IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/lnopch/978-981-96-9697-0_85.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Semantic Similarity vs. Sentiment Analysis – What Suits Better in Identifying Hate Speech on Twitter?

Author

Listed:
  • Zhixian Li

    (Vanderbilt University)

Abstract

Due to harmful content, hate speech’s prevalence on social media platforms like twitter poses significant challenges. This paper explores the efficacy of two natural language processing (nlp) methods, semantic similarity and part of speech (pos)-tagging sentiment analysis, in identifying hate speech. Semantic similarity compares the distance between word vectors in a sentence and in a corresponding corpus of a certain type of speech, while sentiment analysis tokenizes particular parts of speech (such as adjectives) in a sentence and identifies how often these emotions appear in the sentence. This study uses a dataset of tweets categorized by crowdflower workers based on whether they contain hate speech, offensive language, or neither, and conducts statistical analyses to compare the effectiveness of these two methods. Results indicate that negative sentiments are most effective in distinguishing disturbing tweets from normal ones, while semantic similarity analysis shows promise in conducting this distinction using a corpus made out of disturbing tweets. However, challenges remain in reliably classifying hate speech, suggesting avenues for future research to refine methods and definitions. Findings from this study contribute to the ongoing discourse on content moderation and online safety, visioning a more accurate system in tagging hate speech/offensive language on online platforms and thereby aiming to foster a more inclusive digital environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhixian Li, 2025. "Semantic Similarity vs. Sentiment Analysis – What Suits Better in Identifying Hate Speech on Twitter?," Lecture Notes in Operations Research,, Springer.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:lnopch:978-981-96-9697-0_85
    DOI: 10.1007/978-981-96-9697-0_85
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:lnopch:978-981-96-9697-0_85. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.