7 ms·

I was curious about their definition as well. Our world is so hyper political and polarized that the definition of “toxic” and “hate speech” varies widely depen

I was curious about their definition as well. Our world is so hyper political and polarized that the definition of “toxic” and “hate speech” varies widely depending on your political ideology. There’s zero space left in the middle.

dijit 8y ago
holding a middle ground is frowned upon on the internet. I've confirmed this myself by writing torridly on occasion and for sites which allow voting (such as HN/Reddit) I am rewarded. When I make a nuanced, balanced and reasoned reply I am punished. I bring this up because on twitter there is no 'disagree' button, there is only shouting at your enemy in 280 characters, that used to be 140 characters, enough that you can never actually make a reasoned assertion about anything. I still have my twitter account, it's a shame to remove it because I have a good handle- but I can't escape the blatant fact that it is only inhabited by bullies. Both sides of a weirdly distorted political spectrum drumming/repeating their own rhetoric to each other -- and anyone who might try to strike a balance is seen as an enemy by both sides of the extreme. The extremes of twitter almost caused me to hate feminism, A cause I actually have always agreed with. In turn it also caused me to hate ideologues who espouse fears of restricted freedoms/end of privacy. Which I also agree with. Twitter is _not_ a place to go to have a conversation, it's a place where a conversation is thrust upon you if you speak, whether you want it or not. I'm writing this because I agree with you. I've had a growing resentment for twitter due to the blatant, crushing pile-on that it allows.
- dx87 8y ago
  There's even a subreddit dedicated to criticizing people that don't hold extreme political views, /r/enlightenedcentrism. It's pretty much a super left-wing echo chamber though, they view their "side" as 100% correct, and anybody who falls in the middle of the two extremes is considered too lazy and apathetic to see that being super liberal is the only correct political ideology.
- guscost 8y ago
  Eh, I think you’re experiencing something else. Moderation and hedging phrases seem more like blue-chip stocks in the internet points risk/reward game. You’re almost guaranteed not to lose that many points with a stance fewer folks will brigade, and if you hit the right tone, odds are you’ll get a modest reward for pitching in. Picking a side and going all-out on some cultish activism is more like a venture capital penny-stock situation. With a perfect storm of the right audience, day, etc, you could get a huge internet karma ROI! And the other times, you lose everything. YMMV of course, a lot depends on how “rational” the “market” happens to be.
- setr 8y ago
  I usually see the opposite effect, at least on HN: the more extreme a view, the more likely to be downvoted/ignored. Directly center/nuetral is usually ignored, and the main upvoting comes through slightly, but not strongly, shifted from the center. Even on being on the wrong side of things, dissent is usually limited but mostly nuetral But then again, my stronger opinions tend to be on the wrong side of things, though rarely commenting on political hot-topics(these are more like claiming the best way to shop for things is to first filter on whether their marketing is up to snuff: if they tried to advertise and managed a shitshow, probably their whole operation is just as bad.. got a lot of shit for defending that one)
lurchpop 8y ago
yeah, judging from a few of those samples, i'm assuming toxicity means being on the "incorrect" side of the gun and immigration debates.
- transitivebs 8y ago
  The author of this article suspiciously leaves out any formal definition of toxicity, but there is related work that does go in-depth into how to define it from an objective standpoint: https://perspectiveapi.com/ https://perspectiveapi.com/

dijit 8y ago

holding a middle ground is frowned upon on the internet. I've confirmed this myself by writing torridly on occasion and for sites which allow voting (such as HN/Reddit) I am rewarded. When I make a nuanced, balanced and reasoned reply I am punished. I bring this up because on twitter there is no 'disagree' button, there is only shouting at your enemy in 280 characters, that used to be 140 characters, enough that you can never actually make a reasoned assertion about anything. I still have my twitter account, it's a shame to remove it because I have a good handle- but I can't escape the blatant fact that it is only inhabited by bullies. Both sides of a weirdly distorted political spectrum drumming/repeating their own rhetoric to each other -- and anyone who might try to strike a balance is seen as an enemy by both sides of the extreme. The extremes of twitter almost caused me to hate feminism, A cause I actually have always agreed with. In turn it also caused me to hate ideologues who espouse fears of restricted freedoms/end of privacy. Which I also agree with. Twitter is _not_ a place to go to have a conversation, it's a place where a conversation is thrust upon you if you speak, whether you want it or not. I'm writing this because I agree with you. I've had a growing resentment for twitter due to the blatant, crushing pile-on that it allows.

dx87 8y ago
There's even a subreddit dedicated to criticizing people that don't hold extreme political views, /r/enlightenedcentrism. It's pretty much a super left-wing echo chamber though, they view their "side" as 100% correct, and anybody who falls in the middle of the two extremes is considered too lazy and apathetic to see that being super liberal is the only correct political ideology.
guscost 8y ago
Eh, I think you’re experiencing something else. Moderation and hedging phrases seem more like blue-chip stocks in the internet points risk/reward game. You’re almost guaranteed not to lose that many points with a stance fewer folks will brigade, and if you hit the right tone, odds are you’ll get a modest reward for pitching in. Picking a side and going all-out on some cultish activism is more like a venture capital penny-stock situation. With a perfect storm of the right audience, day, etc, you could get a huge internet karma ROI! And the other times, you lose everything. YMMV of course, a lot depends on how “rational” the “market” happens to be.
setr 8y ago
I usually see the opposite effect, at least on HN: the more extreme a view, the more likely to be downvoted/ignored. Directly center/nuetral is usually ignored, and the main upvoting comes through slightly, but not strongly, shifted from the center. Even on being on the wrong side of things, dissent is usually limited but mostly nuetral But then again, my stronger opinions tend to be on the wrong side of things, though rarely commenting on political hot-topics(these are more like claiming the best way to shop for things is to first filter on whether their marketing is up to snuff: if they tried to advertise and managed a shitshow, probably their whole operation is just as bad.. got a lot of shit for defending that one)

lurchpop 8y ago

yeah, judging from a few of those samples, i'm assuming toxicity means being on the "incorrect" side of the gun and immigration debates.

transitivebs 8y ago
The author of this article suspiciously leaves out any formal definition of toxicity, but there is related work that does go in-depth into how to define it from an objective standpoint: https://perspectiveapi.com/ https://perspectiveapi.com/