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.

Hostile rhetoric toward social groups can normalize exclusion and justify mistreatment, as well as contribute to rising polarization and political violence. Efforts to moderate hostile rhetoric in online speech draw on foundational theories in social and moral psychology, and political science. However, these theories were developed largely in parallel, often propose different and sometimes conflicting accounts of how hostility develops, and have rarely been tested against each other in real discourse. The result is a fragmented understanding of the rhetorical mechanisms of hostility, without a clear sense of how they appear, and relate to each other, in real-world discourse. Using 2.86 million posts from TikTok, Truth Social, and Twitter/X during the 2024 U.S. presidential election, we model the mechanisms of six foundational theories of intergroup hostility -- boundary construction, threat construction, scapegoating, negative evaluation, dehumanization, and action orientation -- within a common empirical framework to recover the broader organization of intergroup hostility rhetoric. Structurally, we find that boundary construction and threat construction anchor the system; temporally, we find that these mechanisms tend to follow a regular ordering: boundary construction, derogation, and action orientation tend to appear early; dehumanization and threat construction later; scapegoating latest. Mapping how these theoretical frameworks actually manifest in discourse bridges longstanding divisions across social science traditions and presents computational social science with a clearer empirical foundation for modeling intergroup hostility rhetoric beyond single-label detection.

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.