The topic of terrorism on Yahoo! Answers: questions, answers and users’ anonymity

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of community question answering sites (CQAs) on the topic of terrorism. Three research questions are investigated: what are the dominant themes reflected in terrorism-related questions? How do answer characteristics vary with question themes? How does users’ anonymity relate to question themes and answer characteristics? Design/methodology/approach Data include 300 questions that attracted 2,194 answers on the community question answering Yahoo! Answers. Content analysis was employed. Findings The questions reflected the community’s information needs ranging from the life of extremists to counter-terrorism policies. Answers were laden with negative emotions reflecting hate speech and Islamophobia, making claims that were rarely verifiable. Users who posted sensitive content generally remained anonymous. Practical implications This paper raises awareness of how CQAs are used to exchange information about sensitive topics such as terrorism. It calls for governments and law enforcement agencies to collaborate with major social media companies to develop a process for cross-platform blacklisting of users and content, as well as identifying those who are vulnerable. Originality/value Theoretically, it contributes to the academic discourse on terrorism in CQAs by exploring the type of questions asked, and the sort of answers they attract. Methodologically, the paper serves to enrich the literature around terrorism and social media that has hitherto mostly drawn data from Facebook and Twitter.

Hate speech operationalization: a preliminary examination of hate speech indicators and their structure

“…There are other useful and inspiring attempts at a universal definition reached through a process of characterizing the toxicity of comments [34,35], or utilizing context information [36,37].…”

Identifying features of health misinformation on social media sites: an exploratory analysis

“…This study further judged the importance of features based on the value of chi-square statistics (Chua and Banerjee, 2019). On the surface features, “lack of meta-information” (203.117 *** −342.315 *** ) was a very important feature of health misinformation, and “stitching pictures” (155.753 *** −200.180 *** ), “layout disorder” (121.088 *** −176.690 *** ) and “misspelled words” (93.119 *** −110.088 *** ) were relatively important features of health misinformation.…”

“…Core features were coded as a source if it surrounded the incredibility of the information source, such as “fake authority”, “unidentified sources”, “absence of exact evidence”, etc. The robustness of the coding scheme was confirmed by checking that each health misinformation could be coded into one or more features (Chua and Banerjee, 2019). The specific coding results and its description are shown in Table 1.…”

How question type influences knowledge withholding in social Q&A community

“…To accommodate different user needs and preferences, social Q&A communities offer various identity options (Chua & Banerjee, 2020). These identity options include real names, pseudonymity, and anonymity, which differ in the level of personal disclosure required (Guo & Caine, 2021).…”