Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 1910.01214

Annotating Antisemitic Online Content. Towards an Applicable Definition of Antisemitism

Abstract

Online antisemitism is hard to quantify. How can it be measured in rapidly growing and diversifying platforms? Are the numbers of antisemitic messages rising proportionally to other content or is it the case that the share of antisemitic content is increasing? How does such content travel and what are reactions to it? How widespread is online Jew-hatred beyond infamous websites and fora, and closed social media groups? However, at the root of many methodological questions is the challenge of finding a consistent way to identify diverse manifestations of antisemitism in large datasets. What is more, a clear definition is essential for building an annotated corpus that can be used as a gold standard for machine learning programs to detect antisemitic online content. We argue that antisemitic content has distinct features that are not captured adequately in generic approaches of annotation, such as hate speech, abusive language, or toxic language. We discuss our experiences with annotating samples from our dataset that draw on a ten percent random sample of public tweets from Twitter. We show that the widely used definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance can be applied successfully to online messages if inferences are spelled out in detail and if the focus is not on intent of the disseminator but on the message in its context. However, annotators have to be highly trained and knowledgeable about current events to understand each tweet's underlying message within its context. The tentative results of the annotation of two of our small but randomly chosen samples suggest that more than ten percent of conversations on Twitter about Jews and Israel are antisemitic or probably antisemitic. They also show that at least in conversations about Jews, an equally high number of tweets denounce antisemitism, although these conversations do not necessarily coincide.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Gunther Jikeli, Damir Cavar, Daniel Miehling. 2019-09-29. Annotating Antisemitic Online Content. Towards an Applicable Definition of Antisemitism. https://doi.org/10.5967/3r3m-na89

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Political Persuasion and Endorsement in Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed as proxies for human behavior in computational social science. However, their tendency to internalize biases from training data raises concerns about their reliability in politically sensitive domains, specifically regarding their endorsement of persuasive language. In this work, we examine whether LLMs endorse persuasion-infused messages and whether partisan persona prompting modulates such endorsement. We evaluate six LLMs from different geographic regions on content annotated with persuasion techniques drawn from real-world media sources, measuring the likelihood of endorsement using a five-point Likert scale. The models are prompted as either a neutral social media user or as a user with left- or right-leaning political views. Results show that, without political conditioning, LLMs generally do not endorse messages containing persuasion techniques, although model-level differences emerge, and that partisan persona prompting increases polarization of endorsement, particularly for persuasion-infused content. Endorsement further varies across persuasion techniques and topics. These findings reveal how political conditioning influences LLMs' endorsement behavior toward persuasion-infused content, raising concerns about their deployment as agents in politically sensitive environments and complicating their use as reliable simulators of human political cognition.

cs.CY

When Technically Plausible Advice Is Unsafe: A Cross-Ecosystem Measurement of Online Support for Technology-Facilitated Abuse

Technology-facilitated abuse (TFA) creates an adversarial setting where sound cybersecurity advice can be unsafe: changing credentials or resetting devices may alert an abuser, destroy evidence, or increase escalation risk. Victims seek guidance from search engines, peer forums, and conversational AI, often evaluated for relevance and correctness rather than contextual safety. We measure whether these sources meet victims' needs. From a decade of r/Stalking narratives, we construct 2,797 victim-derived queries spanning 11 misuse categories. We analyze 27,162 Google webpages, 2,476 Reddit query--thread responses, and 250 responses from three general-purpose LLMs and two survivor-support chatbots. Our framework measures technical quality and damaging guidance, plus secondary-link integrity on webpages, toxicity on Reddit, and trauma-informed support in conversational systems. We find failures & risks that relevance, accuracy, or actionability alone do not capture. Web Search and conversational systems frequently return relevant information; Reddit responses are less consistently relevant and actionable. In our evaluated accuracy sample, 17.3% of webpages, 13.3% of Reddit threads, and 19.6% of conversational AI responses contained damaging guidance. Further, 65.5% of victim queries led to a webpage with a secondary URL flagged by multiple VirusTotal engines, over 20% received a toxic Reddit comment, and every conversational system produced guidance that overlooked escalation risk. Specialization did not guarantee better support: HopeChat underperformed general-purpose LLMs on several dimensions, while Ruth remained limited in trauma-informed support. These findings expose a gap between technical quality and contextual safety. Safe TFA assistance requires risk-aware recommendations, trustworthy sources, uncertainty communication, and human support, beyond technically plausible answers.

cs.CY

Auditing Institutional Heterogeneity for Generative AI in Patient Education: A Large-Scale Study of 102 US Transplant Handbooks

Health systems are rapidly deploying generative-AI assistants that answer patient questions from institution-authored education materials, on the premise that grounding in local content yields consistent guidance. Do the underlying documents themselves agree? We use a structured-output large-language-model judge to audit 1{,}772{,}261 pairwise comparisons across 102 patient-education handbooks from 23 US solid-organ transplant centers, paired with 1{,}115 patient-derived questions (TransplantQA). Four findings bear directly on deployment: (1) same-center cross-organ agreement exceeds cross-center same-organ agreement by $0.024$ in the primary analysis (Holm-adjusted $p=0.011$), with sensitivity to document selection; (2) information gaps concern topics relevant to underrepresented subgroups, with reproductive health a \emph{double jeopardy}: 82\% absence and 86\% judge-rated high significance among divergent/contradictory pairs; (3) judge-derived themes form 991 clusters, with immunosuppression and pregnancy timing among the highest judge-rated priorities; (4) question and observed-coverage features predict high-divergence questions retrospectively (AUC $0.77$). We discuss implications for deploying patient-facing generative AI in transplant care.

cs.CY