Online arguments tend to be long, degenerate, and quickly form opposing camps that will war in other threads too. I think that's (informally) very well known. A

Online arguments tend to be long, degenerate, and quickly form opposing camps that will war in other threads too. I think that's (informally) very well known. And a down-vote is a potentially significant indicator that an argument is taking place. But I think the authors are a little naive if they think the site-owners are not aware (and in some cases, counting on) this. For many sites, it seems to be the arguments and battles that drive activity. As if to the site-owner, a (moderate) ding-dong battle is "increased engagement, even from the people who disliked the content" rather than something they necessarily want to stamp out.