I detest this smug mentality, that so called trolling is trivial to identify and differentiate from legitimate, but unpopular opinion.
I feel strongly about it because it creates opportunity for censors, both in the form of moderators and communities themselves, to stifle debate under the guise of "detoxification." This kind of communal policing is ground zero for the echo chamber phenomenon.
We live in a reality where there will always be those who abuse platforms of communication for nefarious purposes. We also live in a reality where we are able to temper our own outrage, and we must if we wish to maintain healthy, open dialogue.
And I detest this smug mentality that this subject is concerning things that are mere differences of opinion, like we're discussing tax policy. That's not the case in the least.
You don't seem to understand that terms like "toxic" are as arbitrary and subject to abuse as the word "obscene".
In fact, I'm not even sure as to what you're getting at. Are you seriously suggesting that what is toxic is somehow universal?
It does not bother you that dozens of serious contemporary, controversial topics, with severe consequences for our society, are regularly censored on websites like reddit under the guise of so called toxicity?
You aren't bothered by such vague conceptions of offensiveness being used by corporate giants to push their narrative at the expense of others? Of the danger of self-censoring group think on community moderated boards?
"It does not bother you that dozens of serious contemporary, controversial topics, with severe consequences for our society, are regularly censored on websites like reddit under the guise of so called toxicity?"
I think you're gonna have to provide an example for this. An example of something that is being labeled as toxic, but wouldn't appear to be.
The problem is not that the topics themselves are toxic, but that only one point of view is identified as such. I only mention these "flamebait" topics as examples, not to discuss them or choose a side.
Gamergate
Gender Equality/Equity
Affirmative Action
White Privilege
The various subjects in James Damore's recent memo [note, he was fired for honest, sourced feedback that was explicitly requested of him]
Politics in general (especially anything remotely pro-Trump or pro-Republican)
If you pay attention to dynamics on reddit, for example, certain sides tend to be stifled, regardless of any potential merits. I am not choosing sides, just offering examples where certain opinions are immediately identified by communities as toxic, and no discussion is even attempted.
Hell, there is a growing movement among feminists, at least a vocal minority online, which claims that our modern concept of masculinity is "toxic."
The very word is turning into a catch all for "opinions I don't like," which seems to happen any time one attempts to censor information.
Finally, consider this: if the topics I've brought up are so clearly, as you claimed, not merely "differences in opinion," then why do they attract such heated discussions, with contributors on both sides, even on HN?
I suspect I might be feeding the troll, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Gamergate might have very initially been about 'ethics in games journalism', but it didn't stay that way very long. It was very quickly infested with racist, sexist trolls. All that stuff with the lady that supposedly slept with someone to get good reviews, or whatever? Turned out that was total bunk. That was proved within a couple of weeks.
Guess what, KotakuInAction still exists. It doesn't really matter whether the initial idea was right, though. If they'd been right initially, their later actions would still be wrong. And they were wrong initially in reality, and it hasn't stopped them from continuing their shit.
For quite a long time, I dismissed the criticisms of Gamergate because I really had nothing to do with it. I read the initial couple of news articles and watched a couple of videos with some outrage and kind of went 'yeah no shit, IGN gets paid to give good reviews, not news'. I then basically ignored them for years. I would hear that they were toxic this or problematic that and I dismissed it, because I thought their initial points seemed solid enough.
Then when I actually went back and looked at it, it had basically turned into TheRedPill. KotakuInAction and GamerGate are really not worth defending.
---
The rest of the topics are pretty similar: all differing levels of controversial, and with echo chamber subreddits heartily happy to advocate for them and heartily happy to advocate against them.
The word 'toxic' is only used by one of those sides, but the other side generally uses far worse language to describe their 'opponents' if you want to use that term. I think being described as 'toxic' is a little better than being described as 'worthy of being shot' or whatever other horrible things people in TRP, The_Donald and such tend to say.
Plus sometimes echo chambers are actually good. When you want to discuss the finer points of something, being able to just say 'this is not a subreddit for debating the merits of ideology X just because it's called /r/X, go to /r/DebateX please' is fine. One of the biggest problems with reddit is that in comparison to old-style forums it's so ephemeral. Other than the (maximum 2) stickies and sidebar links there's little in the way of permanent material in any subreddit, so you end up having the same introductory surface-level discussions again and again and again.
Reddit is a social news website first and foremost. It's not good at discussions at all.
I feel strongly about it because it creates opportunity for censors, both in the form of moderators and communities themselves, to stifle debate under the guise of "detoxification." This kind of communal policing is ground zero for the echo chamber phenomenon.
We live in a reality where there will always be those who abuse platforms of communication for nefarious purposes. We also live in a reality where we are able to temper our own outrage, and we must if we wish to maintain healthy, open dialogue.
Offense is taken, not given.