Discursive Toxicity and Cyberbullying in TikTok User Comments: A Critical Discourse Analysis Approach

Dio Manik; Yeni Adventry Tanjung; Annisa Ananda Utomo; Amelia Amelia; Muhammad Natsir

doi:10.55606/sscj-amik.v4i3.6177

Authors

Dio Manik Universitas Negeri Medan
Yeni Adventry Tanjung Universitas Negeri Medan
Annisa Ananda Utomo Universitas Negeri Medan
Amelia Amelia Universitas Negeri Medan
Muhammad Natsir Universitas Negeri Medan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55606/sscj-amik.v4i3.6177

Keywords:

Critical Discourse Analysis, Cyberbullying, Digital Interaction, Online Social Identity, Toxicity in Social Media

Abstract

The rapid development of social media has created new spaces of interaction that not only expand public participation but also give rise to problematic communication practices, such as toxicity and cyberbullying in netizen comments. This phenomenon has become increasingly relevant in the context of contemporary digital society, where the boundary between individual expression and verbal aggression is often blurred. This study aims to understand how discursive practices in netizen comments shape, reproduce, and construct the meaning of toxicity and cyberbullying from the participants’ perspectives. Employing a qualitative approach with a case study design, the research involves 10–15 participants who are active social media users in Indonesia. Data were collected through in-depth interviews, non-participant observation, and document analysis of digital comments, and were analyzed using thematic analysis combined with a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) framework. The findings reveal three primary patterns: the normalization of verbal aggression as part of digital communication culture, psychological distress that leads to ambivalent coping strategies, and the dynamics of social identity that reinforce polarization in online interactions. These findings suggest that cyberbullying is not merely an individual act but a discursive practice embedded in power relations and digital social norms. Theoretically, this study enriches discourse analysis by integrating linguistic, social, and subjective experiential dimensions; practically, it offers implications for strengthening digital literacy, content moderation policies, and mental health based interventions. Furthermore, this research opens avenues for broader and more diverse explorations of digital discourse dynamics.

References

Citron, D. K. (2014). Hate crimes in cyberspace. Harvard University Press.

Davidson, T., Warmsley, D., Macy, M., & Weber, I. (2017). Automated hate speech detection and the problem of offensive language. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 11(1), 512–515.

Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books.

Jane, E. A. (2015). Flaming? What flaming? The pitfalls and potentials of researching online hostility. Ethnography, 16(1), 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138114529087

Jane, E. A. (2018). Systemic misogyny exposed: Translating rapeglish from the manosphere with a random rape threat generator. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 21(6), 661–680. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877917734042

KhosraviNik, M. (2020). Social media critical discourse studies (SMCDS). In S. Zhu (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp. 582–596). Routledge.

KhosraviNik, M., & Unger, J. W. (2023). Critical discourse studies and social media: Power, resistance and critique in changing media ecologies. Critical Discourse Studies, 20(1), 1–15.

Marengo, D., Settanni, M., & Longobardi, C. (2022). Seeking likes: Longitudinal associations between Instagram use, self-esteem, and depressive symptoms in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 94(1), 1–10.

Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2011). To see and be seen: Celebrity practice on Twitter. Convergence, 17(2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856510394539

Matamoros-Fernández, A., & Farkas, J. (2021). Racism, hate speech, and social media: A systematic review and critique. Television & New Media, 22(2), 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476420982230

Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2015). Measuring cyberbullying: Implications for research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.013

Phillips, W., & Milner, R. M. (2021). You are here: A field guide for navigating polarized speech, conspiracy theories, and our polluted media landscape. MIT Press.

Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295

Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.

Valkenburg, P. M., Meier, A., & Beyens, I. (2022). Social media use and its impact on adolescent mental health: An umbrella review of the evidence. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 58–68.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2015). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 466–485). Wiley.

Williams, M. L., Burnap, P., & Sloan, L. (2017). Towards an ethical framework for publishing Twitter data in social research. Sociology, 51(6), 1149–1168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038517708140

Wodak, R. (2015). Critical discourse analysis, discourse-historical approach. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie, & T. Sandel (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction (pp. 1–14). Wiley-Blackwell.

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2016). Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Zappavigna, M. (2012). Discourse of Twitter and social media: How we use language to create affiliation on the web. Continuum.