Counterspeech is a targeted response to counteract and challenge abusive or hateful content. It effectively curbs the spread of hatred and fosters constructive online communication. Previous studies have proposed different strategies for automatically generated counterspeech. Evaluations, however, focus on relevance, surface form, and other shallow linguistic characteristics. This paper investigates the human likeness of AI-generated counterspeech, a critical factor influencing effectiveness. We implement and evaluate several LLM-based generation strategies, and discover that AI-generated and human-written counterspeech can be easily distinguished by both simple classifiers and humans. Further, we reveal differences in linguistic characteristics, politeness, and specificity. The dataset used in this study is publicly available for further research.

Automatic counterspeech generation methods have been developed to assist efforts in combating hate speech. Existing research focuses on generating counterspeech with linguistic attributes such as being polite, informative, and intent-driven. However, the real impact of counterspeech in online environments is seldom considered. This study aims to develop methods for generating counterspeech constrained by conversation outcomes and evaluate their effectiveness. We experiment with large language models (LLMs) to incorporate into the text generation process two desired conversation outcomes: low conversation incivility and non-hateful hater reentry. Specifically, we experiment with instruction prompts, LLM finetuning, and LLM reinforcement learning (RL). Evaluation results show that our methods effectively steer the generation of counterspeech toward the desired outcomes. Our analyses, however, show that there are differences in the quality and style depending on the model.

Countering rather than censoring hate speech has emerged as a promising strategy to address hatred. There are many types of counterspeech in user-generated content: addressing the hateful content or its author, generic requests, well-reasoned counter arguments, insults, etc. The effectiveness of counterspeech, which we define as subsequent incivility, depends on these types. In this paper, we present a theoretically grounded taxonomy of replies to hate speech and a new corpus. We work with real, user-generated hate speech and all the replies it elicits rather than replies generated by a third party. Our analyses provide insights into the content real users reply with as well as which replies are empirically most effective. We also experiment with models to characterize the replies to hate speech, thereby opening the door to estimating whether a reply to hate speech will result in further incivility.

Hate speech is plaguing the cyberspace along with user-generated content. Adding counter speech has become an effective way to combat hate speech online. Existing datasets and models target either (a) hate speech or (b) hate and counter speech but disregard the context. This paper investigates the role of context in the annotation and detection of online hate and counter speech, where context is defined as the preceding comment in a conversation thread. We created a context-aware dataset for a 3-way classification task on Reddit comments: hate speech, counter speech, or neutral. Our analyses indicate that context is critical to identify hate and counter speech: human judgments change for most comments depending on whether we show annotators the context. A linguistic analysis draws insights into the language people use to express hate and counter speech. Experimental results show that neural networks obtain significantly better results if context is taken into account. We also present qualitative error analyses shedding light into (a) when and why context is beneficial and (b) the remaining errors made by our best model when context is taken into account.