Vol. 17 No. 1 (2026): MEDIA EDUCATION – Studi, ricerche e buone pratiche
Articles

Spectatorship, bodies and digital hate: observing online hate speech and its implications for media education

PDF
  • Enrica Sgobba,
  • Anna Fausta Scardigno
Enrica Sgobba
Università di Bari, Italy
Anna Fausta Scardigno
Università di Bari, Italy
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/me-19844

Published 2026-05-30

Keywords

  • hate speech,
  • digital spectatorship,
  • realistic evaluation,
  • media education ,
  • moral disengagement

Copyright (c) 2026 Enrica Sgobba, Anna Fausta Scardigno

Creative Commons License

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

Abstract

In hyperconnected onlife environments, hate speech has become a structural component of digital communication, deeply affecting processes of identity construction, social interaction and citizenship. This article investigates online hate speech by shifting the focus from perpetrators and victims to digital spectatorship, understood as a critical yet often passive position within platform-mediated interactions. Drawing on media education and realistic evaluation frameworks, the study explores how users observe, interpret and respond to discriminatory discourse targeting bodies and identities that deviate from dominant norms. Empirical data were collected through a mixed-method evaluative survey administered to Italian social media users, combining quantitative measures with qualitative open-ended responses, and through the Nominal Group Technique involving a panel of experts with academic, professional and activist experience in the field of online hate speech. Findings reveal a high exposure to hate speech, widespread non-intervention and the presence of moral disengagement mechanisms. The article argues that countering online hate speech requires moving beyond protective approaches toward a media education framework oriented to responsibility, emotional awareness and active digital citizenship. The study outlines educational implications aimed at fostering critical autonomy, communicative responsibility and inclusive participation in digital public spaces.

PDF

References

  1. Adamoli, M. (2020). La media education come quadro educativo per un approccio etico alla rivoluzione digitale. IUSVEducation, 15, 22-35. https://www.iusveducation.it/la-media-education-come-quadro-educativo-per-un-approccio-etico-alla-rivoluzione-digitale/
  2. Baacke, D. (1997). Medienpädagogik. Tübingen.
  3. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.364
  4. Bertin, G. (2011). Con-sensus method. FrancoAngeli.
  5. Bornatici, S. (2017). La scuola: Bene comune per educare alla sostenibilità. MeTis: Mondi educativi. Temi, indagini, suggestioni, 7(2), 241–248.
  6. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making Human Beings Human: Bioecological Perspectives on Human Development. Sage.
  7. Bruzzone, D., (2016). Il sentimento del noi e le sue ombre: provocazioni e suggestioni per educare ad un’identità inclusiva. Pedagogia oggi, 2, 130-142.
  8. Buckingham, D. (2003). Media Education: Literacy, Learning and Contemporary Culture. Polity Press.
  9. Cappello, G.M. (2010). Analisi critica vs. produzione creativa. Le nuove sfide della media education nell’era digitale. FORM@RE, 10(70). https://doi.org/10.13128/formare-12530
  10. Dal Mas, F., et al. (2023a). A multidisciplinary approach to surgical care: The case of disease units. A Delphi consensus on the newly-born pancreas units. In J. Martellucci & F. Dal Mas (Eds.), Towards the future of surgery, 147–171). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47623-5_13
  11. Dal Mas, F., et al. (2023b). Towards the healthcare of the future: A Delphi consensus on environmental sustainability issues. In J. Martellucci & F. Dal Mas (Eds.), Towards the future of surgery: New paradigms in healthcare, 189-209. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47623-5_15
  12. Delbecq, A. L. & Van de Ven, A. H. (1971). A group process model for problem identification and program planning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7(4), 466–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188637100700404
  13. DeSanctis, G. & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2635011
  14. Duncan Smith, A., et al. (2024). Use of nominal group technique methods in the virtual setting: A reflective account and recommendations for practice. Australian Critical Care, 37(1), 158–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2023.09.004
  15. Fabbri, M. (2008). Problemi d’empatia: La pedagogia delle emozioni di fronte al mutamento. Etis.
  16. Floridi, L. (2015). The onlife manifesto: Being human in a hyperconnected era. Springer.
  17. Gagliardone, I., Gal, D., Alves, T., & Martinez, G. (2015). Countering online hate speech. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000233231
  18. Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
  19. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Penguin Books.
  20. Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. Social Sciences Research Centre.
  21. Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? Century Crofts.
  22. Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1965). Dai concetti agli indici empirici. In R. Boudon & P. F. Lazarsfeld, L’analisi empirica nelle scienze sociali: Dai concetti agli indici empirici (Vol. 1, pp. 41–52). Il Mulino.
  23. Markey, P. M. (2000). Bystander intervention in computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(2), 183–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(99)00056-4
  24. Martínez de Toda, J. (1998). Metodología evaluativa de la educación para los medios: Su aplicación con un instrumento multidimensional. Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, Facultas Scientiarum Socialium.
  25. Masterman, L. (1985). Teaching the media. Comedia.
  26. Meyrowitz, J. (1985). Oltre il senso del luogo: L’impatto dei media elettronici sul comportamento sociale. Baskerville.
  27. Palumbo, M. & Scardigno, A. F. (2024). Lunga vita alla valutazione (della terza missione) degli atenei: Tra rendicontazione sociale e apprendimento permanente. Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione, 88–89, 17–32. https://doi.org/10.3280/RIV2024-088002
  28. Pawson, R. (2006). Evidence-based policy: A realist perspective. Sage.
  29. Pawson, R. & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. Sage.
  30. Perfetti, S. (2020). Il fenomeno dell’hate speech e la cultura digitale: La scuola degli affetti come bene comune. Encyclopaideia, 24(56), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1825-8670/10749
  31. Rivoltella, P. C., & Ardizzone, P. (2007). La media education fra tradizione e sfida del presente. New Media Education, 52(15), 50–52.
  32. Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1992). Social influence and the influence of the ‘social’ in computer-mediated communication. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp. 30–65). Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
  33. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge University Press.
  34. Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Academic Press.
  35. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.
  36. Waldron, J. (2012). The harm in hate speech. Harvard University Press.
  37. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001