If you work in public sector communications or with government social media accounts, you know firsthand that social media is becoming a more divisive, controversial, and toxic space. 

Whether it’s dealing with trolling, verbal violence, or harassment, communications professionals can find themselves on the front lines, battling the effects of these toxic environments daily.

Research recently published in The Journal of Consumer Research on “Why Online Consumption Communities Brutalize” by Olivier Sibai, Marius Luedicke, and Kristine de Valck, explores the phenomenon of online brutalization in consumption communities—groups centered around shared consumption interests like products or hobbies. The research aims to understand why and how online communities become toxic and the underlying causes and mechanisms that lead to their brutalization.

You can listen to a short summary of the research here:

While the study focuses on ‘consumption communities’ specifically, we believe the findings have compelling applications in the broader social media environment, where toxic behaviors, verbal violence, and trolling are becoming more and more prevalent.

In this article, we’ll explore why understanding online brutalization is crucial for government agencies and show you how to apply key concepts from the research to develop effective moderation strategies that create safer, more inclusive, and less toxic social media environments.

The Risks of Toxic Social Media Behavior for Government Agencies

Over time, toxic behaviors like trolling, harassment, and verbal attacks gradually become normalized. When these behaviors are left unchecked, they create a cycle of negativity, where harmful interactions fuel more hostility, ultimately driving away constructive discourse. 

When government social media pages become hotbeds of toxic behavior and brutalization, several significant risks emerge:

1. Erosion of Public Trust

Rampant harassment, trolling, or verbal abuse, can quickly erode the public’s trust in the government agency managing the page. When hostile interactions dominate the space, citizens may perceive the agency as neglectful, disorganized, or unable to maintain a respectful forum, leading to diminished confidence in its leadership and transparency.

2. Decreased Public Engagement

A toxic environment discourages healthy participation. Citizens may avoid engaging in discussions or providing feedback if they fear harassment or being attacked for their opinions. This results in reduced civic engagement and limits the government’s ability to gather valuable input from the public.

3. Legal and Compliance Risks

Government agencies are held to high standards of transparency and public recordkeeping. Allowing unchecked toxic behavior could lead to legal challenges, especially if abusive comments are not moderated in line with harassment or hate speech laws. Failing to act on abusive content may also expose the agency to liability for not ensuring a safe, respectful public space.

4. Negative Impacts on Social Media Teams

Managing toxic behavior can take a heavy toll on social media managers and public communications teams. Constantly dealing with negativity, harassment, or verbal attacks can lead to burnout, stress, and lower morale, making it difficult for staff to engage effectively and maintain a positive online presence.

Though sticks and stones may break your bones, the study also highlights that verbal violence experienced online does have lasting negative consequences, including paranoia, depression, and even PTSD. 

5. Undermining Democratic Dialogue

Toxicity can silence marginalized voices and polarize conversations, undermining the purpose of government social media as a forum for democratic discourse. When toxic behavior dominates, it can drown out constructive dialogue and prevent meaningful engagement on important issues, reducing the platform's role in facilitating informed public discussion.

By addressing toxic behaviors early, government agencies can avoid these risks and create social media spaces that foster respectful, inclusive, and productive public engagement. 

But to address these behaviors, we first need to understand how they come about, what fuels them, and why they occur in the first place

Understanding Community Brutalization and Toxic Online Behavior

The research by Olivier Sibai and his colleagues is a deep dive into the phenomenon of online community "brutalization," where violence becomes a normalized, endemic part of community interactions.

The research describes brutalization as a process where verbal violence becomes a constitutive part of a community over time, causing significant harm to both individual members and the broader community.

The study draws on the work of Johan Galtung, identifying how three forms of violence—direct, structural, and cultural—interact to create and reinforce toxicity in online communities. Each form of violence plays a distinct role, and together they contribute to the process of community brutalization, where toxic behaviors become normalized and pervasive.

Direct Violence

Direct violence refers to explicit, intentional actions that harm others. In online communities, this often takes the form of verbal abuse, like trolling, insults, public shaming, or harassment. It is the most visible and immediate form of violence in toxic communities.

Structural Violence

Structural violence is the systematic inequality built into the social structures of the community. In online communities, power imbalances between moderators or long-established contributors and newer members could manifest in biased moderation, where certain users are protected or allowed to bend the rules while others face harsh consequences for similar behavior. 

Cultural Violence

Cultural violence refers to the beliefs, norms, and narratives that legitimize violence, making it appear "right" or "justified." This cultural acceptance allows direct and structural violence to flourish because the community sees it as normal behavior, dismissing harm as unimportant or deserved. 

As these three forms of violence feed into each other, they create a self-perpetuating cycle of toxicity. If unchecked, this cycle entrenches toxic behaviors in the community, making them part of the environment and difficult to reverse.

Why Are People So Toxic Online? Here’s What The Research Says:

The researchers identify three “brutalizing constellations,” each fuelled by direct, structural, and cultural violence, to explain why and how toxicity in the studied electronic dance music online community became endemic. The study focuses primarily on these three as emergent patterns from their analysis, leaving open the possibility that different constellations could exist in other community contexts. The researchers do highlight that their findings are context-specific but we believe they also offer insights that could be applied to other online spaces, like social media environments.

Source: Sibai, Luedicke and de Valck (2024) Why Online Consumption Communities Brutalize, Journal of Consumer Research, https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucae022

1. Sadistic Entertainment

The researchers use the term “sadistic entertainment” to describe situations where community members derive enjoyment from publicly humiliating or verbally attacking others. This behavior is performed not just as a personal attack but as a form of entertainment for the broader community. In this context, individuals engage in what the researchers call "blood games," where one person is baited or provoked into escalating conflict, while the rest of the community watches and, often, encourages the cruelty.

Example: 

Imagine an agency posts a public service announcement on social media about an upcoming road closure. A citizen responds with a poorly worded but genuine question, seeking clarification. Instead of receiving a helpful response, other members of the community begin posting sarcastic remarks or calling the question "stupid" or "pointless." This sparks a pile-on, with more users joining in to mock the original commenter. 

As this "blood game" unfolds, spectators like, retweet, or respond with laughing emojis, turning the individual’s legitimate confusion into a public spectacle. The more the person tries to explain or defend their question, the more aggressive or dismissive the replies become. This not only embarrasses the individual but also discourages future constructive engagement, reinforcing the toxicity of the online space and making it harder for the social media manager to maintain respectful public discourse.

2. Clan Warfare

The study describes “clan warfare” as a form of community conflict where different "clans" in an online community engage in ongoing verbal battles to assert dominance. These status battles arise from competing subgroups within the community, often with differing views on what practices, norms, or values should be prioritized.

Example:

Imagine a local government agency posts about a new municipal policy aimed at expanding bike lanes to improve public safety and encourage sustainable transportation. Soon after, two factions emerge in the comments: one group passionately supports the bike lanes as a positive step toward environmental sustainability, while another group, focused on car owners' interests, argues that the lanes reduce road space and worsen traffic congestion. 

What starts as a few comments quickly escalates into a heated battle, with both groups dismissing, demeaning, or belittling each other’s perspectives. Supporters of the bike lanes accuse the other side of being stuck in outdated thinking, while opponents call the proposal impractical and a waste of tax-payer money. As more users from both sides join in, the thread devolves into a back-and-forth of insults and ridicule, with each faction trying to dominate the conversation. 

Over time, the discussion becomes so polarized that neutral citizens hesitate to engage, and the original purpose of the announcement—to provide public information—gets lost in the noise. This factional brawling turns the space toxic, undermining the agency's efforts to facilitate meaningful dialogue and gather community feedback.

3. Popular Justice

Popular justice refers to a dynamic in online communities where members take it upon themselves to enforce community norms through verbal violence and public shaming.

Example: Imagine an agency posts a message reminding the public of new water usage restrictions during a drought. A citizen responds with a post criticizing the restrictions as unfair and unnecessary, sparking outrage among other members of the community. Instead of waiting for the social media manager to step in and address the comment, the community mobilizes to enforce what they see as "justice."

Members flood the commenter’s replies with insults, accusing them of being selfish and irresponsible. Some take it further, demanding that the commenter’s posts be reported or that they be blocked from participating in the discussion altogether. In extreme cases, individuals might even share personal details about the commenter (like their name or workplace) to publicly shame them for their views.

All of this unfolds under the assumption that the community is stepping in where the agency’s social media manager has failed to act. This creates a toxic environment where verbal attacks and public shaming are seen as legitimate ways to enforce community norms, making it difficult for the social media manager to maintain a respectful and constructive dialogue.

How to Identify Early Signs of Growing Toxicity 

Here’s how social media managers can identify the early signs of toxicity in their online community and take action:

1. Watch for an Increase in Hostile Comments

What to look for: Monitor social media posts and replies for an uptick in negative, inflammatory, or rude language, especially when directed at new followers or commenters. A sudden rise in hostile interactions, where disagreements quickly become personal or offensive, is a warning sign.

Action: Set up alerts or use social media monitoring tools to track hostile or abusive keywords. Address negative comments quickly by redirecting conversations or applying moderation tools like hiding, muting, or deleting toxic responses when necessary. 

IMPORTANT NOTE: Whether government agencies should be hiding or deleting comments on their social media pages is hotly debated, as some argue it infringes on freedom of speech rights. Make sure your terms of use are front and center — and make it clear that any comments that violate the terms of use will be removed (hidden or deleted).

2. Debunk Toxic or Malicious Narratives

What to look for: If conversations about or responses to your posts are shifting to be more negative and you’re seeing more arguments, this could indicate growing toxicity. Look out for users who consistently make sarcastic or dismissive remarks, and are driving negative narratives about the community. 

Examples:

• Narratives of cultural degradation, focused on intrusion or dogmatism, like: “Our community is going down the drain.”
• Narratives of harmless play, that claim: “It’s not real, it’s just online.” or “It’s just a joke.”
• Narratives of fair punishment, like: “Hurting them will teach them a lesson.”

Action: Respond promptly to steer conversations back to a positive tone. Acknowledge the frustration from members circulating toxic narratives, debunk the narrative as a myth, and encourage the circulation of narratives of collaboration.

3. Keep an Eye on Cliques 

What to look for: When certain groups or individuals consistently dominate the comment sections or threads and exclude others, it can create a hostile environment. If newer followers or less active participants are ignored or ridiculed, it’s a sign that cliques are forming.

Action: Keep an eye on repetitive interactions among the same group of users. Break up these patterns by engaging directly with newer or less active followers and fostering inclusive discussions. Run campaigns that encourage broad participation, asking questions that invite input from all segments of your audience.

4. Flag Increases in Anonymous or Pseudonymous Accounts

What to look for:  If you notice a spike in interactions from anonymous or recently created accounts, this can be a red flag for trolling or disruptive behavior. Trolls often use throwaway accounts to post offensive or harmful comments without consequences.

Action: Use platform tools to flag or limit interactions from new or unverified accounts. If necessary, consider enabling features that require users to follow for a certain period before commenting, or verify email addresses to reduce anonymous trolling.

5. Respond to Frequent Complaints or Reports of Unfair Treatment

What to look for: Pay attention to comments or direct messages indicating that users feel unfairly treated, particularly regarding how their comments or posts are handled. Complaints about bias or inconsistent moderation are early signs of structural problems in your community.

Action: Ensure your community guidelines are transparent and consistently enforced across your social media platforms. Address concerns quickly and publicly when necessary, so followers see that their feedback is taken seriously. You can use tools like surveys or polls to gather feedback on the community’s experience.

6. Track Drops in Engagement or Disengagement

What to look for: A sudden drop in engagement metrics—fewer comments, likes, or shares—especially from your most active followers, can signal that users are becoming disengaged due to rising negativity. Pay close attention to whether once-frequent participants are stepping back from conversations.

Action: Reach out to formerly active followers through direct messages or surveys to understand why they may have disengaged. You can use this feedback to address underlying issues and refocus your content on positive, community-building topics.

7. Watch for Passive-Aggressive or Sarcastic Comments

What to look for: An increase in sarcasm or passive-aggressive responses is often an early sign that frustration is brewing within the community. While not as overt as direct hostility, these comments erode trust and create a toxic atmosphere over time.

Action: Address passive-aggressive behavior by setting a positive example in your responses. Acknowledge frustration when appropriate but redirect the conversation with helpful and respectful comments. 

By staying vigilant and actively managing these early signs, you can maintain a healthy, engaged social media community, preventing toxicity from taking root. Regularly communicating expectations, rewarding positive behavior, and addressing negative interactions swiftly will help to foster a constructive, inclusive environment.

How to Create Enforceable Community Standards for Government Social Media Pages

Normally, blocking repeat offenders, deleting or hiding offensive or inflammatory content, or restricting access to comment are the easiest ways to moderate toxic behaviors on social media. But communicators working for government agencies have to abide by first Amendment protections, adding another layer of complexity.

Community guidelines can be a powerful tool for setting the tone of online interactions and keeping toxic behavior in check. Clear, straightforward guidelines give social media managers the foundation they need to tackle harmful behavior head-on, ensuring that everyone knows what’s expected. They help create a fair, consistent approach to moderation, making it easier to defuse conflicts, remove abusive language, and foster a positive environment—all while respecting freedom of speech. 

Now, let's dive into how to create effective, enforceable community standards that strike the right balance.

1. Define the Purpose of Your Social Media Channels

Clearly state the purpose of your government social media pages upfront. Let users know that the platform is meant for constructive dialogue, information sharing, and public engagement.

Post the purpose in your bio or pin a message at the top of your social media profiles, making it easy to find. 

Example: "This page is a space for constructive discussions about local government initiatives. We encourage respectful, thoughtful dialogue."

2. Set Expectations for Behavior

Outline specific behaviors that are encouraged and those that are prohibited. Make it clear that respectful, constructive conversations are welcome, while harassment, trolling, and inflammatory comments are not.

Include guidelines like:

• Treat others with respect and kindness.
• Stay on topic and contribute constructively.
• No personal attacks, threats, or harassment.
• No offensive or discriminatory language.
• Avoid spamming or repeatedly posting the same message.

3. Clearly Distinguish Between Free Speech and Harmful Behavior

Make it clear that there is a distinction between protected speech and harmful behaviors like harassment, threats, or hate speech. Public agencies have the responsibility to protect constructive dialogue and public safety.

Emphasize that free speech is encouraged, but certain behaviors—like hate speech, threats, or harassment—will not be tolerated because they violate the platform’s purpose and disrupt the public forum.

Example: “We welcome all viewpoints, but comments that include personal attacks, threats, or hate speech are not allowed and will be removed.”

4. Clarify Moderation Policies

Be transparent about how and when content will be moderated. Explain how inappropriate content will be handled (e.g., deleting comments, blocking users) and under what circumstances actions will be taken. 

Make it clear that enforcement of community standards is based on conduct, not the viewpoints expressed. This ensures users know that their right to express opinions is protected, while behavior that disrupts or harms the community will be moderated.

Add statements like:

• “We reserve the right to remove comments that violate our guidelines.”
• “Users who repeatedly violate our policies may be blocked from the page.”

But make sure to avoid vague terms like “offensive” and instead be specific about prohibited behaviors, like:

• Use of threats or incitement of violence.
• Personal insults or attacks on other users.
• Spamming or repeated comments that disrupt dialogue

5. Provide a Reporting Mechanism

Allow users to report content they find offensive or harmful. Provide a clear process for handling reports and ensure users know that their concerns are taken seriously.

Post instructions for reporting, like “If you encounter comments that violate our behavioral guidelines (e.g., harassment, threats), please report them. Reports will be reviewed impartially.”

Clarify that reports should only be submitted for genuine violations (e.g., threats, harassment) and that all reports are reviewed according to the community standards, not based on the content’s popularity or viewpoint.

6. Enforce Consistently

Don’t let small conflicts fester or turn into larger issues. Address conflicts swiftly and fairly.

Be clear about the consequences for violating community standards and apply them consistently. Inconsistent enforcement can lead to perceptions of bias, fueling further toxicity. When action is taken, such as removing a comment or banning a user, be transparent about the reason, making sure the action is tied directly to a violation of community standards.

Detail the step-by-step consequences of violating rules, like:

• First violation: Warning issued.
• Second violation: Temporary suspension from commenting.
• Third violation: Permanent ban.

Make sure to provide examples of what constitutes a violation, ensuring fairness in enforcement. 

7. Use Platform-Specific Tools to Manage Content

Leverage the social media platforms’ tools to enforce community standards without outright silencing users. For instance, use features like “mute” or “hide” instead of permanently removing comments when appropriate, so the speech isn’t entirely erased but is managed in a way that reduces disruption.

Platforms like Facebook and Twitter allow for temporary measures like muting comments or restricting who can reply. This can reduce harmful content without deleting it.

Example: “Content that violates our guidelines may be hidden or restricted, but users will still be able to see their own posts. This helps keep the dialogue productive while maintaining transparency.”

8. Encourage Positive Engagement

Reinforce positive behavior by acknowledging and rewarding users who contribute constructively. This shifts the focus away from negativity and encourages others to engage in a positive manner. 

Use tactics like:

• Responding to constructive questions or feedback with thanks and appreciation.
• Sharing examples of positive community impact.
• Praising users who express differing viewpoints respectfully.

9. Review and Update Guidelines Regularly

Communities evolve, so your guidelines should, too. Regularly review your standards to ensure they are keeping pace with new types of online behavior and that they are still fair, enforceable, and aligned with your legal obligations.

Announce when guidelines are updated, and make it clear that standards will adapt to ensure a safe and constructive environment. Use feedback from the community to make improvements.

10. Lead by Example

Model the behavior you expect from your community. Ensure that your responses to comments, questions, or criticisms are polite, professional, and in line with the community standards you’ve set. Train your social media team to respond calmly, avoiding escalation in the face of negative comments and set a tone of respectful engagement with every interaction.

11. Pin or Post Guidelines Publicly

Make your community guidelines easily accessible for all followers by posting them visibly on your social media platforms.

Pin a post with the community standards at the top of your page or add them to your bio section with a link. You can also create a "Welcome" post for new followers that includes the rules.

By following these steps, social media managers can create clear, enforceable community standards that promote positive interactions in government social media spaces.

When Moderation Doesn’t Work — How Social Media Archiving Can Help To Protect Your Organization

For government agencies, every interaction—whether a public comment, a direct message, or a response—can be part of the public record, and having a reliable social media archive helps ensure that these interactions are preserved.

This can build trust with the public by showing a commitment to transparency and also provides a safeguard in case of legal disputes, audits, or investigations. By keeping an accurate, searchable archive, agencies can demonstrate accountability and protect themselves against claims of misconduct or misinformation.

Archiving your social media accounts also provides a way to collect defensible evidence of abuse, harassment, and toxic behavior on social media and allow social media managers to preserve evidence of problematic content as it happens, before it can be deleted or altered by the perpetrator. This verifiable record also allows the agency to show that any moderation or removal of content was justified, transparent, and aligned with free speech protections. 

TL;DR: Key Takeaways

Olivier Sibai, Marius Luedicke, and Kristine de Valck’s research on online brutalization offers valuable insights relevant to government agencies managing social media accounts in today's increasingly toxic digital landscape. 

By understanding the dynamics of direct, structural, and cultural violence that fuel online toxicity, public sector communicators can develop more effective strategies to identify and curb harmful behaviors before they start. 

Applying these insights—whether through proactive moderation, creating fair community guidelines, or fostering inclusive dialogues—can help create safer, more respectful, and engaging social media environments.

Listen to a quick summary of the research: 

Read the full paper: Olivier Sibai, Marius Luedicke, and Kristine de Valck’s study in the Journal of Consumer Research: 'Why Online Consumption Communities Brutalize.' https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucae022

Editor’s Note: Special thanks to researcher Olivier Sibai for providing valuable feedback on this post. Olivier used Pagefreezer’s WebPreserver tool to capture data for this research.