Weight Stigma Goes Viral on the Internet: Systematic Assessment of YouTube Comments Attacking Overweight Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anonymous verbal attacks against overweight individuals on social media are common and widespread. These comments often use negative, misogynist, or derogatory words, which stigmatize the targeted individuals with obesity. These verbal attacks may cause depression in overweight individuals, which could subsequently promote unhealthy eating behavior (ie, binge eating) and further weight gain. To develop an intervention policy and strategies that tackle the anonymous, Web-based verbal attacks, a thorough understanding of the comments is necessary. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine how anonymous users verbally attack or defend overweight individuals in terms of 3 themes: (1) topic of verbal attack (ie, what aspects of overweight individuals are verbally attacked), (2) gender of commenters and targeted overweight individuals, and (3) intensity of derogation depending on the targeted gender (ie, the number of swear words used within comments). METHODS: This study analyzed the content of YouTube comments that discuss overweight individuals or groups from 2 viral videos, titled "Fat Girl Tinder Date" and "Fat Guy Tinder Date." The twin videos provide an avenue through which to analyze discussions of obesity as they organically occurred in a contemporary setting. We randomly sampled and analyzed 320 comments based on a coding instrument developed for this study. RESULTS: First, there were twice as many comments verbally attacking overweight individuals (n=174) than comments defending them (n=89). Second, overweight women are attacked for their capacities (eg, laziness, maturity; 14/51, 28%), whereas overweight men are attacked for their heterosocial skills (eg, rudeness, annoyance; 24/29, 83%). Third, the majority of commenters who attacked overweight women are male (42/52, 81%). Fourth, attacking comments generated toward overweight women included more swear words (mean 0.44, SD 0.77) than those targeting men (mean 0.23, SD 0.48). CONCLUSIONS: Our data elucidate a worrying situation of frequent disinhibited aggressive messages against overweight individuals online. Importantly, the patterns of verbal aggression differ depending on the gender of the targeted overweight individuals. Thus, gender-tailored intervention strategies that specifically tackle Internet users' verbal aggression against overweight individuals need to be developed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".