Counter-speech is considered a promising tool to address hate speech online, notably, by promoting bystander reactions that could attenuate the prevalence or further dissemination of hate. However, it remains unclear which types of counter-speech are most effective in attaining these goals and which might backfire. Advancing the literature, we examined the effect of four types of counter-speech (i.e., educating the perpetrator, calling on others to intervene, diverting the conversation, and abusing the perpetrator) on a range of bystander behavioral intentions in an experimental study (N = 250, UK-based adults). Overall, counter-speech did not affect bystanders’ subsequent responses to hate speech. Having said this, as expected, diversionary counter-speech increased intentions to ignore hate speech, which suggests unintended consequences. The study illustrates that counter-speech may not be sufficiently impactful in regulating bystanders’ reactions to hate speech online.
