You've seen it. Hell, you've probably done it.
Someone posts something online and suddenly the comments section turns into a verbal thunderdome. People say things they'd never dream of uttering at a dinner party or work meeting. The insults fly. The caps lock gets stuck. And everyone walks away feeling slightly dirty but somehow justified.
Welcome to the internet, where normal humans transform into their worst selves.
The Science of Being a Jerk
Back in 2004, psychologist John Suler identified what he called the "online disinhibition effect"—a fancy term for why people act like complete assholes online. His research pinpointed six factors that turn regular folks into keyboard warriors: anonymity, invisibility, asynchronicity (you can post and run), solipsistic introjection (you're basically talking to yourself), dissociative imagination (it's all just a game, right?), and minimization of authority.
Translation? Online, you're invisible, unaccountable, and consequence-free. It's the Ring of Gyges for the digital age.
Recent studies confirm what we already suspected: people with poor emotion regulation skills are significantly more likely to engage in uncivil online communication. The research shows that difficulties managing emotions lead to higher levels of online disinhibition, which in turn predicts toxic behavior. Even when controlling for personality traits and empathy, emotion regulation remains a key factor.
Here's the kicker: research from 2012 found that lack of eye contact—not anonymity—is the chief contributor to toxic online behavior. When you can't see someone's face crumple at your words, it's easier to be cruel. We've essentially built a communication system that strips away the very cues that make us human.
A Brief History of Online Awfulness
This didn't start yesterday. The internet's been a cesspool since its early days.
ARPANET launched in 1969, connecting four universities. By 1971, email existed. And probably by 1972, someone sent the first flame mail. The 1980s and 90s saw the rise of bulletin boards, Usenet groups, and early forums where people could anonymously argue about everything from Star Trek to politics.
But something shifted in the mid-2000s. Social media platforms like MySpace (2003), Facebook (2004), YouTube (2005), and Twitter (2006) centralized online discourse. Instead of niche forums where communities self-regulated, we got massive platforms where millions of strangers could scream at each other simultaneously.
By the 2010s, social media usage had increased by nearly 68% since 2012. More people online meant more opportunities for conflict. The "wild west" days of the early internet—when you could Google "girl" and get a disturbing mix of content—gave way to algorithmic feeds designed to maximize engagement. And nothing drives engagement like outrage.
The Trump Effect
Then came Donald Trump.
Love him or hate him, Trump fundamentally changed online political discourse. Research examining Trump's social media influence found that his Twitter presence had a measurable effect on his followers' behavior and rhetoric. His tweets weren't just political statements—they were permission slips.
A Brookings Institution study analyzed the impact of Trump's tweets on online toxicity levels. Using Google's Perspective API to measure "severe toxicity" and "threats" in Twitter discourse, researchers found that Trump's attacks on political figures led to immediate spikes in toxic language and threats directed at those individuals. When Trump tweeted insults, his followers amplified them—and added their own.
The 2016 presidential campaign saw unprecedented levels of incivility. Trump called opponents "Crooked Hillary" and "Lyin' Ted." He mocked a disabled reporter. He bragged about sexual assault. And he won.
This wasn't just about one man's behavior. Research on Trump's presidency shows he created what scholars call the "Trump Effect"—a phenomenon where his base became more devoted to him personally than to party or country. He convinced millions that the media couldn't be trusted, that facts were negotiable, and that cruelty was strength.
His January 6, 2021 tweet—"Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!"—mobilized thousands to storm the Capitol. Studies of bot activity during Trump's first impeachment found that while bots represented only 1% of users, they generated over 31% of impeachment-related tweets. Among QAnon conspiracy supporters, bot prevalence reached nearly 10%.
Trump didn't invent online toxicity. But he mainstreamed it. He showed that you could insult, demean, and lie your way to the presidency. And millions of people took notes.
The Algorithmic Amplifier
Social media platforms aren't innocent bystanders. They're accomplices.
Facebook's algorithm prioritizes content that generates engagement. Guess what generates engagement? Anger. Outrage. Fear. A 2018 internal Facebook study found that 64% of people who joined extremist groups did so because the platform's algorithms recommended them.
Twitter's retweet button and quote-tweet feature turned every disagreement into a public spectacle. YouTube's recommendation algorithm has been repeatedly shown to push users toward increasingly extreme content.
These platforms profit from our worst impulses. They've built business models on manufactured outrage and tribal warfare. And they've done it while claiming to "connect the world."
The Emotion Regulation Crisis
Here's where it gets interesting. New research suggests that individual differences in emotion regulation are a key predictor of uncivil online behavior. People who struggle to manage their emotions in real life struggle even more online, where the normal social cues that help us regulate are absent.
Think about it: In face-to-face conversation, you see someone's expression change when you've gone too far. You hear the hurt in their voice. You feel the social pressure to back down. Online? Nothing. Just a screen and a keyboard and the dopamine hit of hitting "send."
The internet doesn't just allow poor emotion regulation—it rewards it. The angriest tweets get the most engagement. The most outrageous posts go viral. We've built a system that incentivizes our worst impulses.
Other Factors in the Mix
Trump and algorithms aren't the whole story. Several other forces have contributed to our current hellscape:
Political polarization: Americans are more divided than at any point since the Civil War. Research shows that negative partisanship—hating the other side more than you like your own—has become a dominant force in politics.
The death of local news: As newspapers collapsed, people lost shared sources of information. Now everyone lives in their own information bubble, consuming news that confirms their existing beliefs.
Economic anxiety: Decades of wage stagnation and growing inequality have left millions feeling left behind. That anger has to go somewhere. Often, it goes online.
The pandemic: COVID-19 forced everyone online for work, school, and socializing. We spent two years marinating in digital discourse with no real-world relief valve.
The Path Forward
So what do we do about it?
First, we need to acknowledge that this isn't normal or inevitable. The internet doesn't have to be this way. Early online communities—before the platforms took over—often had strong norms and effective moderation. We can build that again.
Second, we need better emotion regulation support. If difficulty managing emotions predicts online toxicity, then teaching people emotional skills could help. Schools should teach digital citizenship and emotional intelligence alongside reading and math.
Third, we need platform accountability. Social media companies have spent years claiming they're just neutral platforms while actively designing systems that amplify outrage. They need to be held responsible for the harms they cause.
Fourth, we need to rebuild shared reality. That means supporting quality journalism, teaching media literacy, and creating spaces for genuine dialogue across differences.
Finally, we need to remember that there are real people on the other side of the screen. That person you're about to eviscerate in the comments? They're someone's parent, child, friend. They have hopes and fears and insecurities just like you.
The internet promised to connect us. Instead, it's often divided us. But that's not because connection is impossible—it's because we've built systems that profit from division.
We can do better. We have to.
Because the alternative—a world where cruelty is the norm and empathy is weakness—isn't a world worth living in, online or off.
Share this article on Bluesky, Facebook, and X/Twitter.
