Counter-storytelling is a powerful mechanism people use to challenge dominant narratives. Unlike other forms of counterspeech that have been widely studied in computational social science, counter-storytelling has largely been overlooked. Counter-stories are difficult to detect automatically; they are relational (defined with respect to expressions of racial stereotypes) and structurally diverse (drawing on stories that describe lived experiences, witnessed events, exemplars, and hypotheticals). We introduce a first framework for detecting and characterizing counter-storytelling against racial stereotypes at scale. This includes (1) a three-dimensional taxonomy grounded in narratology and Critical Race Theory and (2) a multi-stage pipeline that identifies relational pairs of stereotypes and counter-stories in noisy Reddit discourse. Using this pipeline, we annotate 25,549 Reddit posts across 615 communities and identify 1,312 counter-stories. Our analysis shows that speaker identity and post context shape how counter-stories are told. For example, in-group writers favor first-person testimony, often adopting the role of self-reflective insiders. Our work shows how computational methods can scale qualitative approaches to identify and characterize counter-storytelling as a contextual narrative practice, with implications for content moderation, narratology, and racial discourse analysis.

Counterspeech, i.e., responses to counteract potential harms of hateful speech, has become an increasingly popular solution to address online hate speech without censorship. However, properly countering hateful language requires countering and dispelling the underlying inaccurate stereotypes implied by such language. In this work, we draw from psychology and philosophy literature to craft six psychologically inspired strategies to challenge the underlying stereotypical implications of hateful language. We first examine the convincingness of each of these strategies through a user study, and then compare their usages in both human- and machine-generated counterspeech datasets. Our results show that human-written counterspeech uses countering strategies that are more specific to the implied stereotype (e.g., counter examples to the stereotype, external factors about the stereotype’s origins), whereas machine-generated counterspeech uses less specific strategies (e.g., generally denouncing the hatefulness of speech). Furthermore, machine generated counterspeech often employs strategies that humans deem less convincing compared to human-produced counterspeech. Our findings point to the importance of accounting for the underlying stereotypical implications of speech when generating counterspeech and for better machine reasoning about anti-stereotypical examples.

Riveter provides a complete easy-to-use pipeline for analyzing verb connotations associated with entities in text corpora. We prepopulate the package with connotation frames of sentiment, power, and agency, which have demonstrated usefulness for capturing social phenomena, such as gender bias, in a broad range of corpora. For decades, lexical frameworks have been foundational tools in computational social science, digital humanities, and natural language processing, facilitating multifaceted analysis of text corpora. But working with verb-centric lexica specifically requires natural language processing skills, reducing their accessibility to other researchers. By organizing the language processing pipeline, providing complete lexicon scores and visualizations for all entities in a corpus, and providing functionality for users to target specific research questions, Riveter greatly improves the accessibility of verb lexica and can facilitate a broad range of future research.