Online political talk is often deemed toxic to democracy due to the pervasiveness of incivility. This study challenges this perspective by examining the discursive and contextual conditions related to interpersonal incivility in contrast with incivility targeted at political elites on Facebook comments and news websites. Findings suggest that much of the vitriol online is targeted at politicians and characterized by justified opinions. Interpersonal incivility is associated with disagreement, but less likely to be associated with replies—suggesting that users refrain from uncivil direct confrontation. Taken together, these findings indicate that interpersonal-directed and elite-directed incivility are characterized by distinct discursive features and happen in opposite directions. Incivility is more than just shouting, and it is frequently used to criticize political elites and justify opinions than to attack others in a discussion. As such, it should not be inherently associated with toxic behaviors or be considered a problematic feature of online discussions.

由于普遍存在不文明行为，在线政治谈话通常被认为对民主有毒。这项研究通过检查与人际交往相关的话语和语境条件，与针对Facebook评论和新闻网站上的政治精英的交往相比，挑战了这一观点。研究结果表明，网上大量的硫酸是针对政客的，并具有合理的见解。人际交往能力与意见分歧有关，但与答复无关（建议用户避免不文明的直接对抗）。综上所述，这些发现表明，以人际为主导的和以精英为主导的不文明行为具有明显的话语特征，并在相反的方向上发生。不文明不只是喊叫，它经常被用来批评政治精英和为观点辩护，而不是在讨论中攻击其他人。因此，它不应与毒性行为固有地联系在一起，也不应被视为在线讨论的有问题的特征。