We present the first large-scale computational study of political delegitimization discourse (PDD), defined as symbolic attacks on the normative validity of political entities. We curate and manually annotate a novel Hebrew-language corpus of 10,410 sentences drawn from Knesset speeches (1993-2023), Facebook posts (2018-2021), and leading news outlets, of which 1,812 instances (17.4\%) exhibit PDD and 642 carry additional annotations for intensity, incivility, target type, and affective framing. We introduce a two-stage classification pipeline combining finetuned encoder models and decoder LLMs. Our best model (DictaLM 2.0) attains an F$_1$ of 0.74 for binary PDD detection and a macro-F$_1$ of 0.67 for classification of delegitimization characteristics. Applying this classifier to longitudinal and cross-platform data, we see a marked rise in PDD over three decades, higher prevalence on social media versus parliamentary debate, greater use by male than female politicians, and stronger tendencies among right-leaning actors - with pronounced spikes during election campaigns and major political events. Our findings demonstrate the feasibility and value of automated PDD analysis for understanding democratic discourse.

Toxic and uncivil politics is widely seen as a growing threat to democratic values and governance, yet our understanding of the drivers and evolution of political incivility remains limited. Leveraging a novel dataset of nearly 18 million Twitter messages from parliamentarians in 17 countries over five years, this paper systematically investigates whether politics internationally is becoming more uncivil, and what are the determinants of political incivility. Our analysis reveals a marked increase in toxic discourse among political elites, and that it is associated to radical-right parties and parties in opposition. Toxicity diminished markedly during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and, surprisingly, during election campaigns. Furthermore, our results indicate that posts relating to ``culture war'' topics, such as migration and LGBTQ+ rights, are substantially more toxic than debates focused on welfare or economic issues. These findings underscore a troubling shift in international democracies toward an erosion of constructive democratic dialogue.

The incivility in social media discourse complicates the deployment of automated text generation models for politically sensitive content. Fine-tuning and prompting strategies are critical, but underexplored, solutions to mitigate toxicity in such contexts. This study investigates the fine-tuning and prompting effects on GPT-3.5 Turbo using subsets of the CLAPTON dataset of political discussion posts, comprising Twitter and Reddit data labeled for their justification, reciprocity and incivility. Fine-tuned models on Reddit data scored highest on discussion quality, while combined noisy data led to persistent toxicity. Prompting strategies reduced specific toxic traits, such as personal attacks, but had limited broader impact. The findings emphasize that high-quality data and well-crafted prompts are essential to reduce incivility and improve rhetorical quality in automated political discourse generation.

Client-Service Representatives (CSRs) are vital to organizations. Frequent interactions with disgruntled clients, however, disrupt their mental well-being. To help CSRs regulate their emotions while interacting with uncivil clients, we designed Pro-Pilot, an LLM-powered assistant, and evaluated its efficacy, perception, and use. Our comparative analyses between 665 human and Pro-Pilot-generated support messages demonstrate Pro-Pilot's ability to adapt to and demonstrate empathy in various incivility incidents. Additionally, 143 CSRs assessed Pro-Pilot's empathy as more sincere and actionable than human messages. Finally, we interviewed 20 CSRs who interacted with Pro-Pilot in a simulation exercise. They reported that Pro-Pilot helped them avoid negative thinking, recenter thoughts, and humanize clients; showing potential for bridging gaps in coworker support. Yet, they also noted deployment challenges and emphasized the irreplaceability of shared experiences. We discuss future designs and societal implications of AI-mediated emotional labor, underscoring empathy as a critical function for AI assistants in front-office roles.

User-generated replies to hate speech are promising means to combat hatred, but questions about whether they can stop incivility in follow-up conversations linger. We argue that effective replies stop incivility from emerging in follow-up conversations - replies that elicit more incivility are counterproductive. This study introduces the task of predicting the incivility of conversations following replies to hate speech. We first propose a metric to measure conversation incivility based on the number of civil and uncivil comments as well as the unique authors involved in the discourse. Our metric approximates human judgments more accurately than previous metrics. We then use the metric to evaluate the outcomes of replies to hate speech. A linguistic analysis uncovers the differences in the language of replies that elicit follow-up conversations with high and low incivility. Experimental results show that forecasting incivility is challenging. We close with a qualitative analysis shedding light into the most common errors made by the best model.

The rise of social media has been argued to intensify uncivil and hostile online political discourse. Yet, to date, there is a lack of clarity on what incivility means in the political sphere. In this work, we utilize a multidimensional perspective of political incivility, developed in the fields of political science and communication, that differentiates between impoliteness and political intolerance. We present state-of-the-art incivility detection results using a large dataset of 13K political tweets, collected and annotated per this distinction. Applying political incivility detection at large-scale, we observe that political incivility demonstrates a highly skewed distribution over users, and examine social factors that correlate with incivility at subpopulation and user-level. Finally, we propose an approach for modeling social context information about the tweet author alongside the tweet content, showing that this leads to improved performance on the task of political incivility detection. We believe that this latter result holds promise for socially-informed text processing in general.

Incivility remains a major challenge for online discussion platforms, to such an extent that even conversations between well-intentioned users can often derail into uncivil behavior. Traditionally, platforms have relied on moderators to -- with or without algorithmic assistance -- take corrective actions such as removing comments or banning users. In this work we propose a complementary paradigm that directly empowers users by proactively enhancing their awareness about existing tension in the conversation they are engaging in and actively guides them as they are drafting their replies to avoid further escalation. As a proof of concept for this paradigm, we design an algorithmic tool that provides such proactive information directly to users, and conduct a user study in a popular discussion platform. Through a mixed methods approach combining surveys with a randomized controlled experiment, we uncover qualitative and quantitative insights regarding how the participants utilize and react to this information. Most participants report finding this proactive paradigm valuable, noting that it helps them to identify tension that they may have otherwise missed and prompts them to further reflect on their own replies and to revise them. These effects are corroborated by a comparison of how the participants draft their reply when our tool warns them that their conversation is at risk of derailing into uncivil behavior versus in a control condition where the tool is disabled. These preliminary findings highlight the potential of this user-centered paradigm and point to concrete directions for future implementations.

Well-annotated data is a prerequisite for good Natural Language Processing models. Too often, though, annotation decisions are governed by optimizing time or annotator agreement. We make a case for nuanced efforts in an interdisciplinary setting for annotating offensive online speech. Detecting offensive content is rapidly becoming one of the most important real-world NLP tasks. However, most datasets use a single binary label, e.g., for hate or incivility, even though each concept is multi-faceted. This modeling choice severely limits nuanced insights, but also performance. We show that a more fine-grained multi-label approach to predicting incivility and hateful or intolerant content addresses both conceptual and performance issues. We release a novel dataset of over 40,000 tweets about immigration from the US and UK, annotated with six labels for different aspects of incivility and intolerance. Our dataset not only allows for a more nuanced understanding of harmful speech online, models trained on it also outperform or match performance on benchmark datasets.