#HOBBYHATERS: why are we still taking Twitter seriously?
JUNE 25, 2020 — JORDY NIJENHUIS & GUY DE PAUW
Twitter is regularly used to analyse social debate or public opinion. Think of trend watchers who are polling the opinion through social media on prime time TV, or tweets that are dragged in after the next riot, protest or outrage. The assumption is that the discussions on Twitter are decisive for the opinions that live in society. A crude, random selection of harsh tweets seem to be just as valuable as an extensive opinion poll.
“After all, the toxicity on the platform is increasing, while the nuanced twitterer is withdrawing from it.”
Due to the high level of online outrage, it is not surprising that social media is quickly referred to when we talk about the causes of polarisation. The partners of Project Grey - a collaboration between Movisie, Dare to be Grey, Textgain, PDCS and the Verwey-Jonker Institute - are therefore investigating the role of social media in polarising processes. This is done, among other things, by means of artificial intelligence. The developed algorithms independently search for patterns in data and give us more insight into the social themes that people discuss on social media and where signs of polarisation can be observed.
In this way, we have discovered the so-called 'hobby haters': a small group of active twitterers who have an opinion about anything and everything, proclaim and spread this opinion in a toxic way, and thus dominate the online debate. This raised the question for us: can, and should, we still take Twitter seriously in the social debate?
AN INCREASE IN HATE
Data analyses by Textgain have shown that there has been a clear increase in Dutch racist language on Twitter in the past two years. To measure this, a fixed list of 90 racist and hate speech terms were drawn up and monitored daily on Twitter. These terms range from "kill them all" to "backward race", to get the widest possible picture of toxic language on Twitter.
In previous research (Dutch) we have already established that the debate about Black Pete (a highly controversial character in Dutch culture) has become more toxic in recent years, but it now appears that the amount of toxic expressions on Twitter has also increased in absolute terms. This increase is striking, as there is a sharp decrease in the number of Twitter users. This indicates that the remaining twitter users have started to communicate in a more toxic fashion.
Where the number of toxic expressions per day in 2017 sporadically exceeded 500, we see that in 2019 there were regular outliers above 1,500. These peaks in hate speech can generally be linked to major social events, such as the cartoon competition of anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders, or the publication of the research on Islamic primary schools. The visualisation below shows this clear interaction between major political and social incidents and the online debate.
Interactive visualisation of the amount of toxic messages on Twitter, including some of the political and social incidents as triggers (September 2017 - September 2019), in Dutch.
HOBBY HATERS
A deeper analysis of the accounts of the top 1,000 most toxic twitterers shows that they seldom limit themselves to just one topic. They actually interfere with all debates. They do not share positive messages or other interests, and do nothing but hate. They are hobby haters, as it were. These twitterers get involved in the debate about migration, the EU, Islam, but are also busy with farmers' protests and complain about #zeiklozevrijdag (#dontcomplainonfriday) with the - somewhat obvious - message that they really do not participate.
The accounts seem to have the sole purpose of interfering in heated social debates and provoking as many responses as possible. The sources used by these profiles are also one-sided in their views and can be labeled as "alternative" media; news sites or opinion platforms with a clear political signature or distributors of fake news (such as: dagaalstandaard.nl, fenixx.news, top.nl, jdreport.com, briefjevanjan.nl, etc.).
The top-1000 hobby haters are active throughout the entire day. Most hate is being posted around noon.
Most hate is shared on Mondays and Sundays.
A NETWORK OF HATERS
The accounts of these twitterers are well connected: topics to hate on are discussed and toxic messages are shared. We also see that articles from the alternative media are doing well within this group; they are picked up and retweeted with ease. The shared hobby of these twitterers - hating - seems to be the reason why they reinforce each other's toxicity, but also the reason that fake news articles are widely distributed.
In the visualization below, we see a twitter account sharing a fake news article, surrounded by accounts that retweeted it. This Twitter bubble turns out to be a network of toxicity and "alternative facts" and ensures that such articles and toxic tweets are further distributed on Twitter. The fake news message "Asylum seekers centers cost millions of euros per month" from the Flemish alternative media site SCEPTR was only shared on Twitter 22 times, but was soon retweeted (227 times), including via an account of a Dutch (micro) influencer. This retweeting, through a network of haters allowed this message, with false information, to find its way into the newsfeed of 260,000 twitter users.
Network visualisation of the reach of the fake article “Asylum seekers centers cost millions of euros per month” (SCEPTR, 17/2/2020), the account of the (micro-)influencer is central in the spreading of the article in the left cluster
IMPACT ON DEMOCRACY
You could argue that all this is not very problematic; that the statements are within the framework of the law, that Twitter is just an outlet for these people, and that the impact of these tweets is minimal. Unfortunately, the opposite seems true. Recent research by the Utrecht Data School shows that a select group of active Dutch twitterers are able to leave a big mark on our democracy, and that topics that are brought up on Twitter are regularly mentioned by politicians and in the media. When these topics are based on information that is hateful and / or wrong (fake news), the impact on the social debate cannot be underestimated.
Using a tweet in an article or on the political stage is not the same as asking someone's opinion on the street. After all, the toxicity on the platform is increasing, while the nuanced twitterer is withdrawing from it. If we continue to view Twitter as a reflection of our society, it soon seems filled with hate and alternative news. Fortunately, reality is different: it is only a small vocal group that tries to draw attention to their hatred and thereby spoils the constructive and open social debate.
It is clear: angry tweets are not decisive for our society. It is therefore time that journalists and politicians stop quoting such tweets indiscriminately and that we - as news consumers - speak out against such practices. It is time for us to take Twitter a lot less seriously.
Want to discuss this opinion article, or submit your own?
Join us in the Grey Movement!