AI is expanding the possibilities for humour, but is also making it more difficult for the audience to decide what is real and what is satire.

Alberto Godioli and Luisa Fernanda Isaza-Ibarra (University of Groningen / ForHum) were invited by Meta’s Oversight Board to submit two public comments on cases involving humour and AI. The Oversight Board uses these public comments to help shape their decisions and recommendations. In their comments, Alberto and Luisa explain why the initial confusion sometimes created by satire is a good (and necessary) thing, and how this actually helps in developing democratic literacy among citizens.

It’s funny because it’s (not) true: On the relationship between satire and misinformation

The first public comment is about the case of an AI-generated video of a politician posted before the Hungarian elections, and focuses on the relationship between satire and misinformation in social media content, particularly around political speech, and the challenges and trade-offs involved in moderating such posts.

Using 18th century satirist Jonathan Swift (and his sarcastic proposal to eat the children of the poor) as an example, Alberto and Luisa explain how satire has always depended on (temporary) confusion, which is exactly what makes satire effective. Furthermore, they argue that satirical confusion is not only an effective rhetorical device, but it can also have a beneficial effect on media literacy – and, consequently, on democratic debate, by encouraging us (the public) not to believe everything we read.

But they also address the risk of satire being taken at face value, and wrongly construed as misinformation.

Read full public comment

Jibe and Prejudice: On Satire, Deception, and Harm

The second public comment deals with the case of an AI video faking UK politician’s immigration views. Building on Abigail Williams’ book Reading It Wrong (2023), Alberto and Luisa draw a parallel between 18th-century British satire and present-day online culture – both being marked by the rise of new audiences, a dramatic increase in the circulation of texts, and the proliferation of allusive satirical expression, often playing with the risk of confusion or misunderstanding.

Given the higher confusion potential of AI deepfakes, it is all the more important for satirical deepfakes to display a degree of incongruity, setting them apart from outright deceptive content.

For example, South Park’s famous Donald Trump deepfake signals its satirical intent through the unrealistic imitation of the President’s voice, and through the fact that the video – at least in its original context – is embedded within an animated cartoon:

The comment also addresses that hateful nature of the case in question. While exposure to derogatory jokes does not necessarily spread prejudice, research has shown how it can facilitate the expression of existing prejudice within an online or offline setting.

Read full public comment

In both cases, Alberto and Luisa recommend a proportional approach when it comes to moderating this type of content. With regard to satirical deepfakes with clear humorous features, heavily relying on warning labels or removal of content could have a damaging effect on freedom of speech and media literacy. With regard to disparaging jokes, while takedowns are a viable option in severe cases, awareness-raising and counterspeech might often be a more effective way to address the underlying prejudice.

DELIAH is happy to announce its first deliverable developed under Work Package 3, which consists of a searchable database of legal cases and online content moderation decisions regarding disparaging humour and freedom of expression.

Disparaging humour, namely humour that ‘denigrates, belittles, or maligns an individual or social group’ (Ford and Ferguson 2004), can constitute a serious threat to democratic participation, by undermining the very existence of a healthy and inclusive public sphere. This is especially the case in the digital age, as potentially harmful material can circulate ‘virally’ well beyond its original context. On the other hand, any attempt to counter the effects of disparaging humour should be balanced with robust protections for freedom of expression – which, as established by the European Court of Human Rights in Handyside v. United Kingdom, also applies to material that can ‘offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population’.

Whether through judicial processes or through online content moderation, judges and digital platform companies must decide whether a certain contested humorous expression qualifies as disparaging; and if so, whether it should be sanctioned. This task is not easy: when making their decisions, judges and platforms must strike a delicate balance between protecting people from harmful speech and allowing for lively democratic debate.

These topical issues lie at the heart of Work Package 3 (WP3) of the DELIAH project, titled ‘Disparaging humour and democracy: Best practices for free speech jurisprudence and content moderation’. The lead researchers of WP3 are Dr Alberto Godioli and PhD candidate Luisa Fernanda Isaza-Ibarra (University of Groningen). Under WP3, DELIAH will ultimately build recommendations on best practices for judges and content moderation bodies adjudicating on humorous contents. To do so, we first need to understand how judges and platforms are already making decisions. This is why the first task of WP3 was to build a database of cases concerning disparaging humour coming from judicial and semi-judicial adjudication bodies (deliverable D3.1).

Find out more via the following links:

• Database of legal cases and content moderation decisions

• Methodological note and codebook

Focus groups are taking place in different regions of each country. In this manner, we hope to take into account not only national differences, but also geographic differences within countries, such as the divide between the city and the countryside, or, in the case of Spain, the differences between the north and the south. In addition, our focus groups will vary, with people from different demographic backgrounds in each of them. For instance, a focus group made up of middle-aged people from rural areas with a conservative outlook or a focus group of young people with different gender-identities living in cities. We hope to find out how Europeans think about humour (and its role in democracy) across different social groups.

The data we gather (and the ensuing analysis of the data) will hopefully help us to identify starting points for policy recommendations, specifically on multimedia content moderation and democratic engagement. We also aim to identify topics for further research into the relationship between humour and civic discourse.

The analysis will be ready in a couple of months. For now, we thought it might be interesting to share a more anecdotal perspective on how such a focus group works, what we show them and what is discussed, but only in a general way, of course, as we want to respect the privacy of the people taking part.

In humour, much depends on interpretation. One cartoon was seen as a celebration of diversity by some, but a mockery of gender identities by others.

The focus group we write about here was held earlier this month in Amsterdam, with a group of people from migrant backgrounds. The focus group started with a general discussion to get a sense of what kind of humour the members of the group engage with. Do they consume a lot of ‘political’ humour? And what are their thoughts about the role of humour in public debate and in a democracy more generally?

After an initial discussion, the group viewed and rated examples of humour. The samples gathered by DELIAH researchers cover different forms of humour (from memes and political cartoons to street art) with different political leanings, from left to right. After rating the various humour samples, the members discussed which ones they liked (and why) and which ones they would likely share.

What was interesting to see is how much depends on interpretation. Take this cartoon, for instance:

Is it a celebration of diversity, showing that everyone is entitled to their own space? Or does it mock a supposedly ever-growing multitude of (gender-)identities? Both views were present in this focus group.

After discussing the visual materials, the focus group watched two satirical videos from two Dutch humour shows that covered Trump and climate change. Again, a discussion followed. How does humour help to raise awareness, debate, and maybe even action when it comes to serious topics, such as the climate crisis? Here is one of the satirical videos, made at the time of the first inauguration of Trump:

Finally, the group discussed two court cases involving humour—with a catch. They were briefed about each case, but were then asked to come up with a verdict themselves. Only after they had formed their own judgement was the actual verdict of the court revealed.

The first case was against Mike Ward, a stand-up comedian from Canada. Ward had a routine in which he mocked certain figures in Québec’s community, who he referred to as “sacred cows” that could not be made fun of for various reasons. This included Jeremy Gabriel, a child singer (and thus public figure) who was born with Treacher Collins syndrome, a rare genetic disorder that affects facial bone and tissue development. Ward mocked Gabriel both in his stand-up routine and in a video he posted online, making fun of his physical appearance. Gabriel’s parents filed a complaint for discrimination with the Human Rights Commission.

The question for the focus group was:

Should it always be allowed to mock public figures or is making fun of someone’s disabilities crossing a red line?

Click the button to find out the actual verdict (it’s a long read, but you can also scroll down for a summary):

Verdict

The second case involved a t-shirt with the following design:

Z.B., a Frenchman, gave his three-year-old nephew a personalized T-shirt with the words “I am a bomb” (Je suis une bombe) on the front and “Jihad born on September 11” (Jihad, né le 11 septembre) on the back. The T-shirt was a birthday gift. The child was indeed born on September 11, 2009, and is named Jihad, a common proper name in the Arab world. The term “bomb” can also mean “very sexy” in French.

The child wore the T-shirt to his kindergarten only a few months after seven people, including three children at a Jewish school, had been killed in several jihadist terrorist attacks. After the director of the kindergarten, together with another adult woman, discovered that the child was wearing this T-shirt, he notified the relevant authorities, and Z.B. and his sister (Jihad’s mother) were charged with glorifying terrorism. The T-shirt was worn only once, and only two people saw the text on it.

The question for the focus group was:

Is this a glorification of terrorism that should be prosecuted or simply a tasteless T-shirt?

Click the button to find out the actual verdict:

Verdict

Verdict summaries

In short, Mike Ward was found not guilty of discrimination by the Supreme Court of Canada and Z.B. was found guilty of glorifying terrorism.

What was interesting about the discussion in the focus group was that the majority of the participants found the humour in both cases to be in very poor taste and to have crossed a line. However, most of the participants also felt that the legal sanctions went too far. At most, the guilty parties should have been “told off” or received “a slap on the wrist.” A prosecution, they claimed, was taking things too far. It will be interesting to see whether similar opinions are shared by other focus groups from different demographics, regions, and countries.

Thanks for making it to the end of this post! In a few months, we’ll share more insights into how Europeans think about humour. If you want to be kept up to date about this and other research results, hit the subscribe button.

A new resource for stand-up comedy research

DELIAH is pleased to announce the launch of a research database documenting over 500 female and non-cisgender comedians active in the Anglophone world during the 21st century. Developed under Work Package 7, it is part of a broader research project that examines how these performers have reshaped stand-up comedy, fostering new forms of societal critique, self-reflection, and alternative speech.

The database is designed primarily for researchers working on stand-up comedy and humour studies as well as industry professionals seeking comparative data in relation to gender, representation, platforms, and cultural context. It allows users to filter entries by specific criteria to uncover connections and trends. Looking for an Australian gender-nonconforming comedian with full-length specials that isn’t Hannah Gadbsy? Wondering which veteran women comedians are leading the podcast boom? Just filter the tabs to find comparable comedians or your next research subject.

Access and documentation

An explanatory document detailing the project’s scope and methodology is available for download on Zenodo, alongside our earlier working bibliography of stand-up comedy scholarship that compliments the database.

Due to the sensitive nature of the data collected, access is granted upon request to ensure responsible use. If you are interested, please email DELIAH coordinator Andrew Bricker at Andrew.Bricker@UGent.be with your request and a brief motivation outlining the intended use.

To ensure the effectiveness of DELIAH as a research project, we need to build upon existing research in the field of humour studies. Therefore, one of the first tangible outputs of our project is an analysis of the relationship between humour and democracy. What do we already know, what are the gaps in our knowledge, and how can DELIAH best fill these gaps?

The full analysis is freely accessible (by clicking the big blue button below); here, we offer a brief overview with some of our most interesting findings.

Read the full meta-analysis

First of all, it seems that humor research is on the rise. The invention of social media has lead to a whole new global space for the creation and dissemination of humour, accessible to everyone with an Internet connection, and much new research is focused on this.

Second, there is a growing recognition that this online humour is sometimes harmful. For a long time, (political) humour was seen as something to celebrate, an essential ingredient of a democracy to ensure a healthy public debate. This still holds true, but researches are now also starting to see the flipside of the coin. Humour can also undermine democracy and public debate. Here social media plays a crucial role, with far-right groups using humour to spread racist, misogynistic and anti-democractic ideas, and authoritarian leaders using humour strategies to bolster their popularity.

For research purposes, DELIAH views humour as a means of communication, designed to convey information (even if that information is sometimes misinterpreted). We identify three basic traits in humour:

-Humour often aims to show real or perceived inconsistencies in social life.

-Humour contains a playful dimension that enables satire to better deal with topics that would otherwise cause anger.

-Humour is also often used to get emotional relief or deprecate other people’s behaviours, traits or messages.’

A summary of our analysis:

Humour and the formation of social groups

Most humour practices contribute to defining social groups. Ethnic and sexist jokes often reproduce existing prejudices, but humour is also used to challenge them. On the Internet, far-right and misogynistic groups use specific humorous codes that allow them to foster cohesion and distinguish between insiders and outsiders.

Humour and the dissemination of political information

Humour is often cited as a potent medium for transmitting political information, but the link between humour and increased political knowledge appears to be largely correlational rather than causal. People with higher political knowledge are drawn to political humour, rather than such content itself being responsible for increased political knowledge.

Humour does have the power to set the agenda, giving attention to certain topics within public debate, stimulating people to think about certain subjects (and not others). And humour may serve as a point of entry for younger individuals or those with moderate political interest, potentially encouraging deeper engagement over time.

Humour and persuasion

There is little evidence to suggest that humour can actually change someone’s mind. If you feel strongly about a certain political topic, a meme or cartoon will probably not convince you to adopt a different opinion.

Although humour might not bring about a 180-turn in people’s minds, it is far from powerless. If you are neutral about a certain topic, or if you are moderately leaning towards the point the satire in question is supporting, there’s a good chance humour will sway you or solidify your opinion. In short, humour has the power to lure you from neutral ground into the camp of ‘opinionated’ people.

Humour and the public debate

Humour can contribute to the deliberative quality of public debate, but most humour practices serve an expressive function. That is to say, they enable the expression of feelings, such as anger and frustration, providing emotional relief, and they communicate preferences.

A significant proportion of the humorous messages that circulate online express exclusionary and antidemocratic attitudes.

Humour for political mobilisation and participation

Individuals with latent views that align with the humorous messages can be encouraged to participate through humour. Mainstream political parties have increasingly incorporated humour into their communication strategies, which is believed to help candidates connect with younger demographics and foster voter engagement.

Social movements use humour to attract social support, defuse tensions following conflict or repression, and pre-emptively mitigate hostile responses.

Humour and the implementation of political decisions

One notable gap in the existing literature is the lack of systematic research on how humour is used to enforce political decisions. Although there are multiple examples of public authorities using humour in communication campaigns to nudge citizen behaviour or promote public policy, these practices have not been thoroughly examined.

Humour and political accountability

In terms of political accountability, the humour employed by citizens and mass media tends to focus on scrutinising the moral integrity and credibility of elected officials.

At the same time, humour can serve as a defensive mechanism for politicians. For instance, the use of self-deprecating humour—particularly about minor or trivial matters—can deflect serious scrutiny by shaping how the media frames political narratives, allowing deeper issues to go unexamined.

Social groups’ relationship with humour

There is evidence that the appreciation of humour is correlated with pre-existing beliefs and attitudes. Harmful forms of humour—those associated with sexist, racist, ethno-nationalist, or authoritarian views—can be expected to resonate with white individuals who have lower levels of formal education and live in economically declining or socially stagnant, i.e. ‘left behind’, rural areas. Individuals who are women, non-heterosexual, university-educated, and/or urban-based are less likely to participate in or appreciate such humour.

There is a difference in how humour is used by marginalised or dominant groups. Marginalised groups may be more attuned to the harms of humour directed at them by dominant groups, but they also tend to engage in self-parody as a form of empowerment and resistance. In contrast, dominant groups are often more inclined to dismiss the impact of harmful humour and to engage in humour that mocks others rather than themselves.

Strategies against harmful humour

Currently, there is little research on strategies aimed at addressing harmful forms of humour, despite its potentially damaging influence—particularly on younger audiences. Nonetheless, two general approaches to countering harmful humour can be identified.

The first consists of targeted interventions in specific settings, such as educational environments. These may include non-judgmental narrative exchanges and the use of counter-humour to challenge antidemocratic or exclusionary attitudes. The second approach aims to transform the broader cultural repertoire. Rather than directly confronting harmful humour, which can inadvertently amplify its content or provoke backlash, this strategy seeks to offer new narratives through which individuals can articulate their demands in a less toxic manner. Realising such a shift would require collaboration with key actors in the cultural and political spheres who possess the capacity to influence public discourse and media narratives.

All cartoons © Cartoon Movement

What is Democratic Literacy and Humour (DELIAH)? In short, it's an EU-funded research project spanning four years (2025-2029) that examines the relationship between democracy and humour. The somewhat longer answer is, however, probably more insightful. In this article, we show you what DELIAH will be doing in the next four years and what the outcome of the project will (hopefully) be.

DELIAH is funded by Horizon Europe, the EU’s key funding programme for research and innovation. The DELIAH project was proposed in answer to a Horizon call that focuses on culture, the arts and cultural spaces for democratic participation and political expression, online and offline.

DELIAH has a broad approach, acknowledging the multifaceted nature of humour. The project is divided into what in EU jargon (you'll be hearing more of it if you continue to follow the project) are called Work Packages (WP). The WPs are smaller research projects that focus on different forms of humour and research questions. DELIAH has eight such WPs:

WP 1 - Meta-analysis of humour practices and democratic attitudes in the European context

Our starting point sounds academic, but our meta-analysis will provide a solid base for the rest of the project. What is already known about the relationship between democracy and humour and how can we build on this?

The outcome will be a public database (mainly aimed at scientists) and a summary report. The report will also serve scientists, but we also plan to make the conclusions accessible in an engaging way for a broader audience.

WP 2 - Conducting focus groups to discover discourses of and evaluate responses to humorous stimuli

One way to build upon WP1 will be a hands-on examination of how Europeans in different countries respond to humour. We will set up focus-groups in different countries and show each group the same, or similar (because some humour is often language or country-specific), examples of different types of humour to see how they react, before discussing these examples with them. The resulting report should provide valuable insights into how Europeans look at humour.

WP 3 - Disparaging humour and democracy: Best practices for free speech jurisprudence and content moderation

Disparaging humour, meaning humour that mocks and belittles vulnerable individuals and groups, is often at the center of complex legal cases, where judges have to draw a line between safeguarding freedom of expression on the one hand, and countering incitement to discrimination or violence on the other. Besides, social media platforms and content moderators often struggle to find a balanced approach to jokes or memes that might be considered harmful or discriminatory by some users.

How can courts and online platforms ensure that humor (including provocative or potentially offensive jokes) is preserved as a vital component of democratic debate, while at the same time protecting the rights of targeted communities? What options are available to foster democratic participation, beyond the mere decision to remove content or keep it online? In light of both human rights law and humor research, this WP will create a toolkit helping judges and online platforms develop a fair and consistent approach to disputed humorous material.

WP 4 - Analysing the rhetoric of far-right: humour online and the role of democratic literacy

How does the far-right use humour and do they use forms of humour that undermine democracy or that compromise the democratic attitudes of EU citizens? Democratic literacy refers to our overall ability in Europe to recognize threats to democracy. How can we bolster democracy to withstand harmful humour?

This WP will result in a toolkit on how to increase democratic literacy that can be used by educators and by organizations active in the field of democracy and free speech. We’ll also write policy recommendations for educators, policymakers and social media companies.

WP 5 - Understanding laughter scandals to create conceptual and translational tools for democracies

In recent years, there have been many controversies involving cartoons, satirical writings and other forms of humour. This WP attempts to map what we call laughter scandals, both those that take place on a national level and international ones, to see if we can discern common trends among them. In the international context, this WP focuses on how scandals are created when humour gets taken out of its (national) context.

Our findings will be used to create a toolkit for educators and to write a white paper for policy makers on how to address such controversies.

WP 6 - Analysing humour and fostering democratic participation in times of conflict

Using two case studies, the ongoing war in Ukraine and the formation of a new, populist government in Slovakia following the September 2023 elections, this WP aims to identify strategies of humour in cases where citizens confront political disinformation and anti-democratic propaganda. What role can humour play in enhancing democracy and civic participation?

Our goal is to formulate policy recommendations around humour practices in relation to disinformation, anti-democratic propaganda and civic participation.

WP 7 - Analysing gender and stand-up comedy in the 21st-century Anglophone world, online and offline

This WP will research how female and non-cisgender comedians have carved out new spaces for and forms of stand-up comedy in the 21st century, and how this has facilitated humorous forms of informal democratic participation by creating spaces for free and alternative forms of speech, societal critique and self-reflection.

This WP will result in a database of relevant comedians working today (which will be restricted to use by request, due to its sensitive nature), a bibliography of current research into stand-up comedy and gender, and a white paper outlining how such stand-up comedy has contributed to informal kinds of democratic speech and participation.

WP 8 - Analysing uses of 'counter-humour' in media education and activism

The online realm is, unfortunately, full of people that threaten, bully and exhibit other forms of toxic behavior. How can we use humour to effectively counter harassment and anti-democratic behaviour in the digital domain?

Our goal is to develop potential humour intervention strategies, with attention to particularly vulnerable social groups (e.g., girls ands LGBTQ+ youth), in close collaboration with civil society initiatives and media education organizations.

As the project progresses, we’ll provide more in-depth coverage of the different topics and we will of course share all the outcomes, make them accessible and/or available for download.

If you have any questions or requests related to the DELIAH project, please contact us at info@deliah.eu

Images by MORO, Engin Selcuk, Moz, Rahma Cartoons, Halit Kurtulmus Aytosly, George Riemann, Andrea Arroyo and Marilena Nardi. All cartoons © Cartoon Movement