Hate speech as a form of entertainment: an unexpected support for the gratification hypothesis on Twitter

References

• Alsalem, F. (2019). Why do they post? Motivations and uses of Snapchat, Instagram and Twitter among Kuwaiti college students. Media Watch, 10(3), 550–567. doi:10.15655/mw/2019/v10i3/49699
   Google Scholar
• Artz, J. (1996). Computers and the quality of life: Assessing flow in information systems. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 26(3), 7–12. doi:10.1145/606032.606033
   Google Scholar
• Barberá, P. (2014). Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Political Analysis, 23(1), 76–91. doi:10.1093/pan/mpu011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blumler, J. G., & Katz, E. (1974). The uses of mass communication: Current perspectives on gratifications research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Bosshart, L., & Macconi, I. (1998). Defining “entertainment. Communication Research Trends, 18(3), 3–6.
   Google Scholar
• Bryant, J., & Miron, D. (2004). Theory and research in mass communication. Journal of Communication, 54(4), 662–704. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02650.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cahill, M., Migacheva, K., Taylor, J., Williams, M., Burnap, P. … Sutherland, A. (2019). Understanding online hate speech as a motivator and predictor of hate crime (p. 304532). RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Chung, D. S., & Yoo, C. Y. (2008). Audience motivations for using interactive features: Distinguishing use of different types of interactivity on an online newspaper. Mass Communication and Society, 11(4), 375–397. doi:10.1080/15205430701791048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conover, M. D., Goncalves, B., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2012). Partisan asymmetries in online political activity. EPJ Data Science, 1(1), 1–19. doi:10.1140/epjds6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conover, M. D., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Goncalves, B., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2011). Political polarization on Twitter. Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Menlo Park, California.
   Google Scholar
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Perennial.
   Google Scholar
• Denham, B. E. (2004). Toward an explication of media enjoyment: The synergy of social norms, viewing situations, and program content. Communication Theory, 14(4), 370–387. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00320.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dimmick, J., Chen, Y., & Li, Z. (2004). Competition between the Internet and traditional news media: The gratification-opportunities niche dimension. Journal of Media Economics, 17(1), 19–33. doi:10.1207/s15327736me1701_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Etta, N. B. (2019). Social media usage among youths: Applications and impacts. Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology, 6(2), 133–138.
   Google Scholar
• Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2011). Ideological segregation online and offline. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(4), 1799–1839. doi:10.1093/qje/qjr044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gruzd, A., & Roy, J. (2014). Investigating political polarization on Twitter: A Canadian perspective. Policy & Internet, 6(1), 28–45. doi:10.1002/1944-2866.POI354
   Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19–39. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jalali, S. S., & Khalid, H. (2019). Understanding Instagram influencers: Values in green consumption behaviour. Open International Journal of Informatics, 7(Special Issue), 47–58.
   Google Scholar
• Jennings, M. (2000). Theory and models for creating engaging and immersive ecommerce websites. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research (pp. 77–85). New York; ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, T. J. (2004). A web for all reasons: Uses and gratifications of Internet components for political information. Telematics and Informatics, 21(3), 197–223. doi:10.1016/S0736-5853(03)00037-6
   Google Scholar
• Klimmt, C., & Vorderer, P. (2003). Media psychology “is not yet there”: Introducing theories on media entertainment to the presence debate. Presence Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 12(4), 346–359. doi:10.1162/105474603322391596
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kujur, F., & Singh, S. (2020). Visual communication and consumer-brand relationship on social networking sites - Uses & Gratifications theory perspective. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce, 15(1), doi:10.4067/S0718-18762020000100104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larrondo Ureta, A., Peña Fernández, S., & Morales i Gras, J. (2021). Desinformación, vacunas y Covid-19. Análisis de la infodemia y la conversación digital en Twitter. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 79(79), 1–18. doi:10.4185/RLCS-2021-1504
   Google Scholar
• Laub, Z. (2019, June 7). Hate Speech on Social Media: Global Comparisons. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved February 18, 2023, from https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/hate-speech-social-media-global-comparisons
   Google Scholar
• Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential election. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce.
   Google Scholar
• Marwick, A. E., & Miller, R. W. (June 10, 2014). Online Harassment, Defamation, and hateful speech: A primer of the legal landscape. Fordham Center on Law and Information Policy Report.
   Google Scholar
• McQuail, D., Blumler, J. G., & Brown, J. (1972). The television audience: A revised perspective. In D. McQuail (Ed.), Sociology of mass communication (pp. 135–165). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Meanings & definitions of English words. (n.d.). In Dictionary.Com. https://www.lexico.com/definition/hate_speech
   Google Scholar
• Moran, M. (1994). Talking about hate speech: A rhetorical analysis of American and Canadian Approaches to the Regulation of hate speech. Wisconsin Law Review, 113, 1425.
   Google Scholar
• Nabi, R. L., & Krcmar, M. (2004). Conceptualizing media enjoyment as attitude: Implications for mass media effects research. Communication Theory, 14(4), 288–310. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00316.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pachet, F., & Addressi, A. (2004). Music: When children reflect on their own playing style: Experiments with continuator and children. Computers in Entertainment, 2(1), 14. doi:10.1145/973801.973824
   Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(2), 175–196. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4402_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parks, P. (2019). Covering Trump’s ‘Carnival’: A rhetorical alternative to ‘objective’ reporting. Journalism Practice, 13(10), 1164–1184. doi:10.1080/17512786.2019.1577696
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parmelee, J. H., & Roman, N. (2019). Insta-politicos: Motivations for following political leaders on Instagram. Social Media & Society, 5(2), 1–12. doi:10.1177/2056305119837662
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patwardhan, P. (2004). Exposure, involvement and satisfaction with online activities. Gazette: The International Journal for Communication Studies, 66(5), 411–436. doi:10.1177/0016549204045920
   Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center (October 2014). Political Polarization and Media Habits. https://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/.
   Google Scholar
• Raja, M. S., Omar, N. N., & Kee, C. P. (2019). Uploaded: Facebook gratifications obtained by young volunteers from non-profit organizations in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Arts, Culture and Tourism, 1(1), 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Rubin, A. M. (1981). An examination of television viewing motives. Communication Research, 8(2), 141–165. doi:10.1177/009365028100800201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin, A. M., & Step, M. M. (2000). Impact of motivation, attraction, and parasocial interaction on talk radio listening. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(4), 635–654. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4404_7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seelig, M. (2011). Changing the way we tell stories: The reception of still photos with sound as entertainment. Explorations in Media Ecology, 10(1/2), 123–135. doi:10.1386/eme.10.1-2.123_1
   Google Scholar
• Stroud, N. J. (2008). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30(3), 341–366. doi:10.1007/s11109-007-9050-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sumter, S. R., Vandenbosch, L., & Ligtenberg, L. (2017). Love me Tinder: Untangling emerging adults’ motivations for using the dating application Tinder. Telematics and Informatics, 34(1), 67–78. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2016.04.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tontodimamma, A., Nissi, E., Sarra, A., & Fontanella, L. (2021). Thirty years of research into hate speech: topics of interest and their evolution. Scientometrics, 126(1), 157–179. doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03737-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter’s policy on hateful conduct | twitter help. Twitter. Retrieved February 18, 2023, from https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. (2019, May 1). End ‘political opportunism’ that’s letting hate speech flourish, urges top UN genocide official | UN news. United Nations. Retrieved February 18, 2023, from https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/05/1037651
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. (2020, December 23). Hate speech on Facebook poses ‘acute challenges to human dignity’ – UN expert | UN news. United Nations. Retrieved February 18, 2023, from https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/12/1080832
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. (2021, March 23). Report: Online hate increasing against minorities, says expert. OHCHR. from https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2021/03/report-online-hate-increasing-against-minorities-says-expert. Retrieved February 18, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. (n.d.). Why tackle hate speech? United Nations. Retrieved February 18, 2023, from https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/impact-and-prevention/why-tackle-hate-speech
   Google Scholar
• US Legal. (n.d.). Find a legal form in minutes. Hate Speech Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc. Retrieved February 18, 2023, from https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech
   Google Scholar
• Vorderer, P. (2001). It’s all entertainment—sure. But what exactly is entertainment? Communication research, media psychology, and the explanation of entertainment experiences. Poetics, 29(4–5), 247–261. doi:10.1016/S0304-422X(01)00037-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward, K. (1998). Free Speech and the Development of Liberal Virtues: An Examination of the Controversies Involving Flag Burning and Hate Speech. University of Miami Law Review, 52, 733.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, S., Hofman, J. M., Mason, W. A., & Watts, D. J. (2011). Who says what to whom on Twitter. Proceedings of 20thInternational Conference on Worldwide Web. ACM, 28 March 2011–1 April 2011, Hyderabad India, 705–714.
   Google Scholar
• Yardi, S., & Boyd, D. (2010). Dynamic debates: An analysis of group polarization over time on Twitter. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(5), 316–327. doi:10.1177/0270467610380011
   Google Scholar
• Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1994). Entertainment as media effect. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 437–461). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar