The curation of hate speech datasets involves complex design decisions that balance competing priorities. This paper critically examines these methodological choices in a diverse range of datasets, highlighting common themes and practices, and their implications for dataset reliability. Drawing on Max Weber’s notion of ideal types, we argue for a reflexive approach in dataset creation, urging researchers to acknowledge their own value judgments during dataset construction, fostering transparency and methodological rigour.

Online communities provide support and help to individuals transitioning gender. However, this point of transition also increases vulnerability, coupled with increased exposure to online harms. In this research, we analyse a popular hate and harassment site known for targeting minority groups, including transgender people. We analyse 17 million posts dating back to 2012 to gain insights into the types of information collected about targets. We find users commonly link to social media sites such as Twitter/X and meticulously archive links related to their targets. We scrape over 150,000 relevant links posted to Twitter/X and their archived versions and analyse the profiles and posts. We find targets often tweet about harassment, popculture, and queer and gender-related discussions. We develop and evaluate classifiers to detect calls for harassment, doxxing, mention of transgender individuals, and toxic/abusive speech within the forum posts. The results of our classifiers show that forum posts about transgender individuals are significantly more likely to contain other harmful content.

We present a lightweight method for identifying currently trending terms in relation to a known prior of terms, using a weighted log-odds ratio with an informative prior. We apply this method to a dataset of posts from an English-language underground hacking forum, spanning over ten years of activity, with posts containing misspellings, orthographic variation, acronyms, and slang. Our statistical approach supports analysis of linguistic change and discussion topics over time, without a requirement to train a topic model for each time interval for analysis. We evaluate the approach by comparing the results to TF-IDF using the discounted cumulative gain metric with human annotations, finding our method outperforms TF-IDF on information retrieval.

We probe the heterogeneity in levels of abusive language in different sections of the Internet, using an annotated corpus of Wikipedia page edit comments to train a binary classifier for abuse detection. Our test data come from the CrimeBB Corpus of hacking-related forum posts and we find that (a) forum interactions are rarely abusive, (b) the abusive language which does exist tends to be relatively mild compared to that found in the Wikipedia comments domain, and tends to involve aggressive posturing rather than hate speech or threats of violence. We observe that the purpose of conversations in online forums tend to be more constructive and informative than those in Wikipedia page edit comments which are geared more towards adversarial interactions, and that this may explain the lower levels of abuse found in our forum data than in Wikipedia comments. Further work remains to be done to compare these results with other inter-domain classification experiments, and to understand the impact of aggressive language in forum conversations.