There are two forms of toxicity. This is vitally important to understand before suggesting any solution. * single user - evidenced by harassment, trolling, at

There are two forms of toxicity. This is vitally important to understand before suggesting any solution. * single user - evidenced by harassment, trolling, attacks * group - evidenced by an echo chamber, which is typically present from down votes drastically outnumbering replies or replies suggesting silencing or solicitations for recruitment Both forms are equally toxic, but they are not equally recognizable or distinguishable. An example a lone attacker is typically repulsive and starts out as a bold violator to most users in a well moderated environment and so they rarely attract supporting attention from other users. Contrarily, group attacks are typically benign, at first, but misery loves company. The negative attention grows on itself drawing in users with insecurities how tend to fear diversity. While group toxicity may start out benign the toxic nature of it becomes starkly apparent as it is allowed to fester resulting in comments that are direct and hostile attacks claiming justification of group support or agreement to a premise. Toxic groups do occur on HN, but they are rarely able to grow wildly out of control in any measurable way because downvotes to any contribution are capped at -4. The only evidence of group attacks in an online environment like this are the quantity of down votes and the nature of the reply comments present. It is my opinion toxic group behavior is a more serious concern and the lone wolf, because the lone wolf flamer is easier to identify. In many cases users have no idea they are contributing to group toxicity as conformance without explanation may feel natural. It's also serious because it is substantially harder to correct. Either way the nature of toxic behavior is about attention whether it's to draw attention to a single user's contribution or to silence a disagreement.