You're spoiled beyond belief if you view "toxic" comments online as a serious problem. If it is truly "a problem", then the larger problem is tying your emotions to what anonymous people say. You live vicariously through an image of how offended someone else might be. Instead of tending to the garden you can actually protect and uphold.
Do you think the poor bastards in Skid Row feel better because some (literal) white typed in defense against toxicity?
Do you think someone...Let's say Tim Wise! Do you think Mr.Wise has actually interacted with black communities while he lives in a 98% white neighborhood? Do you think Mr.Wise would help some homeless junkie who's trying to figure out how to work his phone so he can message an estranged daughter on Facebook? That's part of what I did in Skid Row. There are issues of knowledge, skills, and plain diet that would offer much better benefits than speaking out against some notion of "toxicity", created by people who have no skin in bleating their stupid moralism.
To be honest, I found myself slightly offended at your original comment, but I decided not to say anything since I agreed with the overall point you were trying to make. This response makes me feel like I have to say something though. Sometimes the person calling everything else toxic is actually a source of toxicity. Frankly, as a white guy who has been known to wear hoodies, I don't like being grouped in with toxic assholes just because of my appearance, and I think you could convey your point better by learning to phrase it in a more respectful way. Instead of trying to call out an entire group of people based on gender and skin color, just point out that it's hard for toxicity to survive when surrounded by a large variety of viewpoints and backgrounds.
Once you've admitted it's toxic, and not just a dissenting opinion, the alternative is to allow the quality of discussion to fall until it arrives at the unmoderated mean, where no intellectual or valuable conversation occurs. There are infinite places online to engage at that level.
Edit: I'm not asserting that this particular case is in fact toxic. Anyway, it's subjective.
I think you're getting closer to a more useful definition of "toxic" here than your original comment where you asserted "There is one clear side that is wrong".
The problem with this latter/original assertion is that you are at once acknowledging that there are "sides" and, therefore, a debate to be had but at once shutting it down as not worth having. Obviously, with this comment, it's clear you don't actually believe that, though.
> They are looking to spread hate.
Here's where I think you get closest to the root of what I think is the real origin of online toxicity. For lack of a better term, I think it's trolling for emotion.
I'm not convinced that even what you're saying, that they're looking to spread "hate", is strictly true, but I do agree that they're looking to invoke a strong emotional response, whatever that may be.
I'm pretty sure that some trolls don't even believe in the "side" they claim to support. The message doesn't even have to stand up to rational scrutiny, so it need not even have a true side.
> Hate is not a political opinion. Hate is not worth tolerating.
To the extent that such strong emotional response serves to shut down conversation, it's toxic, and I agree it's not worth tolerating.
However, I think it's dangerous to apply such broad labels, especially if it's focused on the opinions (e.g. racism) rather than the behavior (e.g. appeal to emotion).
>you can choose to stop participating in the toxicity for starters
In my case, it's not that easy. Simply posting factual news updates is often enough to trigger wild responses. For example, a few months ago I attended a city council meeting and wrote a Facebook post during the meeting saying "City has approved a new 70 unit condo project" with a picture of the plans. It was one of the most toxic comment sections I've ever seen simply because some people disagreed with the action being taken. Not my actions, but the actions I was reporting on. The answer certainly is not to stop reporting the news.
On a side note, your comment comes dangerously close to sounding like a personal attack. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong but it seems like you're saying if you have problems on Facebook (which I and the person you're responding to have said we do), we must be pathetic and posting like edgy children seeking the toxicity we find. If that's not your intention, maybe you could clarify?
Communities of marginalized people also contain toxic people, unless you want to believe that by "virtue" of being marginalized we can assume a lack of toxicity.
> this argument as it's obviously weak (it doesn't make any sense)
It's the only mature and sane thing to do. Otherwise, what's the alternative?
> Do these people have social problems
I have a theory split in two parts:
1) Because it's online/remote and anonymous: I think that in 99% of the cases, when face-to-face, the toxic persons wouldn't even dare to say what they say online.
2) I learnt that most of the times toxic persons are in the 15-25 years olds range. They are just kids that do not know any better. If a 15 years old kid starts to insult me in the street, I'll just ignore him. It's just a kid.
Have you been on Reddit lately? Beyond the most mainstream posts, most subs (and their participants) are full of toxicity. I've tried posting helpful comments on there to my detriment.
I mean… sure, the comments can be negative or dismissive at times. But toxic, compared to what? Dinner conversation with close friends? Perhaps.
any other pseudonymous forum on the entire internet?. No!
Just for context, your responses read here as full of sarcasm and self assurance. I think your ideas might be more well received if you communicated them with a kinder and more accepting tone. For what it's worth it does sound like you spend a lot of time in toxic online communities, and i believe you have an expertise in those areas.
Dealing with physical "toxicity" is an order of magnitude more relevant than ensuring that online spaced are composed of doubleplusgood thoughts. With the definition of doubleplusgood being ever more amphorous and ever more transparent as a social climbing strategy...
I've been homeless enough that reading about "toxicity" is like reading about a toddler saying lime applesauce is too sour. There are physical realms where such concern would be far better directed. Where you could secure future safety and security for your child with far more impact!*
Your child is probably swalliwing little bits of plastic on a daily basis, is probably being fed diabetic inducing diets, is subject to a regime of hyper stimuli, etc... Toxicity is omnipresent but not because of the Russians.
* - via helping create the garden of neighborhoods and communities that are sane
I've noticed a trend where toxic people hide behind a veneer of a righteous cause, usually something related to social justice. It's effective and usually short circuits the public's willingness to see the nuance of the issue.
I think your comment is also reinforced by the subjectiveness of the question, "What is toxicity?" While I can see a trend of decreasing respect for others, both online and in-person, the pendulum certainly swings in the other direction. Some individuals seek out any opportunities to play the victim and feel attacked, whether they do so consciously or not, and this seems to lead to those of this mentality calling any critique 'toxic'.
Filters can work after the fact, but they don't prevent a lot of it to start.
As for "toxic", the article is referring to things like /r/CoonTown, or brigades like the one that went after Leslie Jones on Twitter a number of years ago. The people behind those already have a platform to speak: The Internet. They're not entitled to space on another platform like Reddit or Twitter, and they're not entitled to force their speech in front of someone else's face.
> I spend a lot of time in online communities and I've never seen anything so toxic
I haven't spend that much time asking questions, but I answered many (and commented, edited, flagged…) but Id didn't found the community that toxic, especially compared to other places.
Disclaimer: I acknowledge that "toxic" is a loosely-defined term that can be thrown around at people that really aren't... I'm mostly meaning people that go out of their way to be negative/harmful in unnecessary ways, harmful forms of trolling, the inability for people to have a discussion without it dissolving into attacks/etc extremely fast... that kind of thing
I think we're looking back at history with rose-tinted glasses here. Toxicity has always been around. Maybe in recent years it has grown, but I think that's just the nature of the technological beast.
It doesn't mean that on a broad scale technology always actively contributes to making things more toxic- but just that it amplifies and contributes to all sorts of things, and that includes the negative. We're more connected than we've ever been, and the unfortunate side-effect is that the degrees of separation between us and those that are toxic have been significantly reduced. Anonymity is maybe a small part, but there are plenty of openly toxic people, both online and off.
Toxic people are just toxic people and I think it's a social issue that is just always going to exist at some level. Maybe there are ways to use technology to assist in fighting against it and maybe not. I think it's just a potentially-unsolvable complex problem that will always arise in society.
I don't know the most effective ways to fight it. However, I'm trying my best not to contribute to it, and maybe personally fighting it within myself will have an outward effect on others. While I wouldn't say I'm mean/toxic/etc online, I do try to stay self-aware of my actions/reactions/emotions and what I post online (and have failed to do this sometimes) because it's very easy to get caught up in negative news/misery and then it's easy to branch off from there into an unhelpful level of anger/negativity.
I try to do my best not to assume the worst of others, to realize there are beings with entire lives unknown to me behind every screen name (if it's not a bot) and to realize it's sometimes difficult to properly infer the tone of what someone is saying online. It's still an internal work-in-progress, but I think I'm far more mindful of my behavior now than in years past.
I did not offer any opinion other than I don't like using the word toxic to describe people. But since you bring it up, my opinion on the article is that the author is in no way obligated to contribute code to open source communities that she doesn't like dealing with. In other words, I agree with her. I'll even go a step further and say that I support codes of conduct for online communities if they encourage civil discourse and encourage more people to participate.
As for my motivations - my comment was actually more inspired by the comments here than the original article (61 occurrences of the word toxic at the time I write this). Are you now going to suggest that my intent is to undermine everyone who used the word toxic here and replace their opinions with my own? Or are you willing to accept my plea to stop referring to people as toxic at face value?
Do you think the poor bastards in Skid Row feel better because some (literal) white typed in defense against toxicity?
Do you think someone...Let's say Tim Wise! Do you think Mr.Wise has actually interacted with black communities while he lives in a 98% white neighborhood? Do you think Mr.Wise would help some homeless junkie who's trying to figure out how to work his phone so he can message an estranged daughter on Facebook? That's part of what I did in Skid Row. There are issues of knowledge, skills, and plain diet that would offer much better benefits than speaking out against some notion of "toxicity", created by people who have no skin in bleating their stupid moralism.
reply