media. Perspectives on Politics 21(3), 896–912 (2023) 29

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.