The Expression of Hate Motive on Social Media:

Perspective of the Malaysian

Noramira Fatehah Azman and Norena Abdul Karim Zamri(B)

Faculty of Communication and Media Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA UiTM Melaka,
Melaka, Malaysia
[email protected]

Abstract. “Muslims are terrorist”, is one of example of hate speech that occur
in cyberworld. Hate speech, also known as malicious expression, is the use of
insulting, hostile, or contemptuous words intended towards certain religious prac-
tises or groups who share a collective identity, such as sex identification, ethnicity,
race, or faith. Because of the gravity of the problem, the spread of online hatred
has prompted a number of global projects aimed at identifying it. This article
examines the motives behind the posting of expressions of hatred on social media,
specifically on Twitter. Researcher used two models such; “The Dramaturgical
Social Interaction Model” and “Cultivation Theory” to explain the societal phe-
nomena of hatred expression. The methods used for this study are interviews and
focus group discussions which are qualitative methods and Thematic Analysis
used to generate outcome. The results of the study show that three main motives
have been stated by informants, namely differences in perspective or opinion, dis-
crimination by using religion and having a bad personality. This study suggests
patterns of future research on the problem and possible solutions to the expression
of hate. It begins with the background of the research, explains the issues beyod
hate speech, the purpose of the study, finally continues the research inquiries and
research objective, and finally explains the limitations.

Keywords: Hate speech · Cyberworld · Social media · Twitter · Offensive

language · Malicious comment

1 Introduction
Malaysia, without a doubt, is actively embracing technological innovation in this infor-
mation and technology era. Today, technology is constantly growing, replacing old ele-
ments with advanced technical knowledge in sync with the tide of modernity. Social
media is one of the most recent technical developments, allowing us to engage and
communicate with people all over the world.
Twitter has become popular and users friendly social networks, with numerous ado-
lescents and youth signing for accounts. Starting from 2005 untill 2010, the popularity
of online social networking services such as Instagram and Twitter soared. According
to [1], Twitter was founded in March 2006 by Jack Dorsey, Noah Glass, Biz Stone, and

© The Author(s) 2023

A. Ismail et al. (Eds.): i-COME 2022, ASSEHR 769, pp. 17–30, 2023.
https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-098-5_3
18 N. F. Azman and N. A. K. Zamri

Evan Williams, and it became publicly available in July of the same year. As mentioned
in [2], Twitter had 330 million active accounts at the start of 2019. Twitter is distin-
guished by the succinct form of user interactions, with tweets limited to 280 characters
and the possibility to include a gif, an emoji, a tag location, or a poll. We can freely
communicate our views and opinions on this platform by “tweeting.”
Users can connect with each tweet in three ways: like, retweet button, quote and
reply button. By hitting the heart-shaped click, we can express our appreciation for a
certain tweet, and our Twitter friends receive updates via the app.
Furthermore, the retweet button allows us to share a tweet with our followers, allow-
ing them to see the content we are sharing. Finally, the respond button allows users to
remark on tweets, providing an opportunity to provide input or participate in discussions
about the tweet.
According to information published by [3] in Twitter’s advertising resources, there
were around 4.4 million Twitter lovers in Malaysia as of January 2022. According to this
data, Twitter advertising reached around 13.3% of the country’s population during that
time period. It is vital to know, however, that Twitter only allows users aged 13 and up
to use the platform. As a result, it is worth noting that an estimated 16.7% of Malaysia’s
eligible audience is expected to like and actively their tweets in Twitter in 2022. Plus,
Twitter’s marketinh reach in Malaysia this year accounted for approximately 14.9% of
the total local social media user population, regardless of gender, community and age.
Twitter’s popularity as a one-of-a-kind online communication medium has given rise
to language-related issues that require more investigation, as it places explicit length
limitations on each update. This shortcoming has also resulted in the problem of com-
municating ambiguous messages while using Twitter as a communication medium. With
a character restriction of 280 and the ability to include a picture or video, a gif, an emoti-
con, users’ location, and a survey, [3] users are able to express themselves and practise
their right to free expression through “tweeting”.
According to [4], much research has been undertaken on the incidence of malicious
posts or hate speech in a setting of communication by (extreme) right-wing populist
politicians. This observation is backed further by [5] which underlines the growing
link between these leaders and the unregulated spread of misinformation or fake news.
Given that social media like Facebook and Twitter are used by millions of netizens,
certain negative phenomena, such as the uncontrolled dissemination of incorrect details,
fake identity, and, most significantly, hatred message, are unavoidable. This is partly
because such platforms lack a gatekeeper.
The existence of platforms that support users’ freedom of expression may acciden-
tally allow such platforms to be used to attack or insult others. As stated in [5], Online
assaults and violent behaviours have been demonstrated to inflict victims not just psycho-
logical and physical injury, but also self-harm and suicide. As a result, our primary goal
is to investigate the motivations behind hate speech in order to successfully tackle and
mitigate its negative effects in the online realm, hence averting more bad consequences
for users.
Hate speech or malevolent language, according to [6], refers to words that breach
established legal norms, needing government restrictions or public pronouncements.
These remarks incite, justify, or express hatred, discrimination, or antagonism against
 The Expression of Hate Motive on Social Media 19

specific groups based on traits such as skin colour, faith, talents, or disabilities, age,
sexual leaning, gender, or gender identification. Hate speech is also considered odious
when it distributes, incites, or fosters hatred, violence, and discrimination against people
or communities depending on their protected status, such as ethnic background, faith,
gender, sexual orientation, or disadvantage.
According to [8], hate speech is a form of expression that uses disparaging or insult-
ing terminology against a certain subject. It is worth mentioning that hate speech has
moved beyond the legal area and is now available to both laypeople and internet users.
Hate speech has consequences that go beyond causing tensions between different groups
online and on social media; it may also have an impact on businesses and lead to sub-
stantial problems in real-life circumstances. As a result, social network like Tiktok,
Instagram and Twitter enacted policies restricting the use of malevolent expressions,
recognising the risk they bring to users’ well-being and safety.
Many scholar define hate speech as contentious, frequently incorporating many
aspects of group animosity such as anti-Semitism, racism, and anti-gypsyism [9]. As
[10] emphasises, this malicious speech is a difficult phrase that comprises a wide range
of utterances that fit into multiple and sometimes contradictory categories and utilise
various derived notions.
Individuals in online interactions have the ability to express themselves through their
own postings, tweets, or comments on the content of others. This permits global inter-
actions in which people can respond positively or negatively to one another. While the
transmission of positive information is not a problem, the proliferation of undesirable
aspects, such as hate speech, is a major worry. Such diffusion can have harmful rami-
fications for people who believe everything they see on the internet is absolutely true
and real. In essence, the aim of this study was to investigate the motivations behind hate
speech on the social media network Twitter. Furthermore, the study sought to investigate
the impact of hate speech on other users as well as individuals who become victims of
such communication.

2 Problem Statement
Malevolent expression or hate speech, according to [11], is the use of insulting, hostile, or
abusive words directed at a specific group of individuals who share similar traits such as
gender, ethnicity, race, religion or creed, or skin colour. Hate speech has implications that
go beyond producing tensions between different populations on the internet and social
media; it may also have an impact on corporations and cause significant problems in real-
life situations. In response to these concerns, social media like Instagram, Tiktok and
Twitter have developed regulations that make the use of abusive language illegal. Manag-
ing, surveillance, or screening all information, however, remains a challenging task. Hate
speech are sorts of offensive language in which individuals express their thoughts based
on personal prejudices, personality differences, racist or radical ideologies, stereotypes,
or, in extreme circumstances, outright hatred towards other users.
Hate speech, according to [12], is defined as verbal or nonverbal communica-
tion that expresses hostility towards specific social groups, primarily based on eth-
nic origin (including racism, exclusion of foreigners, and anti-Semitism), gender cat-
egories (including sexism and misogyny), sexual orientation (including homophobia
20 N. F. Azman and N. A. K. Zamri

and transphobia), age (including ageism), and disabilities. As a result, hate speech has
been recognised as a global issue that causes conflict between many governments and
organisations.
Numerous studies have identified numerous instances of hate speech occurring
around the world, posing a serious threat to cyberworld culture. According to [13],
there were 481 documented hate crimes targeting Muslims after the 9/11 tragedy, with
58% of these attacks occurring within two weeks of the incident (accounting for only
4% of the danger period). This study demonstrates that crimes motivated by hostility
frequently increase in the aftermath of significant events such as terrorist attacks. We
are not immune to the dangers posed by hate speech on the internet as Malaysians and
Asians.
According to [14], racist crimes against Asian populations have even affected
Malaysians living abroad. Several causes, including the propagation of disinformation
and stigmatisation, feelings of isolation, and anti-immigrant sentiments, all contribute to
such behaviour. These elements are frequently related to the association of the Covid-19
epidemic with China and Asia. It’s crucial to stress that these situations don’t just happen
in the United States or Europe; they happen all around the world. Sze Qi, a 21-year-old
Newcastle University student, witnessed directly the impacts of Xenophobia while stay-
ing in the United Kingdom. She recalls walking past a group of teens when one of them
feigned to cough while pronouncing the word “coronavirus.” Similarly, in April of last
year, two girls from Malaysia and Singapore were involved in a traumatic incident in
Melbourne, Australia. They were physically attacked while buying for foodstuffs in the
city’s core business district by others who yelled racist slurs at them, notably invoking
the “coronavirus” and even threatening their lives. In response to such acts of intoler-
ance and bullying, the #StopAsianHate movement grew online, they arranged genuine
demonstrations to promote awareness in the USA, Canada as well, and Taiwan about
these issues.
Because of the killings of transgender people in Klang, Selangor in 2019, there is
an urgent need for action or policy in Malaysia. This tragic act exemplifies the growing
incidence of hate speech directed not only at ethnicity and religion, but also against
gender [15]. Recent occurrences involving land disputes and the Seafield Temple have
demonstrated how racial and religious concerns may quickly develop, underlining the
possibility of violence. Malaysia, however, lacks explicit laws or regulations to prosecute
individuals who incite hate speech, particularly when it attacks specific races, ethnicities,
beliefs, or even genders.
Article 10 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia grants citizens the right to freedom
of speech, although this right is not absolute. Certain limits exist, like in other nations,
to protect minorities and people of different ethnicities, faith, and sexual leaning from
discrimination and hostility. Words, paradoxically, can be viewed as weapons. In some
cases, archaic forms of incitement are used against those who express disagreement or
oppose the government of the time, which is in contradiction to the aimed spirit of the law,
which aims to avoid the fostering of hate, disgust, or unhappiness with the government. It
incites hatred, violence, and prejudice towards particular groups. Leading to “malicious
or interracial hostility.”
 The Expression of Hate Motive on Social Media 21

Hate speech from certain divisive factions has spread across multiple communication
platforms such as Tiktok, Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Unfortunately, it helps to
sustain institutional violence, racism, and online hostility. Hate speech has grown as a
big concern on the Internet as a result of the accessibility and extensive use of media
social. Hence, there is an increasing demand for trials and breakthroughs in hate speech
detection [16]. Moreover, researchers have noted the lack of a standardised dataset for
performing thorough investigations as a difficult barrier impeding advancement in this
field [17].
Existing research has emphasised the importance of addressing and investigating
hate speech, particularly on social media sites such as Twitter. As a result, the goal of
this study was to look into the underlying causes behind hate speech in the context of
Malaysian cyberculture, with a special focus on race, religion, and ethnicity.

3 Literature Review
3.1 Hate Speech
Hate speech is considered reprehensible because it spreads, incites, and feeds hostility,
violence, and discrimination against persons or groups based on their protected charac-
teristics, according to [7]. These include “race,” “ethnicity,” “religion,” “gender,” “sexual
orientation,” and “disability.” [12] defines hatred as an extreme aversion or detest that
elicits negative emotions [18]. According to [11], malicious expression or hate speech
is offensive language in which the speaker communicates their beliefs based on criteria
such as race, radical background, or stereotypes.
As a result, previous research suggests that hate speech includes unpleasant, obscene,
disparaging, and destructive language that frequently arises as statements of extreme
hatred, including blasphemous insults. The spread of hate comments on the internet
can cause victims to experience psychological and physiological symptoms similar to
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), including as panic, terror, anxiety, nightmares,
intrusive thoughts, and disgust [19]. Previously, many scholars concentrated their efforts
on finding, detecting, and analysing hate speech on social media platforms, notably in
the field of data mining, as well as investigating the psychological impact of hate speech
on victims. To set this study apart from others, the researchers intend to investigate the
fundamental motivations that drive hate speech. They are convinced that the insights and
observations gained from previous research are priceless, giving persuasive support for
the need for this study.

3.2 Types of Hate Speech

Hate speech may appear to an inexperienced observer to be an amalgamation of two
commonly used terms: hatred and speech. It includes both emotions and phrases that
can evoke unfavourable feelings towards a certain target. Hate speech is sometimes
defined broadly to include slander, unfair treatment, dehumanisation, demonising, and
incitement to violence. According to [20], there are eight sorts of hate speech: race,
conduct, physique, class, gender, ethnicity, disability, and religion. The causes under-
pinning hate speech were studied in a research on Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the
22 N. F. Azman and N. A. K. Zamri

independent nation of Biafra, conducted by [21]. The researchers discovered five intents
or purposes in Nnamdi Kanu’s speech: proclamation, commitment, judgement, direc-
tion, and assertion. Nnamdi Kanu’s majority of speech intentions were determined to be
antagonistic.
To summarise, hate speech includes a variety of negative feedback or messages
designed to damage or offend others. Insults or insulting language can include anything
from seemingly benign hostility to sarcasm. The cultural context of particular words is
important in determining their offensiveness. According to [22], phrases like as “babi”
or “anjing” are highly insulting in Malaysian cultures but may not be as objectionable in
American society when translated to “pig” or “dog.“ Furthermore, employing pejorative
terminology connected with specific tribes such as “batak,” “sakai,” or “keling” can be
exceedingly disrespectful and have a negative impact on those targeted.

3.3 Motive or Intention

The mental state that causes an individual to act in a given way is referred to as intention
or motive. For example, having the desire or intention to visit a museum tomorrow. In
contrast, commitment refers to the attitude or posture towards the precise substance of
an action plan that is generated from an intention. Action plans can be related with a
variety of mental states. It is crucial to remember that making a plan does not necessarily
imply a practical responsibility to follow it out, and so it is possible to establish a plan
unintentionally. Intention that is successful results in the desired action being carried out,
whereas intention that is unsuccessful does not result in the desired course of action.
According to [23], there are three types of intentions that correspond to distinct types
of speech: locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary. The semantic intent is strongly
related to the first positional intent, for example, intending to pronounce a word with a
specific meaning and reference. The intention to take specified acts by expressing those
words, such as giving commands or making promises, is referred to as spoken intent.
Perlocutionary purpose is the deliberate altering of reality through the use of words to
intentionally influence the behaviour of others. According to the dominant legal theory
viewpoint, the desire to legislate is primarily understood as a semantic (linguistic) desire.

3.4 Underpinning Theory

The study was carried out within a few theoretical frameworks, one of which was greatly
influenced by [24]. This theory focuses on human interaction and behaviour, particularly
in-person interactions in which individuals coexist physically. [25]’s seminal contribu-
tion is critical for understanding the relationship between human behaviour and commu-
nication. He was notable for being the first scholar to use the metaphor of dramaturgy
to acquire deeper insights into relationship dynamics and self-perception.
Goffman’s theoretical framework is a useful lens for analysing the differences in
behaviour displayed by individuals and groups in social settings, particularly when it
comes to the expression of hate speech. Individuals within a certain social environment,
according to Goffman (1959: 24), impose “moral demands” on the audience in order to
affect their reactions in a preset or socially acceptable manner. This framework supports
 The Expression of Hate Motive on Social Media 23

in understanding why and how people engage in various behaviours, especially the use
of hate speech, in social settings.
Goffman’s theoretical framework has aided understanding of the contrasts between
behaviour by individuals and groups in social circumstances, particularly when it comes
to the expression of hate speech. Individuals within a certain social context, according to
[24], exert “moral demands” on the audience, influencing them to behave in the expected
or appropriate manner. This approach improves our knowledge of how and why people
engage in various behaviours, including hate speech, in social settings. Individuals now
commonly carry their smartphones, tablets, or computers at a safe distance or in their
hands while watching sports games or concerts. These devices are frequently used to
stream such information. As a result, people absorb ideas from social media, believe
them, and even adopt them into their own beliefs. If people accept and internalise the
stuff they see, there is a chance that hate speech or unpleasant messages will spread
through their social media feeds.
When partaking in activities such as watching sports or live concerts, it has become
usual for people to have their mobile phones, tablets, or laptops within reach or in their
hands. These devices are frequently used to stream such information. People frequently
embrace the ideas and behaviours they see on social media, and some even choose to
adopt them. If people truly believe and trust the stuff they see, there is a chance that hate
speech or unpleasant comments will circulate within their social media timeline.
As stated by [26], the sociocultural theory of cultivation has three components:
media institutions, message production, and message impact on viewers. Among these,
the effects on viewers have attracted the most research attention. The cultivation effect
is most seen in the association between people’s worldviews and how much time they
spend watching television. The more time people spend watching television, the more
their impressions of the world align with the dominant narrative given by the media.
Similarly, individuals’ perceptions of the world are influenced when they are exposed to
and confront hate speech on social media. Cultivation theory emphasises the significant
storytelling potential of social media platforms.
The Dramaturgical Model of Social Interaction, derived from psychology, and Cul-
tivation Theory, a well-known theory in the field of communication, are two indepen-
dent models and theories. Despite their apparent differences, this study investigates the
convergence of hate speech in the realms of online social interaction and media infor-
mation. Individuals have full ability to express themselves online through numerous
channels such as personal postings, tweets, or comments on others’ posts. The internet
world’s interconnection provides a platform for global engagement, allowing individuals
to interact with one another, whether favourably or badly.
While the spread of positive content on the Internet is unavoidable, the spread of
detrimental aspects such as hate speech is cause for concern. The concern derives from
the possible harmful influence on people who accept what they see online as ultimate
truth and reality. As a result, individuals are vulnerable to the influence of material on
social media, unintentionally spreading negativity without checking its authenticity. This
phenomenon is analogous to a virtual virus or cancer that spreads and multiplies within
the digital environment (Fig. 1).
24 N. F. Azman and N. A. K. Zamri

Fig. 1. Theories related to hate speech in cyberworld.

4 Methodology
The goal of this study is to investigate the fundamental causes behind hate speech
on Twitter, specifically from Malaysians’ viewpoints. To accomplish this, a qualitative
research technique was used, with interviews serving as the primary data collection
method. Qualitative approaches are well-suited for researching individuals’ behaviours
and views of a specific topic, making them ideal for identifying the intents behind hate
speech in this study [27]. The researcher’s interviews were meant to encourage open
talks, allowing participants to request particular information and share their experiences
with social media, including interactions with and management of hate speech. The
ultimate goal was to determine the root causes of hate speech [28].
Human-to-human interaction during the endemic period can lead to the rapid spread
of Covid-19. Because our study targeted Malaysians who utilise social media plat-
forms such as Twitter, our participants were well-versed in online communication. We
used video conferencing platforms like Zoom Meeting or Google Meet to collect data,
which reduced the requirement for physical travel across Malaysia. This method allowed
researchers to interact with individuals in a more convenient and efficient manner. It was
determined that the Twitter informants should come from a variety of backgrounds,
including various races, ethnic groups, and academic backgrounds after discussions
with other researchers. This study aims to strengthen the reliability and validity of this
research paradigm.
According to [29], validity and reliability are significant because they help to increase
the accuracy of a research work’s evaluation and assessment. One of them is to make
 The Expression of Hate Motive on Social Media 25

an effort to explain to our informants why we used the instruments and what the goals
of our research are. As a result, the number of ideas used in research findings may
rise as informants respond to questions with their best thinking. In addition, in order to
guarantee that our informants give their honest opinions, we need to give some examples
or proof of hate speech that appears on social media, such as Twitter.

5 Findings and Discussion

5.1 Motive on Making Hate Speech on Social Media
In knowing someone’s motive in carrying out expressions of hatred on social media is
certainly not an easy matter, there are various constraints or obstacles such as shame,
fear, not wanting to say it due to negative actions that started with sarcasm, swearing or
just mocking to close friends only. Ironically, remembering this is not something that the
audience can be proud of with from a variety of backgrounds, from researcher research
through interview methods and focus group discussions, we found several reasons that
can reveal an individual’s motive when expressing hatred. The results of the study are
summarized using the Thematic Analysis method as shown in the Table 1.
This study found that the three main motives or intentions of this expression of hatred
occur on social media through research and informant interviews are as follows:
i. Different Perspectives or Opinions
Through several interviews conducted by the participants, one of the reasons why
they expressed hatred was a difference in perspective or opinion. The difference of
opinion here is in response to a context made by someone on social media, starting with
the disparity of perspective or opinion regarding everything that other people convey so
that they force them to express their ideas and opinions to the audience to be the same
as themselves, this is what makes someone express hatred.
With the advent of social media in this day and age, people can easily and freely
exchange information and communicate with new people through this platform. Because
of that, the information received should be filtered as best as possible from the beginning
of the news or in spreading it to get comments from other netizens who may not agree
with you. A problem that often occurs is when a user is unable to deal with differences
of opinion circulating on social media. Thus, giving birth to an endless debate on social
media and can result in a war in the comments section of someone’s post. Of course, in
the war, the words that come out of the fingers of social media users are mostly sentences
that can offend the audience, such as cursing or insulting someone’s physique.
ii. Discrimination by using religion
Apart from that, when interviewed, the participants also mentioned the intention
of netizens who want to advise or uphold religion but use expressions of hatred. All
religions in the world teach every believer to do good and behave positively regardless
of whether it is in the real world or in the virtual world. Some users use their religion to
write hateful comments for the purpose of proselytizing or upholding Islam. For example,
some users intend to advise influencers or celebrities they like, but use negative words
in the comments section such as “Laki kau tak ajar tutup aurat ke?”, “suara itu aurat.”,
26 N. F. Azman and N. A. K. Zamri

Table 1. Results of the Thematic Analysis Method Study

Statement from Informant Code Theme

(1) Dia (pengungkap kebencian) (1) Differences in perspective or Intention of Hate Speech
macam use religion untuk opinion
judge orang kan. Kita rasa (2) Discrimination using
apa kata-kata mereka adalah religion
satu judgement kan. (3) Bad personality, hatred
(2) Kalau, bagi pandangan saya
eh, sebenarnya hate speechni
boleh juga wujud macam
tadi sebab adanya different
pandangan kan, setengah
orang berpendapat lain, ada
orang juga berpendapat lain,
macam tu kan, sebab tu
berlakunya hate speech.
(3) I feel like it can be very
discriminating for example
when it comes to sekarang
banyak sangat kat Tiktok
kalau orang perempuan,
especially pasal appearance
lah, pasal aurat and
everything, they
(pengungkap kebencian)
would only, they would use
religion to judge and to, apa
macam menampakkan
kebencian terhadap individu
terbabit, sedangkan itu
semua bergantungkepada
individu tu sendiri.
(4) Dia boleh jadi juga pada
personality seseorang. Dia
(pengungkap kebencian)
memang macam tu. Orang
buat betul dah nak juga
kritik. Seolah-olah macam tu
lah, dia punya karakter
ataupun dibesarkan dalam
suasana yang mungkin
terlalu negative. Orang dah
bagus dah. Ada lagi tak kena
dekat mata dia. Itu boleh jadi
juga.
 The Expression of Hate Motive on Social Media 27

“Mak bapak tak reti ajar tutup aurat ke?”, “Nak jual diri ke?”, ““Haram jadah bangsat
bertudung. Pakai tudung tapi tak tutup aurat letak dalam music video. Laki kau ajar tutup
aurat macam tu ke?”.
This can often be seen in the comment section of celebrity accounts, celebrity families
or female influencers who are discriminated against for having an appearance that does
not meet the religious or cultural demands of a race. Most of these comments are issued
by netizens who do not have a name or do not show their real identity but still want to
comment or interact virtually which will cause hatred and spread it to other users.
iii. Having a bad personality
According to sources interviewed through focus group discussions, this expression
of hatred also stems from the nature and personality of the individual who expresses
the expression of hatred itself. The utterers of these abusive and negative words are not
aware that they are not civilized virtually especially on other users’ social media. They
feel that only their opinions and views are correct and acceptable to the public. This
expresser of hate also feels that all other users who make statements or post are wrong
and need to be corrected with hate speech. If there are no hateful words they express,
they will use sarcastic or sarcastic words towards other users. For example, if there is a
user who uploads a photo of traveling in Langkawi, this hate speech thrower will give
comments such as “Untunglah pergi Langkawi”, or “Banyaknya duit pergi Langkawi,
hutang saya bila nak bayar”. This clearly shows that the feeling of envy or more than
this sarcasm will make other users a victim of hate speech.
If we re-examine the theory used in this study, which is the Dramaturgical Model of
Social Interaction, it shows that social media users who have the character of the general
public if faced face-to-face with other users will only smile, smile or greet with normal
and polite language. Unlike when they act as netizens online, they are free to use other
names or identities to give negative comments and responses to other users and will end
up with cyber-bullying.
As a result, there are three main motives of a social media user in carrying out
expressions of hatred on social media, namely, differences of perspective or opinion,
discrimination in the use of religion and the user’s own personality and nature. This
has been researched by the researcher through interviews and focus group discussions
involving participants from various backgrounds. The expression of hatred is not only the
statement of abusive words, gossip or swearing, it can also be from elements of sarcasm,
sarcasm and ridicule indirectly. The words used in social media need to be filtered by the
user himself and these words will also symbolize the true personality of the user. In this
study as well, the researcher examines the theory of planting which affects some users
who believe what they see and read is completely true, and as a result they will spread
expressions of hatred without researching its validity first. The expression of hatred and
its spread can be a cancer to the general public and have negative effects on the recipients
of such expressions of hatred such as mental and psychological effects.
28 N. F. Azman and N. A. K. Zamri

6 Conclusion

Previous research focused more on identifying hate speech or identifying hateful mes-
sages on social media. For instance, [30] proposed an integrated architecture using
multilingual datasets in English, Italian, and German for detecting online hate speech.
A method for monitoring, detecting, and visualising the occurrence of hate speech using
Twitter messages was developed by [31]. In essence, there is little research or writing that
examines the purpose or intent of hate speech on the internet. Additionally, according
to recent statistics, Malaysia has 16.8 million social media accounts and 20.1 million
internet users [3]. Cyberbullying was also brought to light when a survey of 28 nations
revealed that Malaysia came in sixth place globally for cyberbullying, trailing only India
among Asian nations [32]. This is extremely concerning because it may worsen the psy-
chological conditions of other hate speech users and recipients and cause them to manifest
pathophysiological and psychological symptoms resembling post-traumatic stress dis-
order (PTSD). Consequences that are detrimental include persistent thoughts of anxiety,
fear, worry, nightmares, threats, and harm [19]. The study’s authors think that compre-
hending such severe adverse effects will have theoretical and practical repercussions for
actual social interaction.
Public declarations of hatred or calls for violence against groups based on their race,
ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation are referred to as malicious expression.
Online hate culture and its spread have grown to be a serious issue, prompting a number
of international initiatives to define the problem and develop workable solutions.
This research find out that human interaction should be researched because the aim
of this study is to look at the motivation behind hate speech. In order to achieve its goal,
this study combines the motivation and intention research, functionalist psychology
theory, dramaturgical model of social interaction, Erving Goffman (1922– 1982), and
cultivation theory. According to this research findings, three main reasons—differences
in perspective or opinion, religious discrimination, and having a bad personality—have
been cited by informants. Our research is intended to add to the body of knowledge
about hate speech and shed light on the intentions and motivations of other online users.
It is hoped that this study will make small but significant advances in the study of hate
speech and shed light on the intentions and motivations of other users of the internet.

Acknowledgments. I would certainly offer my heartfelt appreciation to everyone who helped us

finish this report. A particular thanks to my supervisor, Dr. Norena Abdul Karim Zamri, for her
inspiration and motivation. I would also want to convey our heartfelt appreciation to the seniors
who assisted in the assembly of the parts and gave recommendations for this research. Many thanks
to the Ministry of Higher Education (FRGS/1/2021/SS0/UITM/02/15) and Universiti Teknologi
MARA (UiTM) for their contributions. This research is supported by the Fundamental Research
Grant Scheme (600-RMC/FRGS 5/3 (041/2021)). Last but not least, I’d like to thank Penerbitan
Yuran Prosiding Berindeks (PYPB) for funding the publication of this work.
 The Expression of Hate Motive on Social Media 29

References
1. Twitter | History, Description, Elon Musk, & Uses. (2022, July 8). Encyclopedia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Twitter
2. Jay, A. (2022, January 14). Twitter has earned its spot in almost everybody’s arsenal of social
media accounts in the past decade. Even a. Financesonline.Com. https://financesonline.com/
twitter-statistics/
3. Kemp, S. (2022, February 15). Digital 2022: Malaysia. Data Reportal – Global Dig-
ital Insights. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital2022malaysia#:%7E:text=Twitter%20u
sers%20in%20Malaysia%20in,total%20population%20at%20the%20time
4. Pattersson, K. (2020). The discursive denial of racism by Finnish populist radical right politi-
cians accused of anti-Muslim hate-speech. In Nostalgia and hope: Intersections between
politics of culture, welfare, and migration in Europe (pp. 35–50). Springer, Cham.
5. Kumar, Shiva, A.K, et al. (2017), ‘Ending Violence in Childhood: A global imperative’,
Psychology, Health & Medicine, vol. 22, suppl. 1.
6. Brown A (2017) What is hate speech? Part 1: the myth of hate. Law Philos 36 (4): 419-468
7. Daniel Kilvington (2020) The virtual stages of hate: Using Goffman’s Work to Conceptualize
the Motivations for Online Hate, Leeds Beckett University, United Kingdom
8. 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. Available: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/
article/view/1495
9. Zick, A., Krause, D., Berghan, W., & Küpper, B. (2016). Gruppenbezogene Menschenfein-
dlichkeit in Deutschland 2002–2016. [Group-based enmity in Germany 2002–2016.] In A.
Zick, B. Küpper, & D. Krause (Eds.), Gespaltene Mitte – Feindselige Zustände: Rechtsextreme
Einstellungen in Deutschland 2016 [Split center – hostile conditions: Far-right attitudes in
Germany 2016] (pp. 33–81). Bonn: Dietz.
10. Thurston, N. (2019). Back to front truths. Hate library. In M. Fielitz, & N. Thurston (Eds.),
Postdigital cultures of the far right: Online actions and of ine consequences in Europe and
the US (pp.193–204).
11. Hajime Watanabe, Mondher Bouazizi, Tomoaki Ohtsuki (2018), Hate Speech on Twitter A
Pragmatic Approach to Collect Hateful and Offensive Expressions and Perform Hate Speech
Detection, IEEE ACCESS, (2018): 1825.0–13835
12. Oxford Constitutional Law (July 2017), Max Planck Ensyclopedia of Comparative Constitu-
tional Law. https://doi.org/10.1093/lawmpeccol/lawmpeccol-e130?prd=MPECCOL
13. King, R.D., and G.M. Sutton. (2013). “High Times for Hate Crime: Explaining the Temporal
Clustering of Hate Motivated Offending.” Criminology 51 (4):871–94
14. Murad, D. (2021, April 18). Caught in the hatedemic. The Star. https://www.thestar.com.my/
news/focus/2021/04/18/caught-in-the-hate-demic
15. Lih Yi, B. (2018, December 17). Death of transgender woman in Malaysia sparks fears of rising
hate crime. U.S. https://www.reuters.com/article/malaysia-lgbtcrimeidUSL8N1YM12C
16. Malmasi, S., Zampieri, M. (2017) Detecting hate speech in social media. In: Proceedings of
the International Conference Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, pp. 467–472.
INCOMA Ltd., Varna, Bulgaria.
17. Schmidt, A. and Wiegand, M. (2017). A survey on hate speech detection using natural lan-
guage processing. In Proceedings of the Fifth International workshop on natural language
processing for social media, pages 1–10.
18. Bennett, W. L., & Livingston, S. (2018). The disinformation order: Disruptive communication
and the decline of democratic institutions. European Journal of Communication, 33(2), 122–
139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323118760317
30 N. F. Azman and N. A. K. Zamri

19. Phoey Lee Teh, Chi-Bin Cheng. (2020) Profanity and Hate Speech Detection. International
Journal of Information and Management Sciences. Vol 31, Issue 3, Pages 227–246.
20. Mondal, M., Silva, L. A., & Benevenuto, F. (2017). A measurement study of hate speech in
social media. https://doi.org/10.1145/3078714.3078723
21. Taofeek Olanrewaju Alabi, Adewale Kazeem Ayeloja. Hate speech and security challenges:
A pragmatic study of Nnamdi Kanu’s speeches in the south-eastern Nigeria. International
Journal of English Research, Volume 5, Issue 4, 2019, Pages 01–09
22. M.S. (2022, June 10). Hate speech has no place anywhere. Available: https://www.thesun
daily.my/opinion/hate-speech-has-no-place-anywhere-10-06-AB9311714
23. Matczak, Marcin. 2017. Three Kinds of Intention in Lawmaking. Law and Philosophy 36(6):
651–674.
24. Goffman E (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Penguin Books
25. Goffman E (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harvard:
Harvard University Press.
26. Shrum, L. J. (2017). “Cultivation theory: effects and underlying processes,” in The
International Encyclopedia of Media Effects, ed. P. Roessle.
27. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28. Mathers, N., Fox, N., & Hunn, A. (2002). Using interviews in a Research Project. Sheffield:
Trent Focus Group.
29. Mohajan, H.K (2017). Two criteria for good measurements in research: Validity and reliability.
Ann. Spiru Haret Univ. Econ. Ser.2017,17, 59–82.
30. Corazza M, Menini S, Cabrio E, Tonrlli S, Villata S (2020) Hybrid emoji-based masked
language models for zero-shot abusive language detection. In: Findings of the association for
computational linguistics: EMNLP 2020, Association for Computational Linguistics, Online,
pp 943–949.
31. D. Paschalides, D. Stephanidis, A. Andreou, K. Orphanou, G. Pallis, M. D. Dikaiakos, E.
Markatos, Mandola (2020): A big-data processing and visualization platform for monitoring
and detecting online hate
32. Rosli, J. (2018, October 27). Malaysia sixth-worst in global cyber-bullying ladder, survey
shows. Retrieved from https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2018/10/27/malaysia-
sixth-worst-inglobal-cyber-bullyingladder/1687181

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/),
which permits any noncommercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any
medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.