Hate

Hostile rhetoric toward social groups can normalize exclusion and justify mistreatment, as well as contribute to rising polarization and political violence. Efforts to moderate hostile rhetoric in online speech draw on foundational theories in social and moral psychology, and political science. However, these theories were developed largely in parallel, often propose different and sometimes conflicting accounts of how hostility develops, and have rarely been tested against each other in real discourse. The result is a fragmented understanding of the rhetorical mechanisms of hostility, without a clear sense of how they appear, and relate to each other, in real-world discourse. Using 2.86 million posts from TikTok, Truth Social, and Twitter/X during the 2024 U.S. presidential election, we model the mechanisms of six foundational theories of intergroup hostility -- boundary construction, threat construction, scapegoating, negative evaluation, dehumanization, and action orientation -- within a common empirical framework to recover the broader organization of intergroup hostility rhetoric. Structurally, we find that boundary construction and threat construction anchor the system; temporally, we find that these mechanisms tend to follow a regular ordering: boundary construction, derogation, and action orientation tend to appear early; dehumanization and threat construction later; scapegoating latest. Mapping how these theoretical frameworks actually manifest in discourse bridges longstanding divisions across social science traditions and presents computational social science with a clearer empirical foundation for modeling intergroup hostility rhetoric beyond single-label detection.

Hateful memes spread abusive content through implicit interactions between images and text, posing serious threats to the safety of online communities. In recent years, multimodal large language models have been widely used for hateful meme detection and are increasingly adopted to generate explainable detection results. However, we find that existing explain-then-detect methods often couple explanation generation and label prediction within the same training process. This coupling causes interference between task objectives, leading to limited detection performance and even worse results than simple SFT baselines. To address these challenges, we propose ProKDA, a progressive knowledge-to-decision alignment method for explainable hateful meme detection. Inspired by the human annotation training process, ProKDA first uses an agentic background knowledge construction pipeline to obtain external knowledge related to meme understanding. It then adopts a three-stage training strategy that sequentially performs background knowledge learning, hatefulness detection learning, and hatefulness boundary alignment. Unlike prior explain-then-detect methods that jointly optimize both tasks, ProKDA focuses on a single training objective at each stage. This design reduces interference between the two tasks and progressively transforms background knowledge into robust detection decisions. Experiments on three public hateful meme benchmarks show that ProKDA achieves state-of-the-art detection performance and provides accurate, explainable, and evidence-supported decisions for hateful meme moderation. Project page: https://meizhiyuan88666.github.io/prokda.

We introduce ParsHate, a manually annotated dataset of 10,000 Persian tweets spanning 2013-2022, representing the first decade-long benchmark for hate speech detection in Persian. The dataset contains 31% hateful content and supports both hate detection and multi-label fine-grained target identification across seven structured target categories. ParsHate also distinguishes explicit and implicit hate, marks explicit and implicit targets, and provides span-level rationales. Data collection combines random and score-stratified temporal sampling to reduce keyword-driven bias while preserving natural label distributions. Applying SOTA models for Persian hate-speech detection on ParsHate shows moderate performance (79% F1), especially with samples from earlier years, and low performance with target identification (25.5% macro-F1). This emphasizes the diverse sampling of hate speech in ParsHate and its challenging nature that requires more advanced methods for better performance. Dataset is made publicly available.

Picture books and comics have long been used to disseminate hateful narratives because they are easily understood even by children, as exemplified by the notorious Nazi propaganda picture book \emph{Der Giftpilz}. Recently, frontier text-to-image (T2I) systems such as Gemini and GPT-Image have enabled conversational generation with consistent characters and scenes across turns, making hateful visual stories, namely ordered image groups that collectively convey hateful narratives, cheap and scalable to produce. Although prior work has studied hateful content generation by T2I systems, it focuses on individual images, leaving group-level hateful meaning largely unexplored. We aim to address the gap. Concretely, we introduce \texttt{HatefulStoryPrompts}, comprising 330 multi-turn configurations from 55 hateful stories across two languages and three visual styles, and evaluate five frontier models over 4,950 attempts. Every model completes over 80% of the stories, with the strongest reaching 99.0%. We further evaluate existing moderation systems on \texttt{HatefulVisualStory}, a human-labeled dataset of 969 hateful image sets and 990 benign controls, and find that they frequently miss group-level hateful meaning: dedicated safety models achieve at most 34.9% recall, while a strong vision-language model reaches 67.5%. Finally, we propose complementary proactive and post-generation defenses. An interaction-aware monitor achieves 97.3% recall for prompt-only sessions and 92.6% when the user supplies the first image, while post-generation methods jointly analyzing completed image groups reach 80.2%. Our work shows that, as image generation evolves from isolated outputs to coherent visual narratives, safety must evolve accordingly, from per-image moderation to stateful reasoning over interactions and image relationships.

Hateful memes are a growing form of multimodal online harm, where hostile intent is often conveyed through the joint interpretation of images, text, cultural references, and implicit targets. While hateful meme detection has advanced in high-resource languages, Arabic remains underexplored, with existing meme resources focusing mainly on propaganda or coarse harmful-content labels. We introduce AHA-Memes (Arabic HAteful Memes), which is, to our knowledge, the first large-scale Arabic hateful meme benchmark with fine-grained, multi-label annotations. The dataset includes 5K manually annotated memes using a taxonomy that captures hate types, i.e., attack strategies. We further provide ~66K silver-labeled memes to support future studies. We benchmark text-only, image-only, and late-fusion multimodal models, as well as few-shot in-context learning (ICL) and open- and closed-weight Vision-Language Models (VLMs) under zero-shot and fine-tuning settings. Our results establish strong baselines and highlight key challenges in culturally grounded Arabic hateful meme detection. We release the dataset, annotation guidelines, and evaluation scripts to support future research. WARNING: This paper contains examples that may be disturbing to readers.

Hateful optical illusions expose a serious gap in current multimodal safety systems. On original-view hateful illusions, previous work shows that six moderation classifiers achieve at most 20.9 to 24.5% accuracy and nine state-of-the-art VLMs remain at or below 10.2% with illusion-aware prompting, leaving most hidden hate undetected. We formulate hidden hateful illusion detection as a perceptual retrieval problem and propose Adaptive View Retrieval. This retrieve-and-calibrate framework assembles a complementary view bank for the image and hidden-message templates, adaptively selects which views to trust, retrieves hidden-message identities, and calibrates whether the recovered evidence is harmful. On HatefulIllusion with a frozen CLIP encoder, Adaptive View Retrieval reaches 93.2% balanced accuracy on the held-out test split. It substantially outperforms original-view baselines and fixed single-transform filters across hate slangs, hate symbols, and visibility levels. The same design also surpasses official fine-tuned CLIP baselines, matches or exceeds human performance on IllusionMNIST, IllusionFashionMNIST, and IllusionAnimals, and outperforms zoom-out preprocessing on HC-Bench under the SemVink protocol. Together, these results show that robust multimodal moderation requires recovering hidden meaning before deciding whether it is harmful.

State-backed influence operations are routinely measured as high-prevalence sources of hate'' and toxicity.'' We argue those rates rest on a measurement error: the detectors behind them are validated to catch a broader definition inclusive of hostility or divisiveness aimed at an out-group, and so over-attribute hate to content better described as partisan or geopolitical invective. Across 25.08M tweets from seven government-attributed campaigns in the Twitter Information Operations archive (8,275 accounts), we separate hate from the other forms of divisiveness. We first validate a two-prompt LLM-based detector, matching human labels at Cohen's $κ=0.82$, to identify the broader hostility; we then develop an auditable rule, agreeing with an expert at $κ=0.52$, to further classify this content (5,457 posts) into three sub-categories. About 50.1% are identity-based attacks on people, whereas 30.4% are partisan attacks and 19.5% invective against states and their foreign policy. Reporting all of it as hate therefore overstates hate roughly twofold; only 18.7% is both identity-based and dehumanizing or inciting. Six of seven campaigns sort into three regimes that a single ``hate'' rate flattens, namely identity hate (RU-op and IRA, both Russia-attributed), geopolitical invective (both Iran operations), and partisan divisiveness (both Venezuela operations). We call the shared product $manufactured divisiveness$. The line to separate these constructs itself remains unsettled: on the hardest cases three independent human experts agree only moderately (pairwise $κ=0.37$--$0.50$), and the best of nineteen LLM models tops out at $κ=0.601$ against the experts' majority. Our findings can help redefine the study of hate in the context of influence campaigns and broader online discourse.

Online hate speech and misinformation frequently overlap, yet NLP research has mainly treated them in isolation. While LLMs represent a scalable solution for assisting humans in the generation of counterspeech for both threats, zero-shot models frequently generate repetitive and vague responses, underscoring the need for high-quality examples to steer model generation. However, existing counterspeech datasets against the overlap of hate and misinformation are scarce and limited to single-turn English dialogues, while real-life interactions span across multiple turns and languages. To bridge this gap, we introduce the first large-scale, expert-curated, multilingual dataset of dialogues tackling the intersection of hate and misinformation. To ensure factual grounding, the dialogues are also anchored in verified external knowledge (i.e., fact-checking articles and NGO reports) and include document- and chunk-level span annotations, making it directly applicable for RAG systems. Covering five languages and targeting hate directed at seven marginalized groups, this novel resource enables the training and evaluation of more persuasive, factually grounded counterspeech models.

Hateful and propagandistic memes exploit the interplay between images and text to convey harmful intent that neither modality reveals alone. Although thinking-based multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have advanced vision-language understanding, their application to meme content moderation remains underexplored. We propose a reinforcement learning-based post-training method that improves classification performance and reference-based explanation quality in thinking-based MLLMs via task-specific rewards and Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). Concretely, we (i) conduct a systematic empirical study of off-the-shelf MLLMs for hateful and propagandistic meme understanding across English and Arabic benchmarks, (ii) extend existing meme datasets with weakly supervised chain-of-thought (CoT) rationales via distillation and multi-LLM fine-grained propaganda annotations, (iii) introduce a GRPO-based objective with thinking-length regularization that jointly optimizes classification accuracy and explanation quality, and (iv) investigate self-supervised GRPO on unlabeled memes using consensus-based pseudo-labels. Experiments on the Hateful Memes and ArMeme benchmarks show that our approach improves over previously reported results on FHM accuracy (up to +2.1%, from 79.9% to 82.0%) and on ArMeme macro-F1 (up to +7.6 points, from 0.536 to 0.612 with explanations; +6.1 compared to the original ArMeme benchmark), while also generating natural-language explanations. On ArMeme, sequence-classification baselines remain stronger in terms of raw accuracy, whereas our approach provides more balanced per-class performance along with explanations. We publicly release our code, data extensions, and evaluation resources.

Hateful videos have become prevalent on online platforms, highlighting an urgent need for effective detection. However, existing studies primarily focus on binary classification and fail to provide contextual rationales that reveal the implicit meanings behind these judgments, significantly undermining model explainability. To fill this gap, we aim to achieve explainable hateful video detection, enabling models to provide contextual rationales that integrate relevant evidence and logical reasoning alongside decisions. This approach can comprehensively enhance the understanding of video content and the explainability of the decision-making process. We first introduce two datasets, Ex-HateMM and Ex-ImpliHateVid, for explainable hateful video detection. Each dataset provides fine-grained annotations of multimodal harmful elements, along with contextual rationales. We then propose an Information Augmentation and Reasoning Enhancement (IARE) framework designed for explainable detection. The framework employs an information augmentation phase that leverages the multimodal chain-of-thought to integrate harmful elements, thereby enriching rationale evidence. Additionally, IARE incorporates a reasoning enhancement phase, in which Direct Preference Optimization guides the model toward correct reasoning paths and away from incorrect ones, thereby improving the logical coherence of its justifications. We conduct extensive experiments on the two datasets, comparing multiple baselines with our proposed IARE framework. The results demonstrate that IARE achieves state-of-the-art performance while also generating accurate rationales.

Handling toxic retrieval in text-to-audio systems is challenging due to contextual dependencies. Existing strategies (e.g., rephrasing, summarization) risk altering intent or omitting details. We propose a post hoc causal debiasing framework with a sentiment-controlled mediator to preserve semantic relevance while suppressing harmful speech. Our approach is model-agnostic and integrates seamlessly with existing retrieval pipelines. We introduce two variants: Forgive, which re-ranks and filters toxic audio via logit adjustment, and Forget, which generates counterfactual toxic prompts to mitigate harmful retrievals. Experiments show consistent toxicity reduction with minimal loss in retrieval accuracy, improving both safety and reliability.

Faithful modeling of hateful content propagation on online platforms remains an open problem for moderation research. Classical cascade models that do not explicitly represent the profile, community, and content factors associated with hateful-content propagation may yield moderation strategies that behave less effectively when deployed in real-world scenarios. Multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems can, in principle, make each reshare decision depend on the user's profile, the surrounding community, and the post's content, but it remains unclear whether this added flexibility actually reproduces real hateful cascades more faithfully than classical baselines. We study three hateful Bluesky cascades and a size-matched benign control. In the empirical Bluesky data, we found that: 97.4--99.7% of reposters take a hostile stance; toxicity-engagement homophily is higher on the diffusion tree than on the follower graph for hateful cascades; topology is star-like for the hateful cascades (most reposts come directly from the root) versus tree-like for the benign cascade (reposts propagate through multi-hop chains). In simulation, a multi-LLM-agent simulator reproduces the stance monoculture and the toxicity-delta direction. A structured ablation identifies agent heterogeneity as the leading fidelity factor, and amplifier targeting on dense networks yields 7.5--12.9% reduction at 5.7% benign collateral.

This paper describes our system for the EEUCA 2026 Shared Task on Understanding Toxic Behavior in Gaming Communities. The task involves classifying World of Tanks chat messages into six toxicity categories: Non-toxic, Insults/Flaming, Other Offensive, Hate/Harassment, Threats, and Extremism. We explore multiple approaches including encoder-based models, instruction-tuned LLMs with LoRA fine-tuning, hierarchical classification, one-vs-rest strategies, and various ensemble methods. Our best system combines Llama 3.1 8B with carefully calibrated 5% synthetic data augmentation, achieving an F1-macro score of 0.6234 on the test set, placing 4th out of 35 participating teams. We provide extensive analysis of the dataset's annotation patterns and their impact on model generalization, revealing a critical ''validation trap'' phenomenon where high validation performance correlates with poor test transfer.

Information disorder is a challenging phenomenon that affects society at large. This phenomenon entails the diffusion of misleading, misinforming, and hateful content online. In different contexts, one aspect of the problem may prevail, but overall, this is a broad problem that requires comprehensive solutions. While each dimension of the problem (hate speech, disinformation, misinformation, etc.) requires in-depth analysis, in this paper, we look into the possibility of argument structure to provide relevant information to link these different areas of the problem. In particular, we focus on the WSF-ARG+ dataset, which consists of white supremacy forum messages annotated in terms of argument structure (premises and conclusion). There, we leverage the checkworthiness and hatefulness annotations of the argument components to obtain insights into the hatefulness of the whole message. Our results show promising insights (up to 96% F1), indicating the possibility of extending this direction in the future to tackle hateful content identification and information disorder countering.

Online hate speech is associated with harms ranging from deteriorating mental health to violence, yet how consistently platforms moderate hate, and whether enforcement is feasible at scale, remain poorly understood. We audit hate speech moderation on Twitter (now X) using 540,000 tweets annotated by trained native speakers, representative of a full day on the platform. Five months after posting, 80% of hateful tweets, including violent ones, remained online. Removal was only marginally more likely than for non-hateful tweets, far below scams or adult content, and insensitive to severity and reach. Automated detection could not reliably classify hate but ranked it highly, enabling human triage. Simulating this workflow, current staffing curbed little exposure, yet substantial reductions proved financially feasible, far below applicable regulatory fines. Persistent hate reflects resource allocation, not technical limits.

Hateful content online is often expressed using fact-like, not necessarily correct information, especially in coordinated online harassment campaigns and extremist propaganda. Failing to jointly address hate speech (HS) and misinformation can deepen prejudice, reinforce harmful stereotypes, and expose bystanders to psychological distress, while polluting public debate. Moreover, these messages require more effort from content moderators because they must assess both harmfulness and veracity, i.e., fact-check them. To address this challenge, we release WSF-ARG+, the first dataset which combines hate speech with check-worthiness information. We also introduce a novel LLM-in-the-loop framework to facilitate the annotation of check-worthy claims. We run our framework, testing it with 12 open-weight LLMs of different sizes and architectures. We validate it through extensive human evaluation, and show that our LLM-in-the-loop framework reduces human effort without compromising the annotation quality of the data. Finally, we show that HS messages with check-worthy claims show significantly higher harassment and hate, and that incorporating check-worthiness labels improves LLM-based HS detection up to 0.213 macro-F1 and to 0.154 macro-F1 on average for large models.