Research on online political discourse has long been concerned with the pervasiveness of incivility across various digital arenas. However, most of this work has focused on discourse that is rude in tone, but not necessarily harmful in substance. Consequently, there remains a significant gap in understanding the true impact of harmful online speech on both its targets and bystanders. Addressing this gap, this four-country experimental study examines perceptions and reactions to intolerant online discourse. We focus on Brazil, Germany, the UK, and the US, democracies with high internet use and notable increases in online intolerance. We manipulate three types of intolerance (discrimination, hateful speech, violent threats), tone (civil, uncivil), and target (women, LGBT) to examine how these factors influence both perceptions and reactions to intolerance. For instance, hateful and threatening speech is expected to elicit stronger responses compared to discriminatory content. Additionally, the study explores how the tone of discourse influences support for content moderation practices and engagement in political discussions, particularly among targeted identity groups. Ultimately, this research endeavors to deepen understanding of the nuanced dynamics of online intolerance and its repercussions on democratic discourse in diverse socio-political landscapes.

Research on online hate speech is burgeoning, highlighting its significant negative consequences on individual and societal levels. Still, there is a lack of attention directed towards understanding the perceptions and experiences of individuals in the general population toward this phenomenon. Such insights could significantly help decision-makers and scholars in formulating initiatives to inform and educate the public, thereby preventing further harm. Therefore, quality insight into the understanding and perceptions of hate speech, as well as related experiences and behaviour is needed. In the absence of established survey instruments and given the fragmented and limited nature of the existing data, the primary objective of this scoping review is to systematically identify online hate speech survey measures, as well as the topics and populations the associated research addressed. Preliminary findings reveal a disproportionate focus on students and young adults and the predominant use of non-representative sampling methods, leaving older population groups under-researched and raising concerns about results’ generalizability. Broad research scopes are predominant; in order to better understand real-world experiences, scholars should aim for more detailed research scopes, including studying OHS in specific online contexts and within specific groups. In terms of topics, existing survey measures mostly cover the topics of direct exposure/perpetration of OHS, neglecting the whole hate speech ecosystem; what comes before and after the dissemination of hate speech online. In terms of question types, ordinal scales are most common, but the lack of standardized scales results in fragmented findings that are difficult to compare.

Digital political visualizations often highlight an inherent conflict between visualization practitioner heuristics and standards, which are geared towards leading audiences to a ‘correct’ reading, and the use of “strategic ambiguity” (Eisenberg, 1984) to increase political appeal. While excellence in creation and interpretation of visualization is studied and theorized primarily with the visualization’s attributes in mind, the ubiquity of digital political visualizations as a rhetorical genre brings forth a host of audience-side considerations and decoding processes so far neglected by scholars. Thus, this paper amalgamates perspectives onto visualization as a communicative technology, a rhetorical genre, and a persuasion-tool by exploring the relationship between graphical excellence, audience’s graphical literacy, and the ensuing polysemy in personal/group readings of digital political visualizations. Asking: How do audiences decode political messages embedded in visualizations shared online? We conducted a bi-national focus-group study (8 groups, 67 participants), in which participants conduct group- and individual- decoding of digital political visualization stimuli. We find that all stimuli, regardless of design heuristics and/or topic, resulted in starkly polysemic readings, with participants’ attitudes ranging between graphical avoidance, and calls for ‘interpretive freedom,’ suggesting that the epitome of literacy is the ability to see beyond the intended meaning and assert one’s own interpretation according to their worldviews. We thus suggest is it imperative to view digital political visualizations’ reception as a result of both visualizers’ choices and audience’s individual/collective interpretive freedom, striving for ‘graphical excellence’ as a shared pursuit of both audiences and visualizers, aimed to bring forth more benign digital deliberation.

In the digital age, platforms such as Twitter foster the emergence of fragmented issue-based communities online, intersecting with traditional media and broader national discourse. However, these digital public spheres often deviate from idealised concepts like those proposed by Habermas, showcasing uncivil discourse and participatory disparities. Recent research highlights a subset of hyperactive users on Twitter who monopolise discussions on contentious topics like abortion, perpetuating intolerance and incivility.

Drawing on social psychological theories of social identity as discursive constructions, this study investigates how hyperactive uncivil and intolerant Twitter users present their identities. Analysing over 30,000 accounts, researchers scrutinise psycholinguistic patterns and emoji usage to answer two key questions: How do these hyperactive users describe their identities compared to non-hyperactive ones, and who are the verified, influencer accounts driving uncivil and intolerant discourse on abortion?

The findings reveal distinct identity markers among hyperactive users compared to non-hyperactive ones. Notably, hyperactive uncivil and intolerant users display varied discursive identifications, often aligning with religious, partisan, and familial affiliations rather than directly addressing abortion-related identities like pro-choice or pro-life. Furthermore, there's a notable dominance of pro-life social identity in online discourse, potentially influencing online public opinion despite being a minority in national surveys.

This research sheds light on the intricate relationship between discursive social identities and their hyperactive behaviours in Twitter issue publics. This study also contributes to our understanding of the key hyperactive actors in American Twitterspheres and beyond, driving incivility and intolerance in abortion discourse.