To me, the interesting parts of this are: "We also show that some online conversation features have remained consistent over the past three decades despite the

To me, the interesting parts of this are: "We also show that some online conversation features have remained consistent over the past three decades despite the evolution of platforms and social norms." and "Our findings suggest that the polarization of user opinions—intended as the degree of opposed partisanship of users in a conversation—may have a more crucial role than toxicity in shaping the evolution of online discussions." This is something I've noticed too, as a former participant of a tiny social media site originally forked from Hackernews. Different political opinions and a controversial subject can make for a really unpleasant place, and without any sort of real-life connection, everything is so abstracted that it's hard to be respectful. People on that site that I know are usually good commenters got toxic, I try very hard not to be toxic and had to leave when I couldn't. Moral is, theres some anecdotal proof for the conclusion , and it does make me wonder that maybe the reason facebook / twiter / etc. is so toxic isn't due to being milked for engagement. Or at least, that that's not as big a factor as I thought. And this seems like it could have some implications on how to make for a pleasant fediverse.