3 ms·

and it also focuses on the impact, not the intent. Almost any comment can make someone upset and cause them to throw a hissy fit/leave yet most people wouldn't

and it also focuses on the impact, not the intent. Almost any comment can make someone upset and cause them to throw a hissy fit/leave yet most people wouldn't judge those specific comments to be toxic. Similarly, the most toxic, awful and mean insults can be non-toxic by this definition if they happen between good friends or simply people with very thick skin who won't leave no matter what. (either due to the relationship or simply due to their desire to prove their point) This study operated on a flawed definition, so the conclusions are biased in quite a strong way. Also, as other users ITT mentioned, this study uses platforms where posting is heavily censored, either as a global action by the site or by the room's admins (in case of Reddit, FB groups and Telegram). This does not account for the chilling effect - the opposite side won't leave the conversation because they couldn't/didn't want to join in the first place! So many utter echochambers with really toxic behaviours (e.g. the FDS subreddit) would be classed as non-toxic because all participants have the same viewpoint - the targets of the toxicity are outsiders to the community.

spencerflem 3y ago
I think the article actually agrees with you, that their toxitiy is hostile to outsiders. "This entails, for example, that even if toxicity does not seem to make people leave conversations, it could still be a factor that discourages them from joining them." They also agree that the effects of the moderation impact the data set, and this is mentioned. That's part of why they tried to include many different sites which may have different policies and even so it's cited as a potential problem. What, specifically, from the conclusions do you think is wrong? I also think you are misunderstanding what the criteria is. It is not comments that cause someone to leave in that specific instance (something there's not data for anyways), but comments that are declared toxic according to a ML model where the idea is to find comments likely to repel others due to being rude or unreasoanable, regardless of the actual effect. This is kinda squishy and objectionable too, but not in the way that you're saying so I figured it was worth clarifying

spencerflem 3y ago

I think the article actually agrees with you, that their toxitiy is hostile to outsiders. "This entails, for example, that even if toxicity does not seem to make people leave conversations, it could still be a factor that discourages them from joining them." They also agree that the effects of the moderation impact the data set, and this is mentioned. That's part of why they tried to include many different sites which may have different policies and even so it's cited as a potential problem. What, specifically, from the conclusions do you think is wrong? I also think you are misunderstanding what the criteria is. It is not comments that cause someone to leave in that specific instance (something there's not data for anyways), but comments that are declared toxic according to a ML model where the idea is to find comments likely to repel others due to being rude or unreasoanable, regardless of the actual effect. This is kinda squishy and objectionable too, but not in the way that you're saying so I figured it was worth clarifying