Hate speech spreads widely online and harms both individuals and communities, making automatic detection essential for large-scale moderation. However, accurately detecting hate speech remains a difficult task. Part of the challenge lies in subjectivity: what one person flags as hate speech, another may see as benign. Traditional annotation agreement metrics, such as Cohen’s k, oversimplify this disagreement, treating it as an error rather than meaningful diversity. Meanwhile, Large Language Models (LLMs) promise scalable annotation, but prior studies demonstrate that they cannot fully replace human judgement, especially in subjective tasks. In this work, we reexamine LLM reliability using a subjectivity-aware framework, cross-Replication Reliability (xRR), revealing that even under fairer lens, LLMs still diverge from humans. Yet this limitation opens an opportunity: we find that LLM-generated annotations can reliably reflect performance trends across classification models, correlating with human evaluations. We test this by examining whether LLM-generated annotations preserve the relative ordering of model performance derived from human evaluation (i.e. whether models ranked as more reliable by human annotators preserve the same order when evaluated with LLM-generated labels). Our results show that, although LLMs differ from humans at the instance level, they reproduce similar ranking and classification patterns, suggesting their potential as proxy evaluators. While not a substitute for human annotators, they might serve as a scalable proxy for evaluation in subjective NLP tasks.

Detecting hyperpartisan narratives and Population Replacement Conspiracy Theories (PRCT) is essential to addressing the spread of misinformation. These complex narratives pose a significant threat, as hyperpartisanship drives political polarisation and institutional distrust, while PRCTs directly motivate real-world extremist violence, making their identification critical for social cohesion and public safety. However, existing resources are scarce, predominantly English-centric, and often analyse hyperpartisanship, stance, and rhetorical bias in isolation rather than as interrelated aspects of political discourse. To bridge this gap, we introduce PartisanLens, the first multilingual dataset of 1617 hyperpartisan news headlines in Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese, annotated in multiple political discourse aspects. We first evaluate the classification performance of widely used Large Language Models (LLMs) on this dataset, establishing robust baselines for the classification of hyperpartisan and PRCT narratives. In addition, we assess the viability of using LLMs as automatic annotators for this task, analysing their ability to approximate human annotation. Results highlight both their potential and current limitations. Next, moving beyond standard judgments, we explore whether LLMs can emulate human annotation patterns by conditioning them on socio-economic and ideological profiles that simulate annotator perspectives. At last, we provide our resources and evaluation; PartisanLens supports future research on detecting partisan and conspiratorial narratives in European contexts.

The proliferation of conspiracy theories and hateful messages on social media poses significant challenges for content moderation and public discourse. Despite their societal impact, existing datasets for automated conspiracy detection remain limited in scope and language coverage. We present a multilingual dataset of conspiracy content on Telegram comprising 5750 messages across English, Dutch, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese from 87 channels documented as disseminating conspiracist and extremist content. Domain experts annotated messages for conspiracist tone, population replacement conspiracy theories, vaccine conspiracies, and hate speech. We extensively report on difficulties and caveats when creating and annotating this type of dataset. We establish classification baselines by evaluating six models in zero-shot fashion and fine-tuning three encoder models, achieving F1 scores up to 0.800 for conspiracist tone, 0.846 for PRCT, 0.843 for vaccine-related conspiracy theories, and 0.734 for hate speech. Inter-annotator agreement was moderate, consistent with the complexity documented in similar annotation tasks.

Hate speech is a harmful form of online expression, often manifesting as derogatory posts. It is a significant risk in digital environments. With the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs), there is concern about their potential to replicate hate speech patterns, given their training on vast amounts of unmoderated internet data. Understanding how LLMs respond to hate speech is crucial for their responsible deployment. However, the behaviour of LLMs towards hate speech has been limited compared. This paper investigates the reactions of seven state-of-the-art LLMs (LLaMA 2, Vicuna, LLaMA 3, Mistral, GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Gemini Pro) to hate speech. Through qualitative analysis, we aim to reveal the spectrum of responses these models produce, highlighting their capacity to handle hate speech inputs. We also discuss strategies to mitigate hate speech generation by LLMs, particularly through fine-tuning and guideline guardrailing. Finally, we explore the models’ responses to hate speech framed in politically correct language.