INDEPENDENT VOICES. BLACK PERSPECTIVES.
THEBLACKANGLE.
News. Culture.
A world of our own.
The originals ↗
← More in Culture
Culture / Commentary

Racism online is not ‘just comments.’

What research shows about hate on X, why racist crime-video comments matter, and why Black people should not have to accept abuse as the price of participating online.

A white smartphone resting on a pale surface, displaying the former Twitter bird logo on a blue screen.
Archival context photograph: the Twitter app launch screen on a smartphone, 6 July 2018. Photo: Stock Catalog / Quote Catalog · Source · CC BY 2.0. Display may be cropped.

A video about one Black person should never become a referendum on Black humanity. Whether the subject is a crime allegation, a sports argument or an everyday disagreement, turning an individual’s conduct into a claim about an entire race is racism. Calling the response a joke, a statistic or a comment-section tradition does not change that. The Black Angle rejects the idea that Black users should simply tolerate it.

There is measurable evidence behind concerns about X after Elon Musk’s takeover. A peer-reviewed PLOS ONE study published in February 2025 examined English-language posts from January 2022 through June 2023. It found average weekly hate-speech volume about 50% higher after the acquisition, with racist posts rising about 42%. These findings describe that study period, not a measurement of X today.

The study does not establish that a particular policy caused the increase or that every user encountered the same material. Its methods also cannot capture every form of coded racism. Those limitations matter, but they do not erase the recorded increase. The defensible claim is a substantial measured rise in the sample, not that every racist post on the internet began with Musk.

Account reinstatement is documented too. Australia’s eSafety Commissioner reported in January 2024 that X identified 6,103 reinstated banned accounts, understood by the regulator to concern Australia. Of those, 194 had previously been suspended for hateful-conduct violations. X said it risk-assessed reinstated accounts, but also said they were not placed under additional scrutiny. These are specific Australian figures, not a worldwide total of racist accounts.

X’s published policy prohibits attacks based on race and other protected characteristics, while allowing a range of responses including reduced visibility or removal. It would therefore be inaccurate to say the written rules expressly permit all racism. The question is whether the company’s enforcement and product decisions give those rules practical force. A policy page cannot, by itself, establish that targeted users are protected.

YouTube’s written hate-speech policy also applies to comments. It prohibits racial dehumanization, claims of inherent inferiority and other forms of hate. This article does not claim to have measured a recent platform-wide increase in racist YouTube crime-video comments: we have not conducted that audit. But the editorial standard should be unambiguous. Criticism of a suspect’s alleged actions is legitimate; assigning criminality to Black people as a group is not. An arrest is also not a conviction.

The burden is older than any one owner or app. In a nationally representative survey conducted in September 2020 and published in January 2021, Pew Research Center found that 54% of Black adults who had experienced online harassment attributed it to race or ethnicity, compared with 17% of White harassment targets. Those percentages refer to people who had been harassed, not all Black or White adults. They show why treating racial abuse as a minor inconvenience misses the experience of those targeted.

In our view, the screen does not turn racial prejudice into something detached from everyday life. The person reading a racist thread may also be a student, employee, parent or neighbor who must navigate assumptions about Black people elsewhere. A comment is not proof of a particular offline discriminatory act, and this article does not claim a direct causal link. The connection is the recurring demand that Black people defend their belonging and dignity.

Platforms should publish meaningful enforcement data, make reporting usable, review repeat offenders, and explain how reinstatement decisions protect the people previously harmed. Creators should moderate their own discussions and resist headlines that encourage collective blame. Readers can challenge false claims without repeating slurs or exposing private individuals to retaliation. Black participation online should not come with a requirement to endure racial humiliation.

Commentary informed by dated research and published platform policies. The X study covers 2022–2023; the Pew survey was conducted in 2020. No current, platform-wide YouTube prevalence estimate is claimed. AI-assisted writing and source review.

Published by The Black Angle. Editorial standards & corrections.

The conversation (0)

Bring your perspective. Keep it thoughtful, relevant, and respectful. Community guidelines

Sign in or create an account to comment under your username. You can also comment as a guest; guest names are not verified.

0 / 2,000 characters

Loading the conversation…