Comrade Ceasefire
Simmer slowly
This should have been in the Boring thread, but I fell asleep while reading my own post.
Nature: Long online discussions are consistently the most toxic
- Thread starter The_J
- Start date
- Status
That isn't true. Usenet got less toxic with time, though it started out bad.
You have to wonder about their premise, though. They define toxic comments as those likely to make people leave a discussion and then show that toxic comments don't make people leave discussions. This suggests that they can't tell toxic comments from non-toxic ones.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Definitely a bit platform dependent.
But our long threads often devolved into a few addicts who love repeating themselves.
We could use a lot more of those
But our long threads often devolved into a few addicts who love repeating themselves.
We could use a lot more of those
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
I think that by "threads" they mean tree-like chains of replies, as they are done on social networks. Forum threads are of a different nature as each post isn't necessarily a direct answer from the post above (which is one of the features I like the most in forums).
Increased toxicity still exists nonetheless on forums. They generally appear in what we sometimes call "quote wars", when several members are systematically replying to one another in a confrontational way.
Increased toxicity still exists nonetheless on forums. They generally appear in what we sometimes call "quote wars", when several members are systematically replying to one another in a confrontational way.
Last edited:
I like warpus and Marla_Singer's points in particular. I don't use Reddit much, but I see the same differences in likelihood of long threads being toxic among the sub-forums here. It occasionally happens in the Civ forums, but quote wars and subsequent toxicity are more common in this sub-forum, which I see as being due to the subject material being more likely to result in strong reactions. The graph in the article primarily uses shades of brown and gray with the occasional blue to differentiate topics, so it's a bit hard to read the trends per-topic, but it can be seen that not all topics have the same proclivities.
I'm not a fan of the concept of expiry dates for threads, especially the Civ forums, as IMO the value derived from being able to bump a thread exceeds the downsides from toxicity due to thread length in those forums. I could see it being selectively useful in Off-Topic if threads have a pattern of becoming toxic when bumped, although, then, what's to say a new thread won't be started that picks up from where the old one leaves off?
Newspaper editorials have implicit cooldown times and moderation. Sure, you could write a heated letter to the editor, but they have no obligation to publish it.
Cable TV, there are aggressive hosts who tend to cause the temperature to go up the longer their subjects are on-air. I don't enjoy watching them, and have wondered why people agree to go on those shows. Like, did they not watch a couple episodes first to get a feel for what to expect, and realize it may do more harm than good? To use the CNN circa 2010 example, I prefer Anderson Cooper to Nancy Grace.
Then I can listen to NPR on the way home, and it's very civil and informative, even if it's an hour-long show. So, it can once again depend on the venue.
I'm not a fan of the concept of expiry dates for threads, especially the Civ forums, as IMO the value derived from being able to bump a thread exceeds the downsides from toxicity due to thread length in those forums. I could see it being selectively useful in Off-Topic if threads have a pattern of becoming toxic when bumped, although, then, what's to say a new thread won't be started that picks up from where the old one leaves off?
At least for my in-person conversations, or direct instant messages, I don't see a trend of length -> toxicity. Go out to have a beer or two with friends, it doesn't become more toxic over time (and if it does, maybe that says something about your friends). Well, I suppose I have seen work environments where debates devolve into arguments that become more toxic over time, and those are not the healthy work environments. So, it can happen in person, but it's not considered healthy when it does.I only took a peek at it, but my question is: is that better or worse than other forms of communication? For all I know, we might be better than cable TV or newspaper editorials.
Newspaper editorials have implicit cooldown times and moderation. Sure, you could write a heated letter to the editor, but they have no obligation to publish it.
Cable TV, there are aggressive hosts who tend to cause the temperature to go up the longer their subjects are on-air. I don't enjoy watching them, and have wondered why people agree to go on those shows. Like, did they not watch a couple episodes first to get a feel for what to expect, and realize it may do more harm than good? To use the CNN circa 2010 example, I prefer Anderson Cooper to Nancy Grace.
Then I can listen to NPR on the way home, and it's very civil and informative, even if it's an hour-long show. So, it can once again depend on the venue.
I am curious how the compared Reddit to more traditional forums. By design, reddit threads are constantly reborn, with different commenters who are largely anonymous and random.
Here I know largely the personalities I am talking to and adjust accordingly. Reddit is likely a random person, often from one comment to the next. The discussion lasts a few hours until its dead.
No ones discussing things for weeks or months. The format doesn't allow it.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,090
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.
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.
Coming from me, this may seem odd.. but this is where moderation, and banning works to protect discourse.
Indeed!
Bestbank Tiger
Deity
"Toxic" is subjective and can't be accurately quantified.
There is Godwin's law for Internet threads but there are other ways to be toxic.
There is Godwin's law for Internet threads but there are other ways to be toxic.
Yes, but moderators can only do so much and there usually is plenty of space for toxicity below the ban threshold.
Snowygerry
Deity
Agree, this place is more like a favorite pub, you know the regulars at the bar, their interests and pet peeves, you can refer to discussions that happened years ago,
compare Reddit or Twitter is more akin to shouting your opinion at strangers on a street corner
Cloud_Strife
Deity
Some of you wouldn't last a week having to deal with the toxicity of being a minority and the freaks that openly want to debate your existence
This is where people need to familiarise themselves with the "Ignore" button and not be afraid to use it.
I wonder if CFC has shadowbans?
no, the people you're thinking of probably just moved on to less moderated spaces
- Status
