This recently published study offers a comprehensive and systematic analysis of toxicity in political communication across Twitter/X among Spain’s leading political parties over nearly a decade. The research emerges in a context where digital platforms have become the central arena for political debate and public engagement. Twitter, in particular, has transformed the relationship between parties and citizens, but it has also served as a breeding ground for toxic language, polarization, and populist strategies.
The study examines a corpus of 265,122 tweets posted by the official accounts of the ten most prominent Spanish political parties between 2015 and 2023. Using a large-scale computational approach and the Google Perspective API, the authors analyzed several dimensions of toxicity: general toxicity, severe toxicity, insults, profanity, identity attacks, and threats. This multidimensional perspective allows for a nuanced understanding of how hostility and aggression are embedded in political discourse on digital platforms.
One of the main findings is the consistent increase in toxic language over the years. Although there are peaks and valleys depending on electoral cycles and political events, the overall trend indicates a worrying normalization of aggression in political messaging. Among the parties analyzed, Vox exhibits the highest levels of toxicity across almost all dimensions, followed by ERC and Podemos. In contrast, parties like Sumar and PNV tend to maintain significantly lower levels of toxic expression.
Another critical insight from the article is the correlation between toxicity and engagement. Tweets with higher toxicity scores tend to receive more likes, retweets, and replies, suggesting that aggressive content is not only more visible but also more likely to be amplified within the platform. This dynamic mirrors trends observed in other global contexts, where polarizing and emotionally charged messages are more algorithmically favored and publicly consumed.
The authors argue that the rise of toxicity is not random but reflects deeper transformations in political communication. Right-wing populist parties, particularly Vox, leverage antagonistic rhetoric to fuel ideological confrontation and consolidate identity-driven narratives. This has significant implications for democratic deliberation and public debate, as it risks eroding the standards of respectful dialogue and civic reasoning.
Beyond the empirical contributions, the study offers important reflections for various stakeholders. For researchers, it provides a robust and replicable methodology for assessing toxicity in political discourse. For political actors and communication professionals, it offers diagnostic tools to understand the effects and risks of language strategies. And for civil society and policymakers, the findings support the need for regulatory frameworks and digital literacy initiatives to mitigate the spread of harmful content.
Published in Frontiers in Political Science (SJR-WOS Q1), this article contributes to the growing body of literature on digital democracy, platform governance, and political polarization. It helps to illuminate how online environments can both reflect and reshape political behavior—sometimes in dangerous ways.
Access the full article here: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpone environments can both reflect and