The new normal: Online political fandom and the co-opting of morals

Abstract

This paper focuses on the under-studied and complex aspect of toxic fan practices by analysing the discourse surrounding the Twitter hashtags #CrookedHillary and #LockHerUp as used throughout the 2016 Presidential Election in the United States. Based on the analysis of these hashtags, the previously ‘normal’ and ‘acceptable’ type of discourse has been co-opted into what can, arguably, be termed as toxic rhetoric and fan behaviour on Twitter. The results of this paper point to an acceptance by fans of being immersed in toxic practices despite a paradigmatic relocation of what is ‘normal’ towards more unchecked, unethical, and toxic behaviour.

As a process of understanding online fan behaviour, this article focuses primarily on the aspect of toxic fan practices by considering the discourse surrounding the hashtags, #CrookedHillary and #LockHerUp, as ‘used’ during the period of the 2016 Presidential Election in the United States. Although there has been a subsequent Presidential election in 2020, the 2016 election cycle and the miasma of rhetoric that surrounded it present an ideal microcosm for study. Furthermore, the validity of Twitter as a source of data collection for the article is illustrated by the fact that ‘in the past 10 years, we have seen exponential growth in the number of people using online forums and social networks. Every 60 seconds, there are…around 350,000 tweets generated on Twitter’ (Gaydhani, et al., 2018: 1). The type of rhetoric used in the social media sphere by fans/supporters presents as one of the most important aspects of understanding the intricacies of how fandom functions. This rhetoric has not been studied extensively within the context of anti-fandom, toxic fan practices, and subsequently political fandom. The advent of social media platforms such as Twitter has allowed fans a far greater stage on which to share their opinions while simultaneously increasing their visibility. Jenkins emphasizes that where fans were ‘once silent and invisible’ they ‘are now noisy and public’ (Jenkins, 2006: 19).

Specifically, the creation of the hashtags can be attributed to Clinton anti-fans, dissatisfied with her political policies/ideologies. These hashtags were arguably created as a means to express opposition and dissent. The hashtags gained significant traction on social media platforms and become symbols of the wider anti-Clinton movement. The use of these hashtags illustrates a growing trend of political activism through social media and underscores the role that social media plays in amplifying political engagement. However, the toxic nature of the hashtags, and the accompanying tweets, serves to highlight the potential to entrench specific political views in the online environment.

Thus, the creation and spread of #CrookedHillary and #LockHerUp serves as an example of how social media facilitates toxic fan practices. This study delves into the realm of political fandom and investigates the detrimental effects of toxic fan practices exemplified by the hashtags #CrookedHillary and #LockHerUp during the 2016 US Presidential Election. By uncovering the motivations, behaviours, and consequences of these practices, the research sheds new light on the intricate relationship between fan culture and politics.

The distinctiveness of this study rests on its meticulous examination of how toxic fan practices impedes meaningful political engagement, how it perpetuates echo chambers, and obstructs constructive dialogue. It further uncovers the complex mechanisms through which these practices propagate and considers the significant challenges they pose to democratic processes.

By addressing the complexities of fan culture within politics and shedding light on the negative repercussions of toxic fan practices, this study also aims to contribute to a broader understanding of the intersection between fan culture and politics. Through rigorous academic inquiry, this research aims to contribute towards the advancement not only the conversation but also the study of fan culture within the political realm.

Theoretical framework

In the context of fandom and subsequent fan behaviour, it is important to note that the first wave of fan studies (Fiske 2002; Jenson 1992; Jenkins 1992 & 2006) understood the importance of tackling the negative assumption of fans. This included work in the quest to dissuade the tendency of universally defining fans as conceptually, and negatively, fanatical and to further discourage the sweeping declaration of the fan-as-violent. Since then, the work of the mentioned scholars has not only come to serve as the foundation of fan studies but has encouraged the continued study thereof. In a more contemporary framework, the consideration of fan studies and/or fandom has begun to infiltrate every aspect of modern life and has commanded a meaningful consideration thereof, especially with the proliferation of the digital landscape.

How fans are considered and understood in today's world is no longer contained under the umbrella of science fiction, music, or sports fandom. Whereas fans were previously maligned and cast to the fringes of the mainstream they are now increasingly forming a part of daily life (Sandvoss, 2005: 3). To this point, Stanfill (2013) confirms too, that fans ‘have been mainstreamed as a model for the new ideal active media consumer’ (2013: 117). As such the study of fans is now suitably positioned as, arguably, one of the most important devices for understanding the driving force behind what defines the conversation of topical issues, especially within a digital space such as Twitter.

As Stanfill (2013) describes fandom as a ‘new normal’ (2013: 120), it stands to reason that the elements which characterize the practice and/or behaviour of fans online can influence and guide not only the content produced but also the elements that typify engagement in these spaces. In the context of this article, the engagement and practice in and around the use of the selected hashtags are of particular interest as it begins to reveal how discourse/communication is shifting towards what can be described as a new normal.

In this context, the concept of a ‘new normal’ can be interpreted as an integration of fan culture and practices of political engagement. It suggests a shift in the way people participate in political discussions, where elements typically associated with fandom, such as passionate support and intense emotions now manifests in the political realm. This blurring of boundaries between fandom and politics underscores the transformative impact that fan culture has on public online discourse.

By examining the ways in which fan-like behaviours enter the mainstream through the use of hashtags, this study explores the adaptation and appropriation of fandom practices within this particular context. It uncovers how toxic fan practices have become normalized and accepted as part of the political landscape and how it shapes the ways in which individuals interact, express their opinions, and form communities around political figures or ideologies in online spaces.

However, it is important to note that this phenomenon does not imply that fandom is wholly responsible for the transformation of online political discourse. Rather, it highlights the convergence of fandom practices with broader cultural and technological shifts. The rise of social media platforms and the democratization of content creation have created new avenues for fan engagement and practices to flourish and influence online conversations.

Overall, the exploration of the phenomenon of the ‘new normal’ in this article reveals the ways in which fandom has entered the mainstream and how it shapes the practices and behaviours observed. It further underscores the need to understand and critically examine these shifts in order to grasp the evolving dynamics of contemporary political discourse and online communication.

While fan studies has its roots in the late 20th century, the passage of time and the expansion of the field encompasses the study of fans in a political context, where individuals exhibit fan-like behaviour by becoming fans of political figures, parties, or ideologies. This intersection of fan culture and politics has gained significant prominence in recent years, particularly with the advent of social media and the proliferation of political echo chambers. Political fandom offers a nuanced perspective on how individuals use media and fan culture as a means of expressing their political beliefs and affiliations.

Cornel Sandvoss, a leading scholar in the field of fan studies, has written extensively on the concept of political fandom. In his book ‘Fans: The Mirror of Consumption’, Sandvoss states:

‘Political fandom can be defined as the emotional investment in and active support for political figures, parties, or ideologies...Political fandom exhibits similar characteristics to other forms of fandom, such as the creation of communities, the spread of misinformation, and the formation of echo chambers’ (Sandvoss, 2005).

This quote from Sandvoss highlights the similarities between political fandom and other forms of fandom. By viewing political fandom through the lens of fan studies, we can gain a deeper understanding of how people use media and fandom as a means of expressing their political beliefs and affiliations.

The proliferation of social media platforms has enabled individuals to easily connect with others who share similar political views and beliefs, leading to the formation of online communities and political fandoms.

These online communities are characterized by high levels of engagement, participation, and political activism, allowing for the rapid spread of political messages, ideas, and movements. The ability of social media platforms to facilitate the rapid spread of information, as well as the ease with which users can create, share, and engage with political content, has made it possible for political fandoms to rapidly gain influence and shape public opinion. Jungherr et al. argue too that digital media have ‘provided political actors with new tools and in turn changed the way some of politics is done’ (Jungherr et al., 2020: 8).

In addition, the algorithms and recommendation systems used by social media platforms often reinforce existing biases and amplify extreme political views, further entrenching political fandoms and creating an echo chamber effect. This can lead to the spread of misinformation and the further polarization of political discourse.

In preparing to unpack and understand the type of behaviour and engagement in and around these hashtags, it is essential to recognize that participation in digital spaces, including on a platform such as Twitter. Hills describes the fan as being in an ‘always on’ state which motivates the desire to sustain the ‘conversation’ (2017: 20). Hills describes this concept, as epitomized by the explosion of Web 2.0, as the realm wherein instantaneous access and response becomes not only inexhaustible but also shifts the notion of fandom towards an integral part of daily life (2017: 20).

What coincides with the ‘always on’ notion is Matt Hills's argument that ‘othering and aggression between different fan communities/groups have become more central in the digital age’ (2017:18). It is the intended outcome of the article to understand what this seemingly relentless ‘conversation’ looks like, how it presents itself, and how it has manifested itself within the context of the co-opting of discourse. Further to this, the article also aims to move towards a comprehension of how or what kind of measures fans have employed to defend their beliefs, opinions, and/or fandoms.

The hashtags selected for analysis in this article, #LockHerUp and #CrookedHillary, situate this study within the realm of political fandom and the fan activity and/or behaviour in this arena. As the comprehension and awareness of fans and fandom have grown, so too have the notion and perception thereof as stated by Stanfill (2013: 20). Consequently, there can be some consideration that fan activity has experienced a change in perception through negating, to a degree, the generalized negative stereotypes about fans. Nevertheless, though there is a scholarly shift that indicates a more positive regard for and of fans it remains important, in 2023, to consider the potentially negative practices that are still at play concerning, and within, the spheres of political fandom, anti-fandom, and toxic fan practices. To highlight specifically the prominence of political fandom, Reinhard et al. (2022) emphasize the QAnon conspiracy theorists and the prominence and proximity thereof within fandom:

underscoring the transferability of fan studies concepts to a political movement and communities…outlines the societal stakes of QAnon's manipulation and normalization of the toxic emotions cohering its adherents into a fanatic community, [sic] (2022: 1153).

In the context of this article and the selected hashtags, it will be demonstrated that there is a comprehensible shift of the line and boundaries in terms of what is ‘accepted’ as normal online behaviour or the ‘normalization’ referred to by Reinhard et al. (2022: 1153). It further demonstrates a clear co-opting of not only the discourse within a political fandom but also indicates a larger standardization of toxic practices.

Toxic fan practices have had a defining impact on the discourse surrounding political fandom. Toxic fan practices are a defining characteristic of political fandom, as they include the spread of misinformation, the formation of echo chambers, and the expression of toxic and harassing behaviour. These practices, which can have a detrimental effect on political discourse, have prompted researchers to examine the role of political fandom in shaping public opinion and the online political landscape.

William Proctor, another scholar in the field of fan studies, has also written toxic fan practices as having the ability to ‘flare up into heated and hostile skirmishes, thus producing grounds for toxic fan practices to emerge’ (Proctor, 2017: 1127).

This quote by Proctor highlights the serious implications of toxic fan practices in the political context and underscores the importance of addressing this issue. By examining the impact of toxic fan practices on political discourse and online communities, scholars can shed light on how fan culture intersects with politics and can contribute to a more inclusive and equitable society.

While toxic fan practices and anti-fandom may overlap in certain cases, they are distinct concepts. Anti-fandom is typically characterized by a critical stance towards a particular text or figure (Click, 2019: 14), while toxic fan practices are characterized by behaviours that are harmful or abusive towards others.

To attain a clear understanding of the practices highlighted in this article it is as important to appreciate the intersection between fandom and politics. Ashley Hinck states that ‘we have entered a historical moment in which political communication is filled with fandom’ (2020: 32). Hinck frames this type of fandom as citizenship, which is typified by engagement and as those fans who ‘envision a different status quo’ (2019: 2). Hinck also writes that ‘viewing citizenship as a performance allows us to attend to varied and particular meanings that might emerge from the same act’ (2019: 4). Thus, the examination of the practices that demonstrates the actions or performances around these hashtags grants the ability to analyse the co-opting of online discourse and begins to conceive the potential significance of these practices and/or actions in this context. Booth et al. (2019) underline this by writing that ‘the internet has played an important role in the emergence of new kinds of vernacular discourse. Remix cultures and the ease of replication has enabled everyday non-institutional individuals to manipulate existing public discourse in new ways’ (2019: 4). It is against this backdrop that the co-opting of discourse in and around the selected hashtags is explored.

Within the focus area of political fandom, this article purposely highlights the Trump follower and the understanding of the behaviours and/or online practices engaged. In Poaching Politics (2019) Booth et al. define the term political poaching as a re-evaluation of ‘the relationship between citizen and political campaigns’ (2019: 2).

In specific reference to #LockHerUp and #CrookedHillary, Booth et al. describe the Trump tweets comprising this hashtag as ‘the language of fandom: emotive, passionate, and focused on feeling rather than rationality’ (2019: 42). These aspects of fandom are demonstrated through the type of engagement and discourse around the two hashtags at the centre of this article and begin to suggest that a new, popularized form of online participation and communication is determining a clear shift towards a new normal.

Methodological approach

To examine this hypothesis, the two Twitter hashtags have been highlighted for analysis. Through the tweets, replies, and mentions included the content and meaning of the two hashtags are analysed to understand their potential meaning and significance. The selection of tweets between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016, has been deemed appropriate for the following reasons:

(1) Historical Significance: The time frame in question encompasses the latter stages of the U.S. presidential campaign and the initial months of the subsequent presidency, thereby rendering it a historically significant period for this study.

(2) Representation of Opinions: The collection of tweets from this particular time frame affords an opportunity to capture a diverse range of perspectives and opinions, enabling a comprehensive examination of political discourse online.

(3) Evolution of Online Discourse: The examination of political discourse over the course of a year provides insights into the development of online discourse and how it has evolved in the digital age.

(4) Data Availability: The existence of substantial datasets of tweets from this period enhances the accuracy and reliability of the results by facilitating the collection and analysis of data.

The data for this study was gathered by selecting a sample size of 500 to 700 tweets from a larger dataset that encompassed the period between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016. The original dataset contained a significantly larger number of tweets. However, in order to ensure the feasibility of the data analysis the selection of the sample tweets was guided by a focus on including tweets that featured the hashtags #CrookedHillary and #LockHerUp.

To ensure that all ethical guidelines were adhered to, all research involving social media data has been anonymized to protect the privacy of the individuals. Additionally, when analysing tweets, the focus rested exclusively on the content of the tweets rather than the specific identities of the users.

Further, the study aims to examine the nature of the online discourse surrounding the selected hashtags, which prompted a focus on analysing the content used in the tweets to identify patterns, trends, and key arguments, which are further expounded in the analysis section of this study. As such, the analyses conducted for this study is grounded in a discourse analysis that focuses on examining language use, social interactions, and power relations within a particular context.

Analysis: The evolution of #CrookedHillary and #LockHerUp

Throughout the 2016 general election in the United States, then-Republican nominee Donald Trump often referred to Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent, as ‘Crooked Hillary’. Trump unveiled the moniker during a July 2016 rally in Watertown, New York (Spaeth, 2016), reportedly about his belief that she was controlled by special interests and lobbyists (LoGuirato, 2016). The moniker was not reserved only for Trump rallies, however. Given the proliferation and pervasiveness of social media, a corresponding hashtag, #CrookedHillary, was used 5.8 million times on Twitter since its inception at the Watertown rally and election day on November 8, 2016 (Chiluwa and Samoilenko, 2019: 380).

Donald Trump regularly included the Crooked Hillary hashtag in his tweets. One such example, from 2016, includes an unproven accusation aimed at Hillary Clinton: ‘We must not let #CrookedHillary take her CRIMINAL SCHEME into the Oval Office. #DrainTheSwamp2’ (Trump, 2016). The use of negative language and the spread of misinformation by individuals in positions of power can be deemed toxic fan practices. This tweet and Trump’s assertions are prime examples of such toxic behaviour. This type of communication on social media has the potential to further polarize individuals, communities, and society as a whole.

Moreover, the actions of individuals in positions of power can have a ripple effect and contribute to the normalization of toxic fan practices. This shift towards a ‘new normal’ can perpetuate a cycle whereby harmful behaviour becomes increasingly significant in terms of its ability to shape the discourse of the broader digital landscape.

In reply to a now-deleted tweet, @AmericaGreat3 wrote, ‘the problem is that her supporters know and don't care. Every vote for #CrookedHillary is a vote for rape corruption & murder’ [sic] (Williams, 2016). In this tweet, the toxicity is directed at both Clinton, through the use of the hashtag, and her supporters, by attempting to equivocate those that may vote for Clinton, or the Clinton fandom, with, arguably, some of the vilest acts human beings could commit. This demonstrates the start of a type of co-opting of the norm and an attempted manoeuvre towards accepting the ‘new’ discourse and/or behaviour as a standard, or normal, course of action. By pushing these boundaries it displays how the proverbial line between fiction, and reality continues to be blurred. This is to the point where common values of decency, tolerance, and open-mindedness have been replaced with, at best, a hypercritical and deleterious form of online behaviour and discourse.

The tweets analysed include the use of negative language and the spread of misinformation and is magnified when an influential figure, such as Trump, engages in such behaviour. Consequently, this can lead to a toxic online environment that intensifies divisions. This accentuates the Booth et al.’s definition of Trump tweets as purposely provocative (2019: 42).

Fan Influence and co-opting

Hinck’s framing of political fandom as a form of engaged citizenship (2019: 2) allows for the appreciation of the diverse meanings that emerge from fans’ actions and practices, thereby showcasing the performative nature of citizenship in fan communities. In this analysis it is an especially interesting consideration that the co-opting of discourse and online behaviour may not be a deliberate goal of these fans. As Petersen (2022) writes, fans are unlikely to ‘stick around [their] fan community or migrate from one community to the next because they have a declared goal of reworking values and norms and challenging dominant production culture’ (2022:4). Nevertheless, although the change in acceptable discourse and the subsequent shifting of values may not be explicit, in terms of overall intent, it does still feature as a consequence of this type of behaviour in the online environment. For example, in several tweets, the term ‘bitch’ is included as a descriptor, or perhaps label, of Hillary Clinton (Deplorable Sforza, 2016; Lady Trumpster, 2016; dario, 2016, MDNiteOwl, 2016; DB, 2016). Initially, these tweets, although plentiful, were disregarded for this article because they were not considered to be particularly noteworthy in their composition. However, this prompted a different realization of how thoroughly, as media users, we have been desensitized to the word/label ‘bitch’. To the point where it has become, arguably, an acceptable and standard type of discourse that has become acceptable and easily dismissed, part of online discourse.

There are instances too where the inclusion of the two hashtags under analysis indicates no direct correlation to the rest of the tweet. A user tweeted: ‘#MAGA #CrookedHillary #RiggedSystem Oh well she gonna die anyway’ [sic] (Vick da Cruz, 2016). This example, which includes several hashtags, can be seen as a mechanism by which Trump supporters not only share their own constructed, online identity but also make themselves ‘visible’ as part of the Trump fandom. As such, it indicates that #CrookedHillary could be mobilized by Trump fans as a unifying device and, potentially, as a manner of demonstrating their status as ‘valid’ members of the ‘community’. In 2020 a user, in response to a Trump tweet, replied: ‘Lock them up! All of them! #CrookedHillary #CrookedJoeBiden’ (Taylor, 2020). Long removed from the 2016 election, the inclusion of the ‘Crooked Hillary’ hashtag in the above tweet illustrates the use thereof as not only a type of ‘beacon’ for like-minded fans.

Pivoting the rhetoric

The pivot of hashtags like ‘Crooked Hillary’ and ‘#LockHerUp’ in online political discourse exemplify how fans actively shape the evolving digital landscape. In this study the ‘Crooked Hillary’ hashtag would not be the only one used by the Trump campaign in the run-up to election day. At the 2016 Republican National Convention, the chant ‘Lock her up’ was born (Gass, 2016). Similar to #CrookedHillary this ‘slogan’ would later be transformed into a Twitter hashtag and referenced an estimated 1.1 million times (Chiluwa and Samoilenko, 2019: 380).

What is particularly interesting regarding #LockHerUp is the identified instances of a pivot in the use of this hashtag. Previously the hashtags were used as a unifying device and a declaration against Hillary Clinton. However, several tweets that included #LockHerUp were directed at Clinton supporters instead.

As an example, a Twitter user writes: ‘If you vote for @HillaryClinton you have blood on your hands as well, she lied/lies to Americans every day she campaigns for Pres. #LockHerUP’ [sic] (Jay P, 2016). Meanwhile, another user tweets: ‘It’s no joke when #snowflakes R a REALITY – what better way to describe young clueless, ignorant #libtards? LOL #MAGA TRUMPwon #lockHERup’ [sic] (Craig B. C., 2016). An acknowledgment of the fans’ agency allows for a deeper understanding of the ‘new normal’ in online communication. It highlights the power dynamics at play within digital spaces, where individuals actively shape and redefine the rules of engagement, often in response to political events such as the one researched in this study.

Instead of assuming that tech companies, or a platform like Twitter, determines or even attempts to regulate online behaviour, it should be recognized that it is the participants or fans in these spaces who, through continuous participation, dictate the dynamic of the conversation or type of communication on these platforms and within these communities. As such, this analytical lens allows for a move beyond a simplistic view of platform regulation and instead appreciates the interplay between fans, digital platforms, and the construction of the ‘new normal’ in online discourse.

Embracing the echo chamber

The phenomenon of reciprocal adoption of online practices, or embracing the echo chamber, in these specific fan communities, is a fascinating area of study. As fans continue to engage in these online spaces, they not only consume media content but also actively shape their own online practices. This reciprocal adoption refers to the bi-directional flow of influences among online fan communities, where practices are shared, adapted, and incorporated by individuals within these communities.

This is evidenced through the use of #LockHerUp and the recognition that it is not limited to use by only Trump supporters. In fact, on several occasions, the use of #LockHerUp appears to have been reverse-engineered and used against the Trump fandom. Case in point, a tweet from @CerieOfficial reads, ‘but Trump played you on this didn’t he? Trump isn’t interested in #lockherup that was a nice gimmick like drain the swamp’ (CerieOfficial, 2016). What this is indicative of is a type of acceptance that to participate in this environment you must abide by the standards and rules set by the ‘community’. If not, the probability of gaining traction or recognition in these spaces is, arguably, minimal.

What this teaches other media users is that to gain entrance to these communities or to keep the play going is that the same, or similar, modes of communication or discourse, and therefore behaviour, must be engaged and/or practiced. An example of this can be seen in the use of #LockHerUp, which, on these occasions, has been commandeered by ‘anti-Trumpers’ and used against members of his family or staff. @lizzzyk66 writes, ‘that #SweatShopShoeSalesGirl Ivanka is the trump I most want to see behind bars. She offends me on EVERY level of my personal existence- Blonde Woman Mother Business owner(me formerly) AND AS A DECENT HUMAN BEING! #LockHerUp’ [sic] (Elizabeth, 2020). This may be suggestive that there is little that separates the kind/type of online practice and behaviour users are willing to engage in, in these online environments.

What is an especially interesting observation is that during the research for the article the ‘suggestions’ for profiles to follow and ad pop-ups, quickly began to mimic the type of content that was being investigated. For example, after only a few hours of research, a popup with details of politicians’ ‘secret’ health issues materialized on the screen. This illustrates the ease with which any media user can not only be inundated with specifically tailored information/content but also how easily this type of information/content can begin to dominate feeds, pages, and ultimately the discourse on social media platforms.

Furthermore, this study and its analysis of the impact on discourse and behaviour, allows us to gain an insight into how the reciprocal adoption of online practices influences the construction of fan identities and the evolution of community norms towards a ‘new normal’. As such, to recognize the broader implications of this phenomenon presents the opportunity to unpack and understand not only the cultural shifts but also the establishment of new norms within fandom.

Findings and conclusion

The maintenance of toxic discourse and behaviour relies on the users and/or fans to formulate and use a specific type of vernacular, as mentioned. This suggests that those who participate in and/or engage with this type of discourse or behaviour can be considered as wanting to be a part of this well-defined community. However, how these communities’ function and how they achieve the co-opting of online behaviour, as detailed in this article, reveals the concern of an unchecked spread of toxic rhetoric, intolerance, and hateful speech. These behaviours and practices are stimulated by an ‘always on’ (Hills, 2017: 18) landscape which typifies and standardizes this type of digital participation on platforms such as Twitter.

There should be an expectation too that some of the responsibility rests with the social media companies. However, it has been revealed that the committee responsible for investigating the events in and around January 6th failed to share information about especially Twitter’s failure to prevent the spread of violent rhetoric. ‘The draft report [a 122-page memo] details how most platforms did not take “dramatic” steps to rein in extremist content…despite clear red flags across the internet’ (Zakrzewski et al., 2023).

As such, these ‘always on’ (Hills, 2017: 18) digital spaces, frequented by so many, serve as a showcase of the transformation to and co-opting of moral standards into a more sinister and toxic cycle presents an ominous predictor for the future of online discourse. There is a debate about whether the issue of government regulation of social media (Rochefort, 2020; Balkin, 2019; Brown and Peters, 2018) should become a reality. However, there is, arguably, no debate that the type of behaviour and discourse highlighted in the article needs to be addressed. Especially, when considering the potential impact on contemporary society and the model or standards that are becoming the status quo of 21st-century communication.

Traditional ideas of disagreement, debate, engagement, communication, open-mindedness, and political identity are being co-opted by social media users to the point that they are typifying and defining political discourses such as the ones pertinent to this article. In fact, in the context of Trump, Brian Ott (2017) considers Twitter to be a platform that ‘breeds dark, degrading, and dehumanizing discourse’ (2017: 59). Due to lack of regulation or censorship, fans are emboldened to engage with and create a highly toxic environment that is propelled by endless echo chambers which are ‘protected’ under the umbrella of freedom of speech. If this apathetic approach from social media platforms continues, it runs the risk of allowing this type of online behaviour to expand and evolve into real-world acts of disorder and anarchy, as already demonstrated through events such as the January 6th insurrection.