Article Sidebar

Submitted
May 17, 2026
Accepted
May 20, 2026
Published
May 23, 2026
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 5 Download : 2

Main Article Content

Abstract

Over the last twenty-five years, hate speech has become a key category in international public policies, while digital environments have increasingly promoted the rise of the broader and more operational category of toxicity. This article argues that the shift from hate speech to toxic content should not be understood as a merely terminological substitution, but as a semantic and governmental transformation in the way discursive harm is identified, measured, and managed. The paper first reconstructs the historical and normative genealogy of hate speech, then examines the psychological, computational, and platform-based genealogy of toxicity, and finally compares the two frameworks through their conceptual, operational, and political implications. Particular attention is paid to the agency of platforms, algorithmic governance, content moderation, and the tension between discriminatory harm and conversational harm. The article suggests that toxicity offers scalability and technical operability, but may also contribute to the depoliticization of online harm if detached from histories of discrimination, protected characteristics, and asymmetries of power.

Keywords

Hate Speech Toxicity Platform Governance Content Moderation Algorithmic Governance Digital Public Sphere

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The author declares that the submitted to Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society (Je-LKS) is original and that is has neither been published previously nor is currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
The author agrees that SIe-L (Italian Society of e-Learning) has the right to publish the material sent for inclusion in the journal Je-LKS.
The author agree that articles may be published in digital format (on the Internet or on any digital support and media) and in printed format, including future re-editions, in any language and in any license including proprietary licenses, creative commons license or open access license. SIe-L may also use parts of the work to advertise and promote the publication.
The author declares s/he has all the necessary rights to authorize the editor and SIe-L to publish the work.
The author assures that the publication of the work in no way infringes the rights of third parties, nor violates any penal norms and absolves SIe-L from all damages and costs which may result from publication.

The author declares further s/he has received written permission without limits of time, territory, or language from the rights holders for the free use of all images and parts of works still covered by copyright, without any cost or expenses to SIe-L.

For all the information please check the Ethical Code of Je-LKS, available at http://www.je-lks.org/index.php/ethical-code

How to Cite
Bortone, R., & Pasta, S. (2026). From hate speech to toxicity: depoliticization, algorithmic governance, and the transformation of harm in digital public discourse. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1136368

References

  1. Avalle, M., Di Marco, N., Etta, G. et al. (2024). Persistent interaction patterns across social media platforms and over time, Nature, 628, 582-589, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07229-y.
  2. Borkan, D., Dixon, L., Sorensen, J., Thain, N., & Vasserman, L. (2019). Nuanced Metrics for Measuring Unintended Bias with Real Data for Text Classification, Companion Proceedings of the 2019 World Wide Web Conference ACM, https://doi.org/10.1145/3308560.3317593.
  3. Bortone, R. (2023). Molto social, troppo dark. Tra hate speech, propaganda, metaverso e intelligenza artificiale: i rischi del web oggi, Roma, Fefè.
  4. Bortone, R., & Pistecchia, A. (2025, Eds.). L’ultimo pregiudizio. L’antiziganismo tra storia e attualità, Roma, Nuova Cultura.
  5. Brown, A. (2017). What is Hate Speech? Part 1: The Myth of Hate. Law and Philosophy, 36(4), 419-468, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-017-9297-1.
  6. Davidson, T., Warmsley, D., Macy, M., & Weber, I. (2017). Automated Hate Speech Detection and the Problem of Offensive Language, Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 11(1), 512-515, https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14955.
  7. Di Cesare, D. (2025). Tecnofascismo. Torino, Einaudi.
  8. Faloppa F. (2020), #Odio. Manuale di resistenza alla violenza delle parole, Torino, UTET.
  9. Faloppa, F. (2026). Disarmare il discorso. Sulla militarizzazione del linguaggio. Firenze, Effequ.
  10. Forzinetti, E., Della Vedova, M., Pasta, S., & Santerini, M. (2024). Indicators for characterising online hate speech and its automatic detection (arXiv:2402.08462), Cornell University, http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.08462.
  11. Gelber, K. (2021). Differentiating hate speech: a systemic discrimination approach, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 24(4), 393-414, https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2019.1576006.
  12. Habermas, J. (2005). Storia e critica dell'opinione pubblica. Roma-Bari, Laterza.
  13. Karp, A.C., & Zamiska, N.W. (2025). The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West, New York, Crown Currency.
  14. Lessig, L. (1999). Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York, Basic Books.
  15. Matsuda, M., Lawrence III, C.R., Delgado, R., & Crenshaw, K. (1993). Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment. New York, Routledge.
  16. Munn, L. (2020). Angry by design: toxic communication and technical architectures. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7, 53. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00550-7.
  17. Pasta, S. (2018). Razzismi 2.0. Analisi socio-educativa dell’odio online. Brescia, Morcelliana Scholé.
  18. Pasta, S. (2019). Razzismi espliciti banalizzati. L’ambiente digitale e il ‘ritorno della razza’”, in Santerini M. (ed.), Il nemico innocente. L’incitamento all’odio nell’Europa contemporanea. The Innocent Enemy. Hate incitement in contemporary Europe, Milano, Guerini e Associati, 173-190.
  19. Pasta, S. (2022). Social network conversations with young authors of online hate speech against migrants, in Monnier A., Boursier A., Seoane A (Eds.), Cyberhate in the Context of Migrations, London, Palgrave MacMillan, 187-214.
  20. Pasta, S. (2023a). Discours de haine en ligne. Une analyse des tweets islamophobes entre automatismes et évaluation qualitative, in Karkun A., Jovelin E. (Eds.), Vers une paix durable. Une perspective interculturelle, Paris, Éditions du Cygne, 217-237.
  21. Pasta, S. (2023b). Hate Speech Research: Algorithmic and Qualitative Evaluations. A Case Study of Anti-Gypsy Hate on Twitter, REM. Research on Education and Media, 15(1), 130-139.
  22. Pasta, S. (2023). Tackling online hate speech with the involvement of targeted groups. The methodological proposal of the project REASON – REAct in the Struggle against ONline hate speech, QTimes. Journal of Education, Technology and Social Studies, XV(3), 429-445, doi: 10.14668/QTimes_15330.
  23. Pasta, S. (2024a). Lo “spettro dell’odio online”: una proposta di classificazione tra valutazioni algoritmiche e qualitative, in Crescenza G. (eds.), Educare in tempi di odio e violenza. Sfide pedagogiche e istituzionali, Bari, Progedit, 113-126.
  24. Pasta, S. (2024b). Hate Studies tra logica computazionale e classificazione umana. Un caso studio sull’antisemitismo in Twitter, Scholé. Rivista di educazione e studi culturali, LXII (1), 230-252.
  25. Pasta, S. (2025), Countering Hate Speech in the Postdigital: A Challenge for ‘Onlife Citizenship’, in Gomez Paloma F., di Tore P.A., Mangione G.R.J. (eds.), Teacher Training and Student Learning – Past Values, Present Uncertainties and Future Prospects, IntechOpen, London, pp. 155-174, DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.1011481.
  26. Pasta, S., Santerini, M., Forzinetti, E., & Della Vedova, M. (2021). Antisemitism and Covid-19 on Twitter. The search for hatred online between automatisms and qualitative evaluation, Form@re. Open Journal per formazione in rete, XXI, 3, 288-304,
  27. Pasta, S., Rivoltella, P.C. (2022, Eds.), Crescere onlife. L’Educazione civica digitale progettata da 74 insegnanti-autori, Brescia, Scholé.
  28. Quattrociocchi, W., & Vicini, A. (2023). Polarizzazioni. Informazioni, opinioni e altri demoni nell'infosfera, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  29. Rodota, S. (2004). Tecnopolitica. La democrazia e le nuove tecnologie della comunicazione, Roma-Bari, Laterza.
  30. Santerini, M. (2005). Antisemitismo senza memoria, Roma, Carocci.
  31. Santerini, M. (2021). La mente ostile, Milano, Raffaello Cortina.
  32. Sellars, A. (2016). Defining Hate Speech, Berkman Klein Center Research Publication No. 2016-20, https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2016/DefiningHateSpeech.
  33. Suler, J. (2004). The Online Disinhibition Effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321-326, https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295.
  34. van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M. (2018). The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World, Oxford, Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190889760.001.0001
  35. Waldron, J. (2012). The Harm in Hate Speech. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
  36. Ziccardi, G. (2015). Internet, controllo e libertà Trasparenza, sorveglianza e segreto nell'era tecnologica. Milano, Raffello Cortina.
  37. Ziccardi, G. (2016). L'odio online Violenza verbale e ossessioni in rete. Milano, Raffello Cortina.