The Internet Taught Us to Hate. Now It’s Teaching Us to Kill: Evolution of Online Political Discourse in the United States, 2016–2026

Abstract

Online political discourse in the United States has transformed dramatically over the past decade. In 2016, social media platforms were already characterized by hostility, polarization, and misinformation, yet explicit advocacy for political violence remained largely outside mainstream digital spaces. By 2026, segments of online discourse increasingly include open endorsement of violence, including calls for civil war, armed resistance, and physical harm against political opponents and state institutions. This paper examines the rhetorical evolution of online political communication, the technological and psychological mechanisms driving escalation, and the real-world consequences of violent digital rhetoric. Drawing on public opinion research, platform policy analyses, and case examples of online-to-offline violence, the paper argues that reversing this trend requires renewed cultural restraint and reinforcement of democratic norms rather than continued rhetorical escalation.

Introduction

Social media has become the primary arena for political communication in the United States. Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter/X, YouTube, and alternative networks now shape how citizens receive information, construct political identity, and express grievance. While digital media expanded participatory democracy, it also introduced algorithmic incentives that amplify outrage, misinformation, and extremism. Over the past decade, online political discourse has shifted from rhetorical hostility toward increasing normalization of violent political expression. This paper argues that between 2016 and 2026, mainstream online discourse evolved from aggressive verbal conflict into partial acceptance of political violence, producing measurable consequences for public safety and institutional legitimacy. Understanding this evolution is essential to identifying strategies for restoring restraint in democratic communication.

2016: Hostile but Largely Rhetorical Online Conflict

By 2016, social media platforms had become highly polarized political spaces. Pew Research Center surveys found that users perceived online political discussions as angrier and less civil than offline conversations, with many users choosing to unfollow or block others over political disagreements (Pew Research Center, 2016). Comment sections were filled with insults, partisan demonization, and conspiratorial accusations. Despite this hostility, explicit calls for political violence were relatively rare in mainstream online spaces.

The 2016 U.S. presidential election exemplified this rhetorical aggression. Campaign slogans such as “Lock her up” and labels such as “Crooked Hillary” spread virally across social media. These messages delegitimized political opponents but remained framed within legal or electoral punishment rather than physical harm. The dominant mode of conflict was verbal dehumanization rather than open advocacy of violence.

Misinformation ecosystems further intensified hostility. The “Pizzagate” conspiracy theory falsely alleged criminal behavior by Democratic officials and circulated widely across online platforms. The narrative led to harassment and death threats and culminated in a real-world incident when an armed individual entered a Washington, D.C. restaurant to “investigate” the false claims (Fisher, Cox, & Hermann, 2016). While this event demonstrated early online-to-offline spillover, it remained an outlier rather than a mainstream pattern. Overall, 2016 online discourse was toxic and conspiratorial, but explicit endorsement of violence remained largely beyond accepted digital norms.

2023–2026: Emergence of Open Endorsement of Violence

By the mid-2020s, online political discourse had shifted toward increasingly explicit violent rhetoric. Calls for civil war, armed resistance, and violent retribution against political opponents began appearing with greater frequency across mainstream and alternative platforms.

After high-profile political events such as federal law enforcement actions involving political figures, researchers documented surges in online references to civil war and armed rebellion (Meyer, 2022). On lightly moderated platforms, users posted direct calls to take up arms, predicted violent conflict, and framed violence as patriotic necessity. Such language, largely unthinkable in mainstream discourse in 2016, became normalized within growing online subcultures.

Violent rhetoric increasingly targeted state institutions and officials. Following federal investigations of political leaders, online forums and alternative platforms circulated posts calling for attacks against law enforcement and government agencies. In at least one documented case, an individual who posted violent threats online later attempted an armed attack on a federal facility (Meyer, 2022). Threats against election officials, judges, and legislators also increased substantially following the 2020 election cycle (Byman, 2021). The boundary between online threat and offline action blurred.

Public figures contributed to normalization of militant rhetoric. Certain elected officials posted or endorsed content depicting violence against political opponents, while prominent political leaders increasingly framed adversaries as enemies of the nation. Researchers note that such framing creates a “permission structure” in which supporters perceive violence as morally justified (Byman, 2021). By 2026, rhetoric once confined to extremist forums had entered broader digital discourse.

Drivers of Escalation: Algorithms, Misinformation, and Polarization

Algorithmic amplification plays a central role in escalating political hostility. Engagement-based ranking systems reward emotionally arousing content, disproportionately promoting outrage and divisive messaging (Barrett et al., 2021). Internal platform research has acknowledged that recommendation systems can inadvertently intensify polarization and exposure to extreme content. Over time, users interacting with partisan material may be directed toward increasingly radical narratives (Walter, 2023).

Misinformation and conspiracy theories further contribute to violent justification. False narratives alleging stolen elections, secret criminal cabals, or tyrannical government actions portray violence as necessary self-defense. Researchers find that conspiracy belief strongly correlates with support for political violence (PRRI, 2023). When citizens perceive democratic institutions as illegitimate, violent remedies appear rationalized.

Historical abstraction also lowers resistance to violent endorsement. Romanticized references to revolution and civil war circulate widely online, detached from historical realities of mass suffering. This encourages perception of violent conflict as cleansing or necessary rather than catastrophic (Walter, 2023).

Finally, hyper-polarization transforms political opponents into existential threats. Social identity research shows that extreme partisan animosity increases acceptance of aggressive tactics, including violence (Byman, 2021). Online echo chambers reinforce these dynamics by rewarding moralized outrage over deliberation.

Public Opinion: Growing Tolerance for Political Violence

Survey data confirm rising acceptance of political violence among segments of the U.S. population. A national UC Davis survey found that approximately 20 percent of adults believe political violence is sometimes justified, with a smaller fraction expressing willingness to personally engage in violence for political objectives (Wintemute et al., 2022). PRRI surveys similarly show rising agreement with statements suggesting “true patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country,” increasing from roughly 15 percent in 2021 to over 20 percent by 2023 (PRRI, 2023).

Public perception of political violence as a growing national problem has also increased. Majorities of Americans now believe political violence is rising and view civil conflict as plausible (States United Democracy Center, 2025). These attitudes correlate with exposure to misinformation, conspiratorial belief, and extreme partisan identity.

While most Americans still reject violence, the normalization of violent discourse online contributes to expanding acceptance among a vocal minority. This represents a measurable erosion of democratic norms of peaceful conflict resolution.

From Online Rhetoric to Real-World Consequences

The shift in online discourse has produced tangible offline consequences. Threats against public officials have risen sharply, prompting increased security measures and discouraging civic participation. Law enforcement agencies now devote expanded resources to monitoring extremist online spaces (Byman, 2021).

Several real-world attacks and attempted attacks in recent years were linked to online radicalization and violent rhetoric, demonstrating direct spillover from digital discourse into physical action. These incidents reinforce a feedback loop: violent events intensify online radicalization, which further increases risk of future violence.

Institutional trust also deteriorates under sustained delegitimization. When online discourse portrays elections, courts, and law enforcement as illegitimate, citizens become less willing to accept peaceful outcomes, increasing instability.

Platform Responses and Limitations

Technology platforms have introduced stricter moderation of violent content since 2016, including banning extremist groups, suspending high-profile accounts, and adjusting recommendation systems. After the January 6 Capitol attack, platforms acknowledged that online coordination contributed to real-world violence and implemented emergency measures to demote inflammatory content (Looft & Ferris, 2021).

However, enforcement remains inconsistent, and alternative platforms with minimal moderation provide refuge for violent discourse. Debates over free speech and censorship further complicate platform intervention. As a result, violent rhetoric persists despite evolving moderation frameworks.

Conclusion: Cultural Restraint as Democratic Necessity

Between 2016 and 2026, online political discourse in the United States shifted from hostile rhetoric to partial normalization of political violence. Algorithmic amplification, misinformation, historical abstraction, and hyper-polarization have jointly lowered psychological and social barriers against violent endorsement. The consequences are visible in rising threats, offline attacks, and declining institutional trust.

Reversing this trajectory requires more than technical moderation or legal reform. It requires cultural restraint — a renewed collective commitment to rejecting violence as a political solution, restoring shared factual reality, and reinforcing democratic norms of disagreement without dehumanization. Continued rhetorical escalation risks further erosion of peaceful political coexistence. Restraint remains the only sustainable path forward.

References

Barrett, P., Sims, J., & Smith, G. (2021). How tech platforms fuel U.S. polarization and what government can do about it. NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights.

Byman, D. L. (2021). How hateful rhetoric connects to real-world violence. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu

Fisher, M., Cox, J. W., & Hermann, P. (2016, December 5). Pizzagate gunman motivated by conspiracy theories. The Washington Post.

Looft, C., & Ferris, L. (2021). Facebook documents reveal internal response to Jan. 6. ABC News.

Meyer, C. (2022). Extreme rhetoric online raises alarms after FBI search. ASIS Security Management.

Pew Research Center. (2016). The political environment on social media. https://www.pewresearch.org

PRRI. (2023). Threats to American democracy ahead of 2024. Public Religion Research Institute.

States United Democracy Center. (2025). Americans increasingly believe political violence is a problem. YouGov Survey.

Walter, B. F. (2023). Interview on political violence and algorithmic amplification. Business Insider.

Wintemute, G. J., et al. (2022). Views on political violence in the United States. UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program.