  The advent of social media has given rise to numerous ethical challenges,
with hate speech among the most significant concerns. Researchers are
attempting to tackle this problem by leveraging hate-speech detection and
employing language models to automatically moderate content and promote civil
discourse. Unfortunately, recent studies have revealed that hate-speech
detection systems can be misled by adversarial attacks, raising concerns about
their resilience. While previous research has separately addressed the
robustness of these models under adversarial attacks and their
interpretability, there has been no comprehensive study exploring their
intersection. The novelty of our work lies in combining these two critical
aspects, leveraging interpretability to identify potential vulnerabilities and
enabling the design of targeted adversarial attacks. We present a comprehensive
and comparative analysis of adversarial robustness exhibited by various
hate-speech detection models. Our study evaluates the resilience of these
models against adversarial attacks using explainability techniques. To gain
insights into the models' decision-making processes, we employ the Local
Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME) framework. Based on the
explainability results obtained by LIME, we devise and execute targeted attacks
on the text by leveraging the TextAttack tool. Our findings enhance the
understanding of the vulnerabilities and strengths exhibited by
state-of-the-art hate-speech detection models. This work underscores the
importance of incorporating explainability in the development and evaluation of
such models to enhance their resilience against adversarial attacks.
Ultimately, this work paves the way for creating more robust and reliable
hate-speech detection systems, fostering safer online environments and
promoting ethical discourse on social media platforms.
