Unifying Models of Intergroup Hostility in Online Discourse

State-backed influence operations are routinely measured as high-prevalence sources of hate'' and toxicity.'' We argue those rates rest on a measurement error: the detectors behind them are validated to catch a broader definition inclusive of hostility or divisiveness aimed at an out-group, and so over-attribute hate to content better described as partisan or geopolitical invective. Across 25.08M tweets from seven government-attributed campaigns in the Twitter Information Operations archive (8,275 accounts), we separate hate from the other forms of divisiveness. We first validate a two-prompt LLM-based detector, matching human labels at Cohen's $κ=0.82$, to identify the broader hostility; we then develop an auditable rule, agreeing with an expert at $κ=0.52$, to further classify this content (5,457 posts) into three sub-categories. About 50.1% are identity-based attacks on people, whereas 30.4% are partisan attacks and 19.5% invective against states and their foreign policy. Reporting all of it as hate therefore overstates hate roughly twofold; only 18.7% is both identity-based and dehumanizing or inciting. Six of seven campaigns sort into three regimes that a single ``hate'' rate flattens, namely identity hate (RU-op and IRA, both Russia-attributed), geopolitical invective (both Iran operations), and partisan divisiveness (both Venezuela operations). We call the shared product $manufactured divisiveness$. The line to separate these constructs itself remains unsettled: on the hardest cases three independent human experts agree only moderately (pairwise $κ=0.37$--$0.50$), and the best of nineteen LLM models tops out at $κ=0.601$ against the experts' majority. Our findings can help redefine the study of hate in the context of influence campaigns and broader online discourse.

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.

The study of online discourse has become central to understanding societal polarization. While much research has focused on detecting overt toxicity, the subtle dynamics of social cohesion, meaning the interaction between divisive and unifying narratives, remain computationally underexplored (Bail, 2021; Gonzalez-Bailon and Lelkes, 2023). This paper presents Cohesion-6K, a manually and ChatGPT-assisted annotated dataset of six thousand Arabic public Facebook posts related to the Israeli Occupation of Palestine. Each post is assigned to one of five discourse categories that represent a continuum from conflict to cohesion: Conflict, Resolution, Community Engagement, Supportive Interactions, and Shared Values. The annotation process combines expert human judgment with model-assisted pre-labeling verified by trained annotators, achieving substantial inter-annotator agreement (Cohens kappa = 0.85). Quantitative analysis reveals a consistent engagement gap, where conflict-oriented posts receive between two and four times more user interaction than resolution-oriented ones (p < 0.01). This pattern illustrates how divisive discourse tends to attract disproportionate visibility in Arabic social media spaces. Cohesion-6K provides a transparent and reproducible resource for the study of online cohesion and polarization. The dataset, annotation guidelines, and preprocessing code will be released for research use under an open license, supporting future work in computational social science, digital communication, and Arabic natural language processing.