
Study and Interactive Visualization of Toxicity in Reddit Communities - BenjaminBell
http://idibon.com/toxicity-in-reddit-communities-a-journey-to-the-darkest-depths-of-the-interwebs/
======
minimaxir
This analysis ignores completely ignores another analysis posted in the
referenced "most toxic communities" AskReddit thread
([http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2v39v2/what_popul...](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2v39v2/what_popular_subreddit_has_a_really_toxic/coeacqb))
which charts the positivity and negativity of submissions to the top 100
subreddits, which had similar conclusions:
[http://i.imgur.com/8MGbiBO.png](http://i.imgur.com/8MGbiBO.png)

I'm a bit upset about it. :P

------
JulianMorrison
I wonder how the scores would be changed if the code could be updated to treat
_intruding outsiders_ differently from _supported regulars_?

I bet you'd see ShitRedditSays and TwoXChromosomes suddenly sink down the
"bigoted" ratings, while climbing right to the top of the "under siege"
rating.

~~~
A_COMPUTER
It should be expected that a subreddit would get high ratings for bigotry and
for being under siege when it is explicitly dedicated to singling out and
insulting other people on the same site. So I suspect that if such a
measurement were done, TwoXChromosomes would drop and ShitRedditSays would
stay put.

~~~
rodgerd
> It should be expected that a subreddit would get high ratings for bigotry
> and for being under siege when it is explicitly dedicated to singling out
> and insulting other people on the same site.

The fact you think TwoX is "dedicated to insulting other people on the site"
says a lot more about you than it does about that subreddit. None of it
especially complimentary.

~~~
smosher_
Please try to read _all_ the words before making implications about the
author's character.

------
silencio
Would be interesting if there was also some way to also get moderated comments
in the analysis. I was surprised to see 2xc nowhere near 'top' for toxicity,
but the mod team moderates a _ton_ of terrible comments on a daily basis.
Seeing a comparison of all the default subreddits vs like the next x biggest
non-defaults would be interesting too, wonder if that influx of new users
changes anything..

------
JetSpiegel
This kind of objective analysis of subjective feelings makes me feel 69% angry
and 42% sad. And 3.14159% baffled.

------
rmc
ShitRedditSays, and the "most toxic" subreddit in that result, is actually a
joke subreddit. It's a "circle jerk" where everyone flips around the standard
racism and sexism (so sexism jokes against men) etc. "breaking the jerk",
actually taking it seriously, is a bankable offense.

I think this makes their analysis flawed. If you were to look at spelling and
grammar, you might conclude that people on polandball are the worst sellers,
but the bad spelling is part of the style. Likewise shitredditsays for
insults.

~~~
brighteyes
There is plenty of obvious hatred and mocking under the guise of sarcasm in
that sub.

This is 100% the case for newcomers to the subreddit, which is already enough
of a reason for it to be considered toxic. But it is also true if you are not
new to the concept. There is plenty of hatred and anger in the SRS network of
subreddits - read the other SRS* subreddits to see - and shitredditsays is
where they are allowed to vent it, under the guise of sarcasm.

Sarcasm and satire can be valid and honest. But when an entire community like
shitredditsays does nothing but that all day, every day, then it's an
convenient place for actual hatred to be expressed.

Sometimes - rarely - there is something egregious enough that it makes sense
to mock it and be sarcastic about it, even harshly so. But if that's all you
do all the time, like shitredditsays - and tumblrinaction, and others - then
you quickly become toxic. A community dedicated to hatred of other groups
can't avoid becoming toxic.

~~~
rmc
Yes, they hate racism, sexism, and racists and sexists (etc).

There are pleanty of newbie friendly SRS subs, like /r/socialjustice101, or
/r/SRSQuestions.

------
wpietri
The bigotry scores are especially interesting.

------
chippy
Would be interesting to see the level of support with the levels of bigotry.
Are bigots more supportive or less supportive of each other? Is there
coherence or division?

------
Elizer0x0309
Some sub-reddits deemed "toxic" I've never encountered much toxicity. I beg to
question what qualifies at toxic for this specific research.

~~~
siegecraft
Their proprietary sentiment analysis product picks out 10,000 comments for
crowd-sourced reviewers to label. So, the modern version of a telephone survey
performed by mechanical turks. Probably context-free, so it's possible some of
the tone or idiom might get lost.

------
sumitviii
If the result of this study is A, toxicity function is T(/r/foo), will the
answers on /r/Askreddit follow A = T(/r/Askreddit)?

Edit:I'm sorry. They won't. But it will affect the value.

------
asherkin
Very interesting! I'd absolutely love to see an analysis like this run against
a forum I admin. Guess I have yet another side project to look into.

------
noreallyhn
This is rather hilariously slanted. "Bigotry by subreddit". Really?

"[TumblrInAction], a subreddit dedicated to mocking Tumblr – where
marginalized groups, particularly LGBTQ, post about their experiences"

Here they neatly imply r/TumblrInAction mocks LGBTQ issues when in fact, it
mocks people who use identities as tools to divide and hit people over the
head with. Which is incidentally what this report does:

"Overt bigotry: the use of bigoted (racist/sexist/homophobic etc.) language,
whether targeting any particular individual or more generally, which would
make members of the referenced group feel highly uncomfortable" In other
words: assuming everyone in group X feels the same way about what the authors
consider offensive language. This ignores e.g. the vast amount of gay people
on chan boards who say "faggot" for fun to each other.

This so-called bigotry is contrasted with "supportiveness", apparently a
desirable trait. Yet you can easily find people's horrible behavior being
supported in more hugbox-style forums, when they get into an in/out-group
fight and all the niceties go out the window for the sake of victimhood. We
saw this with Atheism+, with r/GamerGhazi, and the "women in tech" activists.

Speaking of, notice how they explicitly contrast r/TheRedPill with a companion
"Women in Tech" link in the footnote/popup for no stated reason. TheRedPill is
supposedly "dedicated to male chauvinism", where "bigoted comments received
approval". Well, if you define the entire subreddit's subject matter as
bigoted, are you surprised the community appears to support bigotry by your
own count? I have read TheRedPill, it is the male equivalent of Jezebel,
nothing more, nothing less.

Really, this is just spreading fear about certain reddits, as the summary
practically admits: which communities you should avoid, according to data. Yet
the most toxic subreddit of all by their own data, ShitRedditSays, is nicely
euphemized as home to "unproductive conversations". Also if the authors think
they "delved deep into the darkest recesses of the inter webs," by analyzing
reddit comments, they are naive beyond belief.

~~~
IndianAstronaut
I am surprised that subreddits like coontown and other subreddits that are a
part of the "nigger network" aren't given as much attention.

------
curiously
where does someone gain the knowledge and skills to use tools for machine
learning and gaining data insights?

TIL /r/neckbeards harbor bigotry.

/r/canada has zero bigotry! YES!

------
bbcrubyfail
Would be interesting if they conducted the same study here - personally find
the coercive hivemind and ever-so-right-on-i-love-political-correctness-too
automatons here far too much sometimes.

