Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 97 references

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

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-05-15 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Bystanders perceive counterspeech bots as credible and normative, though shallow reasoning limits persuasiveness and behavioral effects depend on the strategy used.

desk verdict The paper shows Civilbot gets rated credible by bystanders with subtle strategy-dependent behavioral shifts, but the within-subjects simulation likely inflates those ratings through demand effects. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.03687 v1 submitted 2026-03-04 cs.HC

Mengyao Wang , Shuai Ma , Nuo Li , Peng Zhang , Chenxin Li , Ning Gu , Tun Lu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords counterspeechbotsbystanderinfluenceonlinecommunitieshatespeechcivilbotstrategyframeworknormativeeffects
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

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.

What carries the argument

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

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.

Watch

Extended reading notes

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.

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.

Editorial extensions

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.

Reading between the lines

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.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

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 · score 0.0 of 10

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.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 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.

assumptions (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.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Echoes of Norms: Investigating Counterspeech Bots' Influence on Bystanders in Online Communities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2603.03687

@misc{pith2026260303687,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Echoes of Norms: Investigating Counterspeech Bots' Influence on Bystanders in Online Communities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2603.03687}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.03687}
}
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.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.03687 by the authors.

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. 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. 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 ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
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]
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]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of participants’ interactions across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 97 canonical work pages

  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

Show all 97 references
  1. [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

    2025 doi

  2. [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

    2017 doi

  3. [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

    1981 doi

  4. [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 202...

    2021 doi

  5. [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 fo...

    2024 doi

  6. [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

    2022

  7. [15]

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

    2023 doi

  8. [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 ...

    2017 doi

  9. [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

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

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

  11. [19]

    InProceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Anna Korho- nen, David Traum, and Lluís Màrquez (Eds.)

    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...

    doi

  12. [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 C...

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

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

    1992

  14. [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

    2024

  15. [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 ...

    2023 doi

  16. [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 ...

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    Wilhelm, Taufiq Daryanto, James Hawdon, Sang Won Lee, and Eugenia H

    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:2410.03...

    2025 doi

  18. [26]

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

    2022 doi

  19. [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 Ab...

    2023

  20. [28]

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

    1971 doi

  21. [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, ...

    2025 doi

  22. [30]

    1992.ANOV A

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

    1992 doi

  23. [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

    2022 doi

  24. [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 Machin...

    2024 doi

  25. [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 (CH...

    2022 doi

  26. [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...

    2023 doi

  27. [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 Networ...

    2023 doi

  28. [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

    2015 doi

  29. [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 Kar...

    2021 doi

  30. [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 Conf...

    2025 doi

  31. [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 Netwo...

    2022 doi

  32. [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

    2024 doi

  33. [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, ...

    2021 doi

  34. [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

    2019 doi

  35. [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...

    2024

  36. [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)

    2025

  37. [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). Associat...

    2022 doi

  38. [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

    2019 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

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

  40. [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

    2020 doi

  41. [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

    2014 doi

  42. [50]

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

    2018

  43. [51]

    2021.Democratic Speech in Divided Times

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

    2021

  44. [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:1...

    2025 doi

  45. [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,...

    2019

  46. [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

    2001 doi

  47. [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

    2018 doi arXiv

  48. [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 doi

  49. [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

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

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

  51. [59]

    InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24)

    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

    2024 doi

  52. [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

    2017

  53. [61]

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

    1974

  54. [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 Huma...

    2025

  55. [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

    1986

  56. [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

    2025 doi

  57. [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

    2024 doi

  58. [68]

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

  59. [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, V...

    2019 doi

  60. [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

    2016

  61. [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

    2024 doi

  62. [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

    2024 doi

  63. [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...

    2022 doi

  64. [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

    2023

  65. [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

    2021 doi

  66. [77]

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

    2016

  67. [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:10.11...

    2022 doi

  68. [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 Com...

    2017 doi

  69. [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

    2023 doi

  70. [81]

    Weissman, Nicolas Cheutin, and Andrew J

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

  71. [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

    2023 doi

  72. [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 Ps...

    2025 doi

  73. [84]

    Minhyang (Mia) Suh, Emily Youngblom, Michael Terry, and Carrie J Cai. 2021. AI as Social Glue: Uncovering the Roles of Deep Generative AI during Social Music Composition. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21). Association for ...

    2021 doi

  74. [85]

    Bazarova

    Samuel Hardman Taylor, Dominic DiFranzo, Yoon Hyung Choi, Shruti Sannon, and Natalya N. Bazarova. 2019. Accountability and Empathy by Design: En- couraging Bystander Intervention to Cyberbullying on Social Media.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.3, CSCW (Nov. 2019), 118:1–118:26...

    2019 doi

  75. [86]

    David R. Thomas. 2003. A General Inductive Approach for Qualitative Data Analysis. (2003)

    2003

  76. [87]

    2024.Counterspeech: Multidisci- plinary Perspectives on Countering Dangerous Speech

    Stefanie Ullmann and Marcus Tomalin (Eds.). 2024.Counterspeech: Multidisci- plinary Perspectives on Countering Dangerous Speech. Taylor & Francis

    2024

  77. [88]

    Bertie Vidgen, Austin Botelho, David Broniatowski, Ella Guest, Matthew Hall, Helen Margetts, Rebekah Tromble, Zeerak Waseem, and Scott Hale. 2020. Detect- ing East Asian Prejudice on Social Media. arXiv:2005.03909 doi:10.48550/arXiv. 2005.03909

    2020 doi

  78. [89]

    Wright, and Manuel Gámez-Guadix

    Sebastian Wachs, Norman Krause, Michelle F. Wright, and Manuel Gámez-Guadix

  79. [90]

    HateLess. Together against Hatred

    Effects of the Prevention Program “HateLess. Together against Hatred” on Adolescents’ Empathy, Self-efficacy, and Countering Hate Speech.Journal of Youth and Adolescence52, 6 (June 2023), 1115–1128. doi:10.1007/s10964-023- 01753-2

    2023 doi

  80. [91]

    Mengyao Wang, Jiayun Wu, Shuai Ma, Nuo Li, Peng Zhang, Ning Gu, and Tun Lu. 2025. Adaptive Human-Agent Teaming: A Review of Empirical Studies from the Process Dynamics Perspective. arXiv:2504.10918 [cs] doi:10.48550/arXiv.2504. 10918

    2025 doi

  81. [92]

    Brian Wilk, Homaira Huda Shomee, Suman Kalyan Maity, and Sourav Medya

  82. [93]

    In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025 (WWW ’25)

    Fact-Based Counter Narrative Generation to Combat Hate Speech. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025 (WWW ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3354–3365. doi:10.1145/3696410. 3714718

    2025 doi

  83. [94]

    Xinchen Yu, Eduardo Blanco, and Lingzi Hong. 2022. Hate Speech and Counter Speech Detection: Conversational Context Does Matter. arXiv:2206.06423 doi:10. 48550/arXiv.2206.06423

    2022

  84. [95]

    Chang, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Lucas Dixon, Yiqing Hua, Nithum Thain, and Dario Taraborelli

    Justine Zhang, Jonathan P. Chang, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Lucas Dixon, Yiqing Hua, Nithum Thain, and Dario Taraborelli. 2018. Conversations Gone Awry: Detecting Early Signs of Conversational Failure. arXiv:1805.05345 doi:10.48550/arXiv.1805.05345

    2018 doi arXiv

  85. [96]

    Qiaoning Zhang, Matthew L Lee, and Scott Carter. 2022. You Complete Me: Human-AI Teams and Complementary Expertise. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–28. doi:10.11...

    2022 doi

  86. [97]

    Cappella, Caryn Lerman, and Martin Fishbein

    Xiaoquan Zhao, Andrew Strasser, Joseph N. Cappella, Caryn Lerman, and Martin Fishbein. 2011. A Measure of Perceived Argument Strength: Reliability and Validity.Communication Methods and Measures5, 1 (March 2011), 48–75. doi:10. 1080/19312458.2010.547822

    2011

  87. [98]

    Yi Zheng, Björn Ross, and Walid Magdy. 2023. What Makes Good Counterspeech? A Comparison of Generation Approaches and Evaluation Metrics. InProceedings of the 1st Workshop on CounterSpeech for Online Abuse (CS4OA), Yi-Ling Chung, Helena Bonaldi, Gavin Abercrombie, and Marco Gu...

    2023

  88. [99]

    Jingyan Zhou, Jiawen Deng, Fei Mi, Yitong Li, Yasheng Wang, Minlie Huang, Xin Jiang, Qun Liu, and Helen Meng. 2022. Towards Identifying Social Bias in Dialog Systems: Framework, Dataset, and Benchmark. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, Yo...

    2022 doi

  89. [100]

    N/A” •issue: main topic (e.g., “STEM vs humanities

    Wanzheng Zhu and Suma Bhat. 2021. Generate, Prune, Select: A Pipeline for Counterspeech Generation against Online Hate Speech. arXiv:2106.01625 doi:10. 48550/arXiv.2106.01625 A Appendix A: Questionnaire The final questionnaire assessed bystanders’ responses on three dimensions...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed May 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.