Comunicación frente al odioConceptos y métodos para el análisis del antagonismo político en la esfera pública digital

Abstract

The presence of hate speech in public conversation is a cause for concern due to the negative impact it can have on democratic coexistence. It is known that, in part, its increase is because some political actors are using it as a political weapon to expel certain subjects from the public space, to manipulate debates and to displace common sense towards reactionary positions. What has not yet been studied in depth is how hate speech affects the dynamics of public opinion formation and to what extent it could be combated by political collective action. This research fills this gap, with a study focused on understanding both the practices carried out by hate senders and amplifiers and on exploring the possibilities for the articulation of citizens' responses that may mitigate and counteract the impact of hate messages. To carry out the empirical work, an interdisciplinary methodological approach was adopted – integrating visions of pragmatic and critical disciplines – and a mixed one – using qualitative and quantitative methods, as well as computational techniques. Specifically, eighteen interviews were conducted with relevant actors articulating responses to online hate speech. Additionally, an analysis was conducted on the interaction and discourse networks of two polarized publics emerging for the promotion and rejection of various types of hate speech. The results confirm that some actors use or generate events that attract public attention to amplify hate speech as a way of expressing their political antagonism. Actors who wish to combat the social normalization of hate can improve the effectiveness of their interventions by networking among themselves and acting strategically. For this to happen, it could be useful to advance in four practices that some social actors are already carrying out. The first consists of keeping up to date in the skills of identifying the strategies and tactics used in hate communications. The second involves gaining autonomy in media time and space so that progressive social movements can recompose themselves as counter-publics. The third is based on promoting mutual understanding between the various social sectors threatened or concerned by the rise of hate speech. The fourth is to devote efforts to strengthening regulations on platforms so that they do not allow their users to monetize hate speech. Carrying out these practices in the medium term may improve the conditions for the articulation of citizens' communication networks able to act politically in the public sphere in front of – and in spite of – hate speech and other forms of manipulation, in order, in turn, to curb the post-democratic plans of those who promote them.