High prevalence of antagonizing rhetoric in trending topics on Twitter/X

On social media, many users actively push back against false claims. Understanding who pushes back and how they do so matters, as this corrective activity is central to how misinformation is contested. We study this counter-misinformation ecosystem at scale: applying a domain-specific NLI model from our prior work to a large corpus of COVID-19 tweets, we classify 264,737 posts as supporting or opposing false claims and compare 23 user- and text-level features across the two groups. Contrary to the dominant assumption that negative emotion is a signature of falsehood, we find that anti-misinformation posts are more emotionally negative than pro-misinformation posts, with higher levels of anger, disgust, and sadness. These differences are modest in magnitude but consistent in direction across the negative emotions. We also find that posts opposing misinformation tend to come from more established users, i.e., older accounts, more followers, and higher listed counts.

The spread of misinformation is widely perceived as a threat to democratic deliberation, yet how political elites' rhetorical commitments to truth shift alongside the rise of populist actors remains poorly understood. Analysing 4.5 million tweets and 59,170 parliamentary speeches by German political elites between 2015 and 2025, we measure evidence-based and intuition-based rhetoric using a validated distributed dictionary representation. Across both arenas, intuition-based language has become more prominent, and right-leaning actors consistently exhibit the lowest Evidence Minus Intuition (EMI) scores. The parliamentary entry of the extreme-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) in 2017 coincides with sharp downward shifts in EMI across the broader chamber, while a more gradual decline is observed on Twitter. These findings document an association between far-right visibility and a changing approach to truth in elite discourse in a multiparty European democracy.

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.