Mapping Election Toxicity on Social Media across Issue, Ideology, and Psychosocial Dimensions

Research on political polarization on social media depends on the ability to reliably measure partisanship in user-generated content. However, existing approaches are typically tailored to platform-specific properties, such as structural affordances or linguistic conventions, which hurts generalizability across platforms. This limitation is increasingly consequential as the social media ecosystem fragments and fringe, alt-tech platforms emerge alongside mainstream ones. We propose a text-based, platform-portable methodology for measuring political partisanship in social media posts, anchored by an external news-credibility signal. Posts are embedded using a transformer-based sentence encoder and clustered into topic groups, which are labeled using the aggregated AllSides media bias scores of cited news outlets. A partisanship axis is then constructed in the embedding space as the difference between centroids of oppositely labeled clusters, and individual posts are scored by projection onto this axis. We apply the method to a corpus of approximately 1.3 million posts collected from Bluesky and Truth Social during the six months preceding the 2024 U.S. presidential election, providing the first cross-platform comparison of partisanship distributions on these two ideologically asymmetric platforms. The resulting partisanship scores correlate significantly with held-out AllSides media bias scores both in-distribution and out-of-distribution on an independent Twitter corpus, and recover within-platform partisan dynamics that platform identity alone cannot explain.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate fluent political text at scale, raising concerns about synthetic discourse during crises and social conflict. Existing AI-text detection often focuses on sentence-level cues such as perplexity, burstiness, or token irregularities, but these signals may weaken as generative systems improve. We instead adopt a Computational Social Science perspective and ask whether synthetic political discourse behaves like an observed online population. We construct a paired corpus of 1,789,406 posts across nine crisis events: COVID-19, the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, the 2020 and 2024 U.S. elections, Dobbs/Roe v. Wade, the 2020 BLM protests, U.S. midterms, the Utah shooting, and the U.S.-Iran war. For each event, we compare observed discourse from social platforms with synthetic discourse generated for the same context. We evaluate four dimensions: emotional intensity, structural regularity, lexical-ideological framing, and cross-event dependency, using mean gaps and dispersion evidence. Across events, synthetic discourse is fluent but population-level unrealistic. It is generally more negative and less dispersed in sentiment, structurally more regular, and lexically more abstract than observed discourse. Observed discourse instead shows broader emotional variation, longer-tailed structural distributions, and more context-specific, colloquial lexical markers. These differences are event-dependent: larger for fast-moving, decentralized crises and smaller for formal or institutionally mediated events. We summarize them with a simple event-level measure, the Caricature Gap. Our findings suggest that the main limitation of synthetic political discourse is not grammar or fluency, but reduced population realism. Population-level auditing complements traditional text-detection and provides a CSS framework for evaluating the social realism of generated discourse.

Despite raising concerns about the mental health effects associated with the usage of TikTok, little is known about how related content is framed by creators and received by audiences. We collect the content of 28,341 TikTok videos and 80,130 comments from Mental Health Awareness Month (May) in 2023 and 2024 via the TikTok Research API, and study how the tone of awareness varies across topics and years. We characterize "tone" as the emotional and interpersonal framing of mental health discourse, operationalized through sentiment and toxicity measures. We extract topics from video text using BERTopic and log-odds keywords, then quantify topic-conditioned sentiment (XLM-T) and toxicity (Detoxify) separately for video transcriptions and comments. Sentiment captures the affective valence of content, while toxicity reflects the presence of harmful or abusive language. We find a stable set of recurring themes across years, spanning clinical conditions, emotional disclosure, self-care, and campaign-oriented content, with engagement highly skewed toward a small subset of topics. All sentiment and toxicity analyses are computed separately for video content and comments, allowing us to distinguish between content production and audience reception. Sentiment in videos is often negative for emotionally charged topics, while comments tend to shift toward more mixed or positive polarity, especially for suicide prevention. Toxicity is low in median overall, but exhibits longer-tailed outliers in comments than in videos that are more pronounced in comments and concentrated in specific topics (e.g., "Duet", "Suicide Prevention", and "Psychisch"). Overall, our results provide a topic-level decomposition of mental health discourse on TikTok during awareness-month campaigns.