The rise of online platforms exacerbated the spread of hate speech, demanding scalable and effective detection. However, the accuracy of hate speech detection systems heavily relies on human-labeled data, which is inherently susceptible to biases. While previous work has examined the issue, the interplay between the characteristics of the annotator and those of the target of the hate are still unexplored. We fill this gap by leveraging an extensive dataset with rich socio-demographic information of both annotators and targets, uncovering how human biases manifest in relation to the target's attributes. Our analysis surfaces the presence of widespread biases, which we quantitatively describe and characterize based on their intensity and prevalence, revealing marked differences. Furthermore, we compare human biases with those exhibited by persona-based LLMs. Our findings indicate that while persona-based LLMs do exhibit biases, these differ significantly from those of human annotators. Overall, our work offers new and nuanced results on human biases in hate speech annotations, as well as fresh insights into the design of AI-driven hate speech detection systems.

AI-generated counterspeech offers a promising and scalable strategy to curb online toxicity through direct replies that promote civil discourse. However, current counterspeech is one-size-fits-all, lacking adaptation to the moderation context and the users involved. We propose and evaluate multiple strategies for generating tailored counterspeech that is adapted to the moderation context and personalized for the moderated user. We instruct a LLaMA2-13B model to generate counterspeech, experimenting with various configurations based on different contextual information and fine-tuning strategies. We identify the configurations that generate persuasive counterspeech through a combination of quantitative indicators and human evaluations collected via a pre-registered mixed-design crowdsourcing experiment. Results show that contextualized counterspeech can significantly outperform state-of-the-art generic counterspeech in adequacy and persuasiveness, without compromising other characteristics. Our findings also reveal a poor correlation between quantitative indicators and human evaluations, suggesting that these methods assess different aspects and highlighting the need for nuanced evaluation methodologies. The effectiveness of contextualized AI-generated counterspeech and the divergence between human and algorithmic evaluations underscore the importance of increased human-AI collaboration in content moderation.