Multilingual Hate Speech Detection and Counterspeech Generation: A Comprehensive Survey and Practical Guide
Organizations: Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey · Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, Missouri, USA
Abstract
Combating online hate speech in multilingual settings requires approaches that go beyond English-centric models and capture the cultural and linguistic diversity of global online discourse. This paper presents a comprehensive survey and practical guide to multilingual hate speech detection and counterspeech generation, integrating recent advances in natural language processing. We analyze why monolingual systems often fail in non-English and code-mixed contexts, missing implicit hate and culturally specific expressions. To address these challenges, we outline a structured three-phase framework - task design, data curation, and evaluation - drawing on state-of-the-art datasets, models, and metrics. The survey consolidates progress in multilingual resources and techniques while highlighting persistent obstacles, including data scarcity in low-resource languages, fairness and bias in system development, and the need for multimodal solutions. By bridging technical progress with ethical and cultural considerations, we provide researchers, practitioners, and policymakers with scalable guidelines for building context-aware, inclusive systems. Our roadmap contributes to advancing online safety through fairer, more effective detection and counterspeech generation across diverse linguistic environments.
Figures & tables
| Text | "A nigr*** too dumb to f*** has a scant chance of understanding anything beyond the size of a d***." |
| Label | Hate |
| Targets | Women, African |
| Hate Speech | "Muslims conceived the slave trade." |
| Counterspeech | "Slavery long predated Islam; they inherited slavery and proceeded to improve conditions. Way ahead of the rest of the world." |
| Counter Type | Presentation of facts |
| Technique | Languages | Relevance to Task Design | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| BERT-based Classification | English, Arabic, German, Indonesian, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, French, Hindi, Urdu, Sindhi, Hinglish | Binary, multi-label tasks for diverse languages | ( Aluru et al., 2020 ; Siddiqui et al., 2024 ; Shukla et al., 2024 ) |
| Multi-aspect Classification | English, French, Arabic, Devanagari languages | Fine-grained tasks for directness, target, sentiment | ( Ousidhoum et al., 2019 ; Thapa et al., 2025 ) |
| Multi-label with Explainability | English, Urdu, Sindhi | Transparent multi-label tasks | ( Mathew et al., 2021 ; Siddiqui et al., 2024 ) |
| Multimodal Classification | English, German, Spanish, Hindi, Mandarin, Hinglish | Text-image, real-time tasks | ( Bui et al., 2024 ; Shukla et al., 2024 ) |
| Zero-shot Learning | English, Italian, Spanish, German, Arabic, Greek, Turkish | Cross-lingual tasks without target data | ( Nozza, 2021 ; Zia et al., 2022 ; Bigoulaeva et al., 2021 ) |
| Few-shot Learning | English, Norwegian, Arabic, Spanish, German, Italian, French, Portuguese | Low-resource tasks with minimal data | ( Mozafari et al., 2022 ; Hashmi et al., 2025 ) |
| Task/Technique | Languages | Relevance to Task Design | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classification | |||
| Nichesourcing Annotation | English, French, Italian | Classifying counter-narrative types (e.g., facts, humor) | Chung et al. (2019) ; Chung et al. (2021) |
| Generation | |||
| Targeted Fine-Tuning | English, Spanish | High-quality, argumentative response generation | Furman et al. (2023) ; Furman et al. (2022) |
| LLM Optimization | Basque, English, Italian, Spanish | Aligned, context-aware generation for low-resource languages | Wadhwa et al. (2024) ; Bennie et al. (2025) |
| Evaluation |
| Dataset | Languages | Size | Source/Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hindi-English Code-Mixed ( Bohra et al., 2018 ) | Hindi, English | 4,575 | Social media; code-mixed annotation |
| Amharic and Afaan Oromo Dataset ( Ababu et al., 2025 ) | Amharic, Afaan Oromo | 30,000 | Facebook, Twitter; expert annotation |
| HatEval ( Basile et al., 2019 ) | English, Spanish | 19,600 | Twitter; keyword monitoring |
| English-Norwegian Dataset ( Hashmi et al., 2025 ) | English, Norwegian | 1,043 | Twitter; Llama 3 annotation |
| LAHM ( Yadav et al., 2023a ) | English, Hindi, French, Arabic, German, Spanish | 300,000 | Twitter; semi-supervised annotation |
| AfriHate ( Muhammad et al., 2025 ) | 15 African languages | 90,437 | Social media; native speaker annotation |
| Dataset | Languages | Size | Source/Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| CONAN ( Chung et al., 2019 ) | English, French, Italian | 15,024 pairs | Social media; nichesourcing |
| MultiTarget CONAN ( Fanton et al., 2021 ) | English | 5,000 pairs | Social media; human-in-the-loop |
| ML-MTCONAN-KN ( Bonaldi et al., 2025 ) | Basque, English, Italian, Spanish | 2,384 triplets | MT-CONAN; translation |
| CONAN-EUS ( Bengoetxea et al., 2024 ) | Basque, Spanish | 13,308 pairs | CONAN; translation |
| IndicCONAN ( Sahoo et al., 2024 ) | Hindi, Indian English | 5,018 pairs | Social media; human-in-the-loop |
| Low-Resource ( Das et al., 2024 ) | Bengali, Hindi | 5,062 pairs | Twitter; crawling and annotation |
| Hybrid Metrics | Combine macro F1-score with functional testing for hate speech ( Röttger et al., 2022 ) and BLEU with human ratings for counterspeech ( Das et al., 2024 ; Sahoo et al., 2024 ) . This ensures both technical accuracy and contextual relevance, though balancing automated and human inputs is resource-intensive. |
| Cultural Relevance | Engage native speakers for annotations, as in Muhammad et al. (2025) ; Ababu et al. (2025) ; Bengoetxea et al. (2024) , to capture linguistic nuances. This enhances evaluation accuracy in diverse contexts but requires expert coordination. |
| Fairness and Transparency | Use FNED/FPED metrics ( Huang et al., 2020 ) and XAI techniques like LIME ( Siddiqui et al., 2024 ) to reduce bias and clarify model decisions. These promote equitable and interpretable systems, despite implementation complexity. |
| Standardized Tasks | Adopt shared tasks like HatEval ( Basile et al., 2019 ) for consistent evaluation across languages. This fosters comparability but may miss platform-specific variations. |
| Dynamic Updates | Update evaluation sets regularly ( Paz et al., 2020 ) to reflect evolving hate speech and counterspeech patterns. This maintains system relevance but demands ongoing data curation. |
Hate Speech Detection
Hate Speech Detection identifies hateful or abusive language, its targets and intent, to support safer and more accountable content moderation.
See all 100 papers