Related papers: "F*** You Biden": Cross-Partisan Electoral Toxicity on X

"F*** You Biden": Cross-Partisan Electoral Toxicity on X

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.12526v1
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2026 15:19:44 GMT
Title: "F*** You Biden": Cross-Partisan Electoral Toxicity on X
Abstract summary: We use a large collection of original posts and replies from X (formerly Twitter), collected during the 2024 U.S. presidential election.<n>Using a human-validated large language model to classify the political alignment of posts and users, we uncover a striking asymmetry.<n>Republicans account for a large majority of replies to Democratic posts, while Democrats account for a minority of replies to Republican content.
Score: 3.40728577554761
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Abstract: Political discourse on social media has grown increasingly toxic, with electoral periods amplifying partisan hostility and cross-group attacks. Yet it remains unclear whether toxicity in online political speech reflects how partisans communicate within their own circles, or how aggressively they engage with the opposition. Disentangling these dynamics is critical for understanding online political hostility and for designing effective content moderation. We examine this question at scale using a large collection of original posts and replies from X (formerly Twitter), collected during the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Using a human-validated large language model to classify the political alignment of posts and users, and the Perspective API for toxicity scoring, we uncover a striking asymmetry: Republican-leaning posts are significantly more toxic than Democratic-leaning posts, yet Democratic-leaning posts attract significantly more toxic replies. To interpret this finding, we compare the toxicity of same-party and cross-partisan replies. While cross-partisan replies are slightly but significantly more toxic than same-party replies, this is true for both Democratic and Republican posts. However, Republican users account for a large majority of replies to Democratic posts, while Democrats account for a minority of replies to Republican content. Therefore, the elevated toxicity directed at Democratic content is better explained by the volume of Republican cross-partisan replies.

Related papers

Mapping Election Toxicity on Social Media across Issue, Ideology, and Psychosocial Dimensions [9.017731357825287]
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.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-04-18T01:13:36Z)
Grievance Politics vs. Policy Debates: A Cross-Platform Analysis of Conservative Discourse on Truth Social and Reddit [5.492825288978256]
We analyze Truth Social and the most popular conservative Reddit communities, r/Conservative, r/conservatives, and r/Republican.<n>We find clear contrasts: Truth Social centers on grievance and narrative-driven content, while Reddit focuses more on policy debates.<n>Our findings contribute to understanding how alternative right-leaning platforms reshape online discourse.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-03-18T16:35:10Z)
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)
Characterization of Political Polarized Users Attacked by Language Toxicity on Twitter [3.0367864044156088]
This study aims to provide a first exploration of the potential language toxicity flow among Left, Right and Center users. More than 500M Twitter posts were examined. It was discovered that Left users received much more toxic replies than Right and Center users.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-17T10:49:47Z)
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)
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)
Sub-Standards and Mal-Practices: Misinformation's Role in Insular, Polarized, and Toxic Interactions on Reddit [5.161088104035108]
We show that comments on articles from unreliable news websites are posted more often in right-leaning subreddits. As the toxicity of subreddits increases, users are more likely to comment on posts from known unreliable websites.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-01-27T01:32:22Z)
Non-Polar Opposites: Analyzing the Relationship Between Echo Chambers and Hostile Intergroup Interactions on Reddit [66.09950457847242]
We study the activity of 5.97M Reddit users and 421M comments posted over 13 years. We create a typology of relationships between political communities based on whether their users are toxic to each other.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-11-25T22:17:07Z)
Comparing the Language of QAnon-related content on Parler, Gab, and Twitter [68.8204255655161]
Parler, a "free speech" platform popular with conservatives, was taken offline in January 2021 due to the lack of moderation of hateful and QAnon- and other conspiracy-related content. We compare posts with the hashtag #QAnon on Parler over a month-long period with posts on Twitter and Gab. Gab has the highest proportion of #QAnon posts with hate terms, and Parler and Twitter are similar in this respect. On all three platforms, posts mentioning female political figures, Democrats, or Donald Trump have more anti-social language than posts mentioning male politicians, Republicans, or
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-11-22T11:19:15Z)
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)
Right and left, partisanship predicts (asymmetric) vulnerability to misinformation [71.46564239895892]
We analyze the relationship between partisanship, echo chambers, and vulnerability to online misinformation by studying news sharing behavior on Twitter. We find that vulnerability to misinformation is most strongly influenced by partisanship for both left- and right-leaning users.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-10-04T01:36:14Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.