Mapping Election Toxicity on Social Media across Issue, Ideology, and Psychosocial Dimensions
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.16765v1
- Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2026 01:13:36 GMT
- Title: Mapping Election Toxicity on Social Media across Issue, Ideology, and Psychosocial Dimensions
- Abstract summary: We present a large-scale analysis of discourse on Twitter during the 2024 U.S. presidential election.<n>We categorize posts into 10 major campaign issues, estimate the ideology of posts, detect harmful content, and then examine the psychological drivers of toxic content.
- Score: 9.017731357825287
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Online political hostility is pervasive, yet it remains unclear how toxicity varies across campaign issues and political ideology, and what psychosocial signals and framing accompany toxic expression online. In this work, we present a large-scale analysis of discourse on X (Twitter) during the five weeks surrounding the 2024 U.S. presidential election. We categorize posts into 10 major campaign issues, estimate the ideology of posts using a human-in-the-loop LLM-assisted annotation process, detect harmful content with an LLM-based toxicity detection model, and then examine the psychological drivers of toxic content. We use these annotated data to examine how harmful content varies across campaign issues and ideologies, as well as how emotional tone and moral framing shape toxicity in election discussions. Our results show issue heterogeneity in both the prevalence and intensity of toxicity. Identity-related issues displayed the highest toxicity intensity. As for specific harm categories, harassment was most prevalent and intense across most of the issues, while hate concentrated in identity-centered debates. Partisan posts contained more harmful content than neutral posts, and ideological asymmetries in toxicity varied by issue. In terms of psycholinguistic dimensions, we found that toxic discourse is dominated by high-arousal negative emotions. Left- and right-leaning posts often exhibit similar emotional profiles within the same issue domain, suggesting emotional mirroring. Partisan groups frequently rely on overlapping moral foundations, while issue context strongly shapes which moral foundations become most salient. These findings provide a fine-grained account of toxic political discourse on social media and highlight that online political toxicity is highly context-dependent, underscoring the need for issue-sensitive approaches to measuring and mitigating it.
Related papers
- Latent Topic Synthesis: Leveraging LLMs for Electoral Ad Analysis [51.95395936342771]
We introduce an end-to-end framework for automatically generating an interpretable topic taxonomy from an unlabeled corpus.<n>We apply this framework to a large corpus of Meta political ads from the month ahead of the 2024 U.S. Presidential election.<n>Our approach uncovers latent discourse structures, synthesizes semantically rich topic labels, and annotates topics with moral framing dimensions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-10-16T20:30:20Z) - Identifying Constructive Conflict in Online Discussions through Controversial yet Toxicity Resilient Posts [41.130462443875736]
We operationalize controversiality to identify challenging dialogues and toxicity resilience to capture respectful conversations.<n>We also find that political posts are often controversial and tend to attract more toxic responses.<n>These findings suggest the potential for framing the tone of posts to encourage constructive political discussions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-09-22T18:30:41Z) - Polarized Patterns of Language Toxicity and Sentiment of Debunking Posts on Social Media [5.301808480190602]
The rise of misinformation and fake news in online political discourse poses significant challenges to democratic processes and public engagement.<n>We examined over 86 million debunking tweets and more than 4 million Reddit debunking comments to investigate the relationship between language toxicity, pessimism, and social polarization in debunking efforts.<n>We show that platform architecture affects informational complexity of user interactions, with Twitter promoting concentrated, uniform discourse and Reddit encouraging diverse, complex communication.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-01-10T08:00:58Z) - Toxic behavior silences online political conversations [0.0]
We investigate the hypothesis that individuals may refrain from expressing minority opinions publicly due to being exposed to toxic behavior.<n>Using hidden Markov models, we identify a latent state consistent with toxicity-driven silence.<n>Our findings offer insights into the intricacies of online political deliberation and emphasize the importance of considering self-censorship dynamics.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-12-07T20:39:20Z) - Twits, Toxic Tweets, and Tribal Tendencies: Trends in Politically Polarized Posts on Twitter [5.161088104035108]
We explore the role that partisanship and affective polarization play in contributing to toxicity on an individual level and a topic level on Twitter/X.
After collecting 89.6 million tweets from 43,151 Twitter/X users, we determine how several account-level characteristics, including partisanship, predict how often users post toxic content.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-19T17:24:47Z) - The Face of Populism: Examining Differences in Facial Emotional Expressions of Political Leaders Using Machine Learning [50.24983453990065]
We use a deep-learning approach to process a sample of 220 YouTube videos of political leaders from 15 different countries.<n>We observe statistically significant differences in the average score of negative emotions between groups of leaders with varying degrees of populist rhetoric.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-19T18:32:49Z) - Collective moderation of hate, toxicity, and extremity in online
discussions [1.114199733551736]
We analyze a large corpus of more than 130,000 discussions on Twitter over four years.
We identify different dimensions of discourse that might be related to the probability of hate speech in subsequent tweets.
We find that expressing simple opinions, not necessarily supported by facts, relates to the least hate in subsequent discussions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-01T09:35:26Z) - Beyond Plain Toxic: Detection of Inappropriate Statements on Flammable
Topics for the Russian Language [76.58220021791955]
We present two text collections labelled according to binary notion of inapropriateness and a multinomial notion of sensitive topic.
To objectivise the notion of inappropriateness, we define it in a data-driven way though crowdsourcing.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-03-04T15:59:06Z) - Annotators with Attitudes: How Annotator Beliefs And Identities Bias
Toxic Language Detection [75.54119209776894]
We investigate the effect of annotator identities (who) and beliefs (why) on toxic language annotations.
We consider posts with three characteristics: anti-Black language, African American English dialect, and vulgarity.
Our results show strong associations between annotator identity and beliefs and their ratings of toxicity.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-11-15T18:58:20Z) - News consumption and social media regulations policy [70.31753171707005]
We analyze two social media that enforced opposite moderation methods, Twitter and Gab, to assess the interplay between news consumption and content regulation.
Our results show that the presence of moderation pursued by Twitter produces a significant reduction of questionable content.
The lack of clear regulation on Gab results in the tendency of the user to engage with both types of content, showing a slight preference for the questionable ones which may account for a dissing/endorsement behavior.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-06-07T19:26:32Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.