We examine incivility across twenty high-traffic political and news subreddits to test how platform governance and social identity cues relate to on-platform discourse and participation. Building on theories of democratic communication and incivility, platform affordances and moderation, and uses-and-gratifications/network externalities, we specify how decentralized community rules and explicit in-group orientations could shape both the prevalence of uncivil language and patterns of engagement. We analyze a year-long, random sample of submissions and comments scored with established computational measures of incivility, and we link these scores to subreddit-level rule regimes and identity signaling. By distinguishing interpersonal impoliteness from democratic norm violations and by evaluating moderation complexity at the community level, this work clarifies when and how community governance relates to discourse quality and participation dynamics on Reddit. Findings inform ongoing debates about the efficacy of hybrid, human-centered moderation and the role of explicit identity norms in large online communities.
AlmerekhiH.JansenB. J.KwakH. (2020). Investigating toxicity across multiple Reddit communities, users, and moderators. In: WWW ’20: Companion proceedings of the web conference 2020 (pp. 294–298). https://doi.org/10.1145/3366424.3382091
2.
BaumgartnerJ.ZannettouS.KeeganB.SquireM.BlackburnJ. (2020). The Pushshift Reddit dataset. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 14(1), 830–839. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v14i1.7347
3.
BentivegnaS.RegaR. (2022). Searching for the dimensions of today’s political incivility. Social Media + Society, 8(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221114430
4.
BuckleyN.SchaferJ. S. (2022). “Censorship-free” platforms: Evaluating content moderation policies and practices of alternative social media. For(e)dialogue, 4(1): 483f18. https://doi.org/10.21428/e3990ae6.483f18da
5.
CaplanR. (2018). Content or context moderation? Artisanal, community-reliant, and industrial approaches. https://apo.org.au/node/203666
6.
CarlsonC. R.CousineauL. S. (2020). Are you sure you want to view this community? Exploring the ethics of Reddit’s quarantine practice. Journal of Media Ethics, 35(4), 202–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2020.1819285
7.
CoeK.KenskiK.RainsS. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104
8.
DavidsonS.SunQ.WojcieszakM. (2020). Developing a new classifier for automated identification of incivility in social media. Proceedings of the fourth workshop on online abuse and harms (pp. 95–101). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.alw-1.12
9.
DillardJ. P.PeckE. (2001). Persuasion and the structure of affect: Dual systems and discrete emotions as complementary models. Human Communication Research, 27(1), 38–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2001.tb00775.x
FoxJ. (1997). Applied regression analysis, linear models, and related methods (2nd ed.). Sage.
12.
GaoY.QinW.MuraliA.EckartC.ZhouX.BeelJ. D.WangY.-C.YangD. (2024). A crisis of civility? Modeling incivility and its effects in political discourse online. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 18(1), 408–421. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v18i1.31323
13.
GaudetteT.ScrivensR.DaviesG.FrankR. (2021). Upvoting extremism: Collective identity formation and the extreme right on Reddit. New Media & Society, 23(12), 3491–3508. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820958123
14.
GervaisB. T. (2016). More than mimicry? The role of anger in uncivil reactions to elite political incivility. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 29(3), 384–405. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edw010
15.
GibsonA. (2019). Free speech and safe spaces: How moderation policies shape online discussion spaces. Social Media + Society, 5(1), 2056305119832588. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119832588
16.
HanleyH. W. A.DurumericZ. (2023). Sub-standards and mal-practices: Misinformation’s role in insular, polarized, and toxic interactions on Reddit. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2301.11486. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.11486
17.
HansenR. W. (2022). You’ve never been welcome here: Exploring the relationship between exclusivity and incivility in online forums. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 20(2), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2022.2069180
18.
HerbstS. (2010). Rude democracy: Civility and incivility in American politics. Temple University Press.
19.
HimelboimI.McCreeryS.SmithM. (2013). Birds of a feather tweet together: Integrating network and content analyses to examine cross-ideology exposure on Twitter. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(2), 154–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12001
20.
HmielowskiJ. D.HutchensM. J.CicchirilloV. J. (2014). Living in an age of online incivility: Examining the conditional indirect effects of online discussion on political flaming. Information, Communication, & Society, 17(10), 1196–1211. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.899609
HoppT.VargoC. J.DixonL.ThainN. (2019). Correlating self-report and trace data measures of incivility: A proof of concept. Social Science Computer Review, 38(5), 584–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318814241
23.
JhaverS.BoylstonC.YangD.BruckmanA. (2021). Evaluating the effectiveness of deplatforming as a moderation strategy on Twitter. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479525
24.
KenskiK.CoeK.RainsS. A. (2020). Perceptions of uncivil discourse online: An examination of types and predictors. Communication Research, 47(6), 795–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217699933
25.
KimJ. W.GuessA.NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2021). The distorting prism: How self-selection and exposure to incivility fuel online comment toxicity. Journal of Communication, 71(6), 922–946. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab034
26.
KimY. (2021). Understanding the bystander audience in online incivility encounters: Conceptual issues and future research questions. Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-54), 2021, 2934–2943. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2021.357
MamakosM.FinkelE. J. (2023). The social media discourse of engaged partisans is toxic even when politics are irrelevant. PNAS Nexus, 2(10), pgad325. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad325
29.
MassaroT. M.StrykerR. (2012). Freedom of speech, liberal democracy and emerging evidence on civility and effective democratic engagement. Arizona Law Review, 54(2), 375–441.
MohanS.GuhaA.HarrisM.PopowichF.SchusterA.PriebeC. (2017). The impact of toxic language on the health of Reddit communities. In MouhoubM.LanglaisP. (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science: Vol. 10233. Advances in artificial intelligence (pp. 51–56). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57351-9_6
32.
MorstatterF.PfefferJ.LiuH.CarleyK. (2013). Is the sample good enough? Comparing data from Twitter’s streaming API with Twitter’s firehose. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 7(1), 400–408. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v7i1.14401
33.
MuddimanA. (2017). Personal and public levels of political incivility. International Journal of Communication, 11, 3182–3202.
34.
NarimanzadehH.Badie-ModiriA.SmirnovaI.ChenT. H. Y. (2025). Incivility and contentiousness spillover between COVID-19 and climate science engagement. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2502.05255. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.05255
35.
OzM.ZhengP.ChenG. M. (2018). Twitter versus Facebook: Comparing incivility, impoliteness, and deliberative attributes. New Media & Society, 20(9), 3400–3419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817749516
36.
PangH. (2024). Determining the influence of depressive mood and self disclosure on problematic mobile app use and declined educational attainment: Insight from stressor–strain–outcome perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 29(4), 4635–4656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12018-7
37.
PangH.HuZ. (2025). Detrimental influences of social comparison and problematic WeChat use on academic achievement: Significant role of awareness of inattention. Online Information Review, 49(3), 552–569. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-05-2024-0316
38.
PangH.QiaoY.LiY.WangL. (2024). Do network externalities and perceived gratifications boost WeChat continued use? Combining perspectives of network externalities and uses and gratifications. Acta Psychologica, 251, Article 104610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104610
39.
PangH.RuanY. (2024). Disentangling composite influences of social connectivity and system interactivity on continuance intention in mobile short video applications: The pivotal moderation of user perceived benefits. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 80, Article 103923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103923
40.
PangH.ZhangK. (2024a). Determining influence of service quality on user identification, belongingness, and satisfaction on mobile social media: Insight from emotional attachment perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 77, Article 103688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103688
41.
PangH.ZhangK. (2024b). How multidimensional benefits determine cumulative satisfaction and eWOM engagement on mobile social media: Reconciling motivation and expectation disconfirmation perspectives. Telematics and Informatics, 93, Article 102174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2024.102174
42.
PangH.ZhaoY.YangY. (2025). Struggling or shifting? Deciphering potential influences of cyberbullying perpetration and communication overload on mobile app switching intention through social cognitive approach. Information Processing & Management, 62(4), Article 104167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2025.104167
43.
PapacharissiZ. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444
44.
RathjeS.Van BavelJ. J.van der LindenS. (2021). Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(26), Article e2024292188. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2024292118
45.
RossiniP. (2022). Beyond incivility: Understanding patterns of uncivil and intolerant discourse in online political talk. Communication Research, 49(3), 399–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650220921314
46.
SalgadoS.Fernández-GarcíaB.BiscaiaA. (2025). Shades of incivility in Reddit: A comparison between echo chambers and plural spaces. International Social Science Journal, 75(255), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/issj.12536
47.
SantanaA. D. (2014). Virtuous or vitriolic: The effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards. Journalism Practice, 8(1), 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.813194
48.
ShenQ.RoseC. (2019). The discourse of online content moderation: Investigating polarized user responses to changes in Reddit’s quarantine policy. In RobertsS. T.TetreaultJ.PrabhakaranV.WaseemZ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the third workshop on abusive Language online (pp. 58–69). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W19-3507
49.
ShmargadY.CoeK.KenskiK.RainsS. A. (2022). Social norms and the dynamics of online incivility. Social Science Computer Review, 40(3), 717–735. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439320985527
50.
StevensH.AcicI.TaylorL. D. (2021). Uncivil reactions to sexual assault online: Linguistic features of news reports predict discourse incivility. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(12), 815–821. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2021.0075
TheocharisY.BarberáP.FazekasZ.PopaS. A. (2020). The dynamics of political incivility on Twitter. SAGE Open, 10(2), 2158244020919447. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020919447
54.
ValloneR. P.RossL.LepperM. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577
55.
WangM. Y.SilvaD. E. (2018). A slap or a jab: An experiment on viewing uncivil political discussions on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.041
