Online hate speech has become a pervasive threat to individual well-being and societal harmony. On the personal level, being the target of hate speech can lead to severe mental health consequences, including anxiety, depression, and social withdrawal (Keipi et al., 2017; Keum & Volpe, 2023). On the societal level, hate speech undermines social cohesion by marginalizing vulnerable groups, and eroding democratic discourse (Schäfer et al., 2022; Soral et al., 2020). These consequences underscore the urgent need to find effective strategies to address online hate. One such strategy—counterspeech—has gained increasing attention. Yet, while it is often heralded as a democratic response to online hate, it also comes with risks and limitations. While some advocate for counterspeech as a powerful, civil, and scalable method of resistance, others argue that counterspeech can backfire—reinforcing the hate it seeks to reduce, intensifying online conflicts, or proving largely ineffective. The present contribution outlines both perspectives to facilitate debate.
Pro-Counterspeech Hypothesis
Counterspeech strengthens democratic dialogue and reduces the impact of hate speech online.
Proponents argue that, first and foremost, counterspeech can raise political efficacy among individuals who engage in it. When users speak out against hate, they experience a sense of political agency and influence over the public sphere (Schieb & Preuss, 2016; Wachs et al., 2023). This can foster civic engagement and resilience against extremism.
Second, counterspeech contributes to a more civil and constructive democratic discourse. Research has shown that when individuals respond to hate with measured, well-articulated messages, the tone of the conversation improves, and polarizing effects can be diminished (Molina & Jennings, 2018; Ziegele et al., 2018).
Third, counterspeech can be a highly effective tool for change when it is supported by a large number of participants and reaches an audience that includes undecided or moderate individuals (Schieb & Preuss, 2016). In such contexts, collective counterspeech can shift norms and influence bystanders' perceptions, making it less socially acceptable.
Fourth, solidarity signaling is another crucial benefit. Public counterspeech—especially when it comes from members outside the targeted group—can be a powerful display of allyship. For marginalized communities, such public displays of support are psychologically protective and socially empowering (Buerger, 2021). Research has shown that confronting hate online can restore victims' well-being, disrupt the spread of prejudice, and model prosocial behavior (Wachs et al., 2019; Schäfer et al., 2022; Vera et al., 2023).
Fifth, empirical studies show that counterspeech often gains more traction than hate speech itself. Positive responses, when well-executed, are liked, shared, and amplified more frequently than antagonistic or inflammatory comments (Ozalp et al., 2020). This visibility creates a counter-narrative that disrupts the dominance of hate.
Finally, counterspeech is inherently flexible and diverse. It includes not only direct rebuttals to hateful messages but also the posting of positive content about targeted groups, independent of specific incidents (Odaǧ et al., 2024). This broader definition allows for more subtle and creative interventions—memes, stories, or videos—that celebrate diversity and promote empathy (see the term online civic interventions in Kunst et al., 2021).
Contra-Counterspeech Hypothesis
Counterspeech is ineffective and counterproductive, often escalating online aggression and reinforcing hate speech.
Although counterspeech is often viewed as a constructive alternative to censorship, critics warn that it can sometimes worsen the very issues it aims to address. A key concern is that counterspeech may escalate, rather than de-escalate, aggression. According to the cycle of violence hypothesis (Wachs & Wright, 2019; Wachs et al., 2019), responses to hate speech often provoke retaliatory reactions, fueling further hostility instead of calming tensions. This is especially true when counterspeech is emotionally charged, as such exchanges tend to intensify polarization and heat up the discourse (Cheng et al., 2017), increasing aggressive behavior—particularly when users feel their identity is under threat (Rösner et al., 2016).
Second, counterspeech unintentionally amplifies hate speech by responding directly to it. Engaging with hateful content boosts its algorithmic visibility, drawing more attention and possibly normalizing it (Hübscher & von Mering, 2022). This digital paradox undermines the goal of suppression and could instead contribute to wider dissemination.
Third, counterspeech can be inherently polarizing, especially in ideologically divided societies. Responses to hate speech are often interpreted through partisan lenses, and rather than fostering understanding, they can increase the social distance between left-wing and right-wing participants. In such cases, counterspeech may reinforce in-group/out-group boundaries, contribute to moralized conflict, and reduce the possibility of dialogue across ideological lines (Schäfer et al., 2024).
Fourth, there is limited evidence that counterspeech changes hateful behavior. Several studies show that responses, even when civil and evidence-based, often fail to alter the opinions of extremists (Álvarez-Benjumea & Winter, 2018; Miškolci et al., 2018).
Fifth, the bystander effect plays a crucial role. In online spaces where large audiences witness hateful content, users often refrain from engaging, assuming others will intervene or fearing backlash (Leonhard et al., 2018; Obermaier et al., 2016). This limits the spontaneous emergence of counterspeech, making widespread engagement unlikely.
Sixth, effective counterspeech requires that users recognize hate speech. However, this is often not the case (Schmid et al., 2024). Hate speech can be camouflaged as humor, satire, or coded language (Schmid, 2025). Without clear indicators, even well-meaning users may overlook harmful content or inadvertently spread it.
Lastly, individual counterspeech is often ineffective on its own. Research shows that only organized campaigns—such as Reconquista Internet (Garland et al., 2020) or #IchBinHier (Friess et al., 2020)—have a measurable impact. These require coordination, resources, and institutional support, making them difficult to replicate.
Conclusion
The debate over counterspeech is far from settled. While it promises an empowering path to resisting hate, it may also contribute to the intensification of the very discourse it opposes. Future research in media psychology might resolve this tension by identifying the ideal conditions under which counterspeech is effective: What message types work best? Who should speak up when and how? What are the psychological mechanisms that reinforce collective impact? Only with empirical clarity can we move from hopeful theorizing to effective action.
