Nature: Long online discussions are consistently the most toxic

[Gorbles]

compare Reddit or Twitter is more akin to shouting your opinion at strangers on a street corner

reddit has both moderation and curated content in the form of subreddits, and on Twitter you choose who else you engage with, it doesn't have to be strangers. Insofar as anyone here are also strangers.

Social media does incentivise interactions in ways that can turn sour (for "engagement" as they often put it) but it's funny how much they seem to be misunderstood. A well-moderated subreddit works as well as any forum. Twitter is only shouting at strangers if you a) choose to shout and b) do so at strangers

(Twitter would be a good study of toxicity promoted by the business model though - I believe studies have even been done)

 

[Tee Kay]

Social media does incentivise interactions in ways that can turn sour (for "engagement" as they often put it) but it's funny how much they seem to be misunderstood. A well-moderated subreddit works as well as any forum. Twitter is only shouting at strangers if you a) choose to shout and b) do so at strangers

I don't shout at strangers but I get retweets of other people shouting and shouting is so much the norm that many (most?) accounts retweet at least some shouting even if their normal content is, like, food or something.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

This is where people need to familiarise themselves with the "Ignore" button and not be afraid to use it.

To some extent it takes care of itself. If a thread is 200 pages long the first time you see it, you'll probably think "I ain't reading all that" or "whatever point I would want to make has already been made". So you use the analog ignore button by not opening it.

The biggest reason you see long threads go bad is every post is another opportunity for an idiot to fling poo and derail the discussion. Eventually it'll happen. Even more so because a long thread is more likely to be on a site like FARK or Reddit with a very high membership and free, anonymous accounts. More potential idiots and no cost to being an idiot.

 

[Gorbles]

I don't shout at strangers but I get retweets of other people shouting and shouting is so much the norm that many (most?) accounts retweet at least some shouting even if their normal content is, like, food or something.

Oh, very true. This is a part of the engagement I mentioned (which the platform went down a rabbithole trying to maximise, because increased traffic increased the valuation of the platform).

I've been private for years, I don't really get new followers (most requests are bots), and I prefer it to be honest. I have my curated list of followers and I avoid the algorithmic timeline (keeping to the chronological one until they finally decide to kill it).

 

[Estebonrober]

Now, that is some research we can relate to:
The Nature magazin has just this week published an article called "Persistent interaction patterns across social media platforms and over time", together with an perspective about the article, called "Long online discussions are consistently the most toxic".
The authors followed conversations over multiple platforms such as Facebook and Youtube, and determined the toxicity of a conversation over time. Most people here will probably not be surprised by the results, the toxicity increases on all platforms over time. Godwin's law is also related to that, as with the first occurence in a conversation of this specific group makes most conversations go downhill.

View attachment 689348
Image from here (CC BY 4.0).


The summary of the article is the following:




My personal opinion: Seems we need an expiry date for threads....

The study does not suppose this, but your take of the meaning of the study does... toxicity is bad.

why should toxicity always be bad? Why should I tolerate being civil to the uncivil year after year about the same topics they've always been wrong and hateful about? Maybe all these forums long term discussions become more toxic because inaction on chronic situations lead to more anxiety and pain and thus anger and lashing out? Maybe instead of calling the brownshirts to smash up some kids calling for humanity and divestment from war machines, maybe we should negotiate in good faith, and acknowledge the evil that these companies are literally based on.

If you support monsters or monstrous policies you should be called out, even toxically. Considering most of "The West's" msm supports monstrous policies of war, resource exploitation, and human suffering at the cost to all of humanity, worker repressions, and diminishment of local and community input into the systems we live by in favor of national-global corporations stock return's benefit. Maybe being toxic is not only the logical response but it is also the morally imperative response?



Maybe if toxicity has become your main concern as a moderator of a forum than a break might be in order...

 

[Estebonrober]

I'm pretty sure anyone who thinks they've skewered the study with such a shallow analysis probably hasn't put enough time into wanting to understand the premise.

To that end: topic people drive non-toxic people away, only leaving the toxic people behind. There ya go.

And yes, it's a pattern I've seen on a ton of Internet forums. Including here.

I disagree with the premise on its face that toxicity is necessarily a bad thing. One should be pissed off that worker's rights in the US have been systemically chipped away at over the last fifty years and that over 50% of the US population cannot afford a 500-dollar emergency without getting a loan.

 

[Gorbles]

I disagree with the premise on its face that toxicity is necessarily a bad thing. One should be pissed off that worker's rights in the US have been systemically chipped away at over the last fifty years and that over 50% of the US population cannot afford a 500-dollar emergency without getting a loan.

There's definitely an interesting tangent on how we define toxicity, but I figured it wouldn't really get the discussion it deserves here. Ironically

 

[schlaufuchs]

reddit has both moderation and curated content in the form of subreddits, and on Twitter you choose who else you engage with, it doesn't have to be strangers. Insofar as anyone here are also strangers.

Social media does incentivise interactions in ways that can turn sour (for "engagement" as they often put it) but it's funny how much they seem to be misunderstood. A well-moderated subreddit works as well as any forum. Twitter is only shouting at strangers if you a) choose to shout and b) do so at strangers

(Twitter would be a good study of toxicity promoted by the business model though - I believe studies have even been done)

Honestly rather an indictment of one’s own usage of twitter (pre-x) if one comes away thinking of it as strangers yelling at each other on the street

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Honestly, I think this isn't an internet thing but just a general social thing. Just look at how society in general has evolved in the last 40 or so years. Western civilization has as a whole become toxic.

The best example in my view is activism and political activity in general. Used to be activism was about uniting people to work together for the betterment of all. And if you had a specific cause to champion your job as an activist was to convince society that said goal was just and worth supporting and that it was in fact a goal that would benefit everyone and not just your chosen group. These days the opposite is true. Now activism is about picking one small subset of the population and than tearing everyone else down for their benefit. And instead of convincing people you are right you shame, intimidate or outright assault those that disagree.

And that's just one example. Our entire societies have become this way as well.

And this is hardly something unheard of either. The same thing happens on a cycle almost predictably in western civilization. We just cyclically go from being displeased with the world into becoming hateful and angry, than doing something because of said anger and than rubber band to becoming peaceful and understanding as a backlash to the horror. And than a couple generations later we forget all those lessons and the cycle repeats it self.

So in my view this isn't really anything caused by or even related to the internet. We are just entering another downward part of the usual cycle. The internet just makes it really easy to see.

 

[schlaufuchs]

The best example in my view is activism and political activity in general. Used to be activism was about uniting people to work together for the betterment of all. And if you had a specific cause to champion your job as an activist was to convince society that said goal was just and worth supporting and that it was in fact a goal that would benefit everyone and not just your chosen group

This is just flatly untrue. And you know it’s untrue because even a cursory examination of the documentary history of social movements would reveal, at every stage a large conservative element condemning the (now lionized, then demonized) social movement or its members for being too violent, too loud, too uncompromising, or too unrealistic in their demands.

They literally said these things of King, they said it of the Antiwar movement, they said it of the gay liberation, of the abolitionists in the 1850s and 60s, of the suffragettes, of the Socialists and Wobblies of the 1900s and 10s, and so on.

 

[r16]

might fall afoul of language and whatnot

Spoiler :

 

[PPQ_Purple]

This is just flatly untrue. And you know it’s untrue because even a cursory examination of the documentary history of social movements would reveal, at every stage a large conservative element condemning the (now lionized, then demonized) social movement or its members for being too violent, too loud, too uncompromising, or too unrealistic in their demands.

They literally said these things of King, they said it of the Antiwar movement, they said it of the gay liberation, of the abolitionists in the 1850s and 60s, of the suffragettes, of the Socialists and Wobblies of the 1900s and 10s, and so on.

King however did not start campaigns to "cancel" and destroy the lives of his opposition. He did not openly hate white people. He did not advocate for violence against the public. In short, he did not do any of the things he was accused of doing. Modern movements very much are.

Now, it is true that for every King there was a Malcom X historically. And that always there is a balance, always two, newer one. One acting as the shadow to the other, a spiked gauntlet to their open hand.

But you can judge the times and your place in the cycle by looking at how much and how prominent which of the two is. And we are now in the guillotining the royals, protestant wars of religious genocide, killing the kulaks part of the cycle.

 

[Narz]

The study does not suppose this, but your take of the meaning of the study does... toxicity is bad.

why should toxicity always be bad? Why should I tolerate being civil to the uncivil year after year about the same topics they've always been wrong and hateful about? Maybe all these forums long term discussions become more toxic because inaction on chronic situations lead to more anxiety and pain and thus anger and lashing out? Maybe instead of calling the brownshirts to smash up some kids calling for humanity and divestment from war machines, maybe we should negotiate in good faith, and acknowledge the evil that these companies are literally based on.

If you support monsters or monstrous policies you should be called out, even toxically. Considering most of "The West's" msm supports monstrous policies of war, resource exploitation, and human suffering at the cost to all of humanity, worker repressions, and diminishment of local and community input into the systems we live by in favor of national-global corporations stock return's benefit. Maybe being toxic is not only the logical response but it is also the morally imperative response?

It's your moral imperative to be a dick online? Is that what activism and heroism means these days. No wonder the world is f-ed.

 

[Akka]

why should toxicity always be bad? Why should I tolerate being civil to the uncivil year after year about the same topics they've always been wrong and hateful about?

The fun fact (and the reason why such long thread exists and end up toxic) is that the other guy thinks exactly the same, but the other way around.
Trying to find who is actually right rather than who is shouting the loudest is the hard part.

 

[Crezth]

I don't shout at strangers but I get retweets of other people shouting and shouting is so much the norm that many (most?) accounts retweet at least some shouting even if their normal content is, like, food or something.

Probably retweeters are just responding to arrogant blowhards whose foolishness would let the world perish if it made a difference.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

King however did not start campaigns to "cancel" and destroy the lives of his opposition. He did not openly hate white people. He did not advocate for violence against the public. In short, he did not do any of the things he was accused of doing. Modern movements very much are.

Now, it is true that for every King there was a Malcom X historically. And that always there is a balance, always two, newer one. One acting as the shadow to the other, a spiked gauntlet to their open hand.

But you can judge the times and your place in the cycle by looking at how much and how prominent which of the two is. And we are now in the guillotining the royals, protestant wars of religious genocide, killing the kulaks part of the cycle.

Incredible historical revisionism, even contemporary responses to mlks marchs characterized them as violent and destructive

 

[uppi]

The study does not suppose this, but your take of the meaning of the study does... toxicity is bad.

why should toxicity always be bad? Why should I tolerate being civil to the uncivil year after year about the same topics they've always been wrong and hateful about? Maybe all these forums long term discussions become more toxic because inaction on chronic situations lead to more anxiety and pain and thus anger and lashing out? Maybe instead of calling the brownshirts to smash up some kids calling for humanity and divestment from war machines, maybe we should negotiate in good faith, and acknowledge the evil that these companies are literally based on.

If you support monsters or monstrous policies you should be called out, even toxically. Considering most of "The West's" msm supports monstrous policies of war, resource exploitation, and human suffering at the cost to all of humanity, worker repressions, and diminishment of local and community input into the systems we live by in favor of national-global corporations stock return's benefit. Maybe being toxic is not only the logical response but it is also the morally imperative response?



Maybe if toxicity has become your main concern as a moderator of a forum than a break might be in order...

Toxicity is bad because once a discussion is toxic, it is pointless and harmful - toxic - to anyone involved. It would be better if the discussion did not exist. Thefore, the only sensible reaction is to disengage. Do it too often and you will get ignored by sensible people. And if no one reads what you write, why bother typing it in the first place?

 

[Gorbles]

Toxicity is bad because once a discussion is toxic, it is pointless and harmful - toxic - to anyone involved. It would be better if the discussion did not exist. Thefore, the only sensible reaction is to disengage. Do it too often and you will get ignored by sensible people. And if no one reads what you write, why bother typing it in the first place?

I believe the point Estebonrober is getting at is that things that are deemed "toxic" aren't always actually toxic - they arise from longstanding disagreements turned uncivil. Anger can be righteous, instead of just being plain wrong. But this is thrown under "toxic" more often than not. People will also use "toxic" when they actually mean "attitudes I personally disagree with" (I don't think Este is doing this, but it 100% happens when people want to shut down arguments, all over the Internet). The job of moderation (getting a bit meta here) is to work out where the line is in any given topic. Users are human beings, nobody is a purely-rational robot, and we all step over lines in good or bad faith.

It's easy to say "the only sensible reaction is to disengage", but if that gives others free reign over a topic, it isn't actually always the best course of action if the communal space in question is of value and worth preserving.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Now, it is true that for every King there was a Malcom X historically. And that always there is a balance, always two, newer one. One acting as the shadow to the other, a spiked gauntlet to their open hand.

In fairness to Malcom X, his rhetoric was polemic, but he didn't commit arson and murder. He didn't block the schoolhouse door to deny Jews their right to attend class. He didn't engage in gang beatdowns of people for any reason at all, let alone for being a member of a disfavored group.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Incredible historical revisionism, even contemporary responses to mlks marchs characterized them as violent and destructive

Really? I stand corrected than. I always thought those were like, his enemies talking about him and not what they actually did.

To be perfectly honest being from Europe we didn't really learn much about america in history class other than what they did in WW2. So I openly acknowledge my ignorance on the subject and yield that point to you. Also, if his marches were as violent as you say I also openly withdraw any and all sympathy and support I previously felt for the man.

---

Just for the record I firmly hold that violence, be it direct (as in beating someone up or burning his house) or indirect (personal attacks via propaganda meant to cause harm) is only permissible as a method of political action if no non violent methods are available or if all such methods have been completely exhausted. And even in those cases it is only permissible to use violence directly against your direct oppressors and their enforcers. It must newer spill over to the general public regardless of their degree of complicity. Nor may it be directed against people who merely disagree with your cause.

And I consider any movement that crosses those lines to be illegitimate and a threat to the society it is operating in. I am against them as a matter of principal. And support reasonable means of suppression be applied to them.