mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

The Structure of Toxic Conversations on Twitter

arXiv 2105.11596 ↗First posted 25 May 2021cs.SI cs.CYcited by 22

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Social media platforms promise to enable rich and vibrant conversations online; however, their potential is often hindered by antisocial behaviors. In this paper, we study the relationship between structure and toxicity in conversations on Twitter. We collect 1.18M conversations (58.5M tweets, 4.4M users) prompted by tweets that are posted by or mention major news outlets over one year and candidates who ran in the 2018 US midterm elections over four months. We analyze the conversations at the individual, dyad, and group level. At the individual level, we find that toxicity is spread across many low to moderately toxic users. At the dyad level, we observe that toxic replies are more likely to come from users who do not have any social connection nor share many common friends with the poster. At the group level, we find that toxic conversations tend to have larger, wider, and deeper reply trees, but sparser follow graphs. To test the predictive power of the conversational structure, we consider two prediction tasks. In the first prediction task, we demonstrate that the structural features can be used to predict whether the conversation will become toxic as early as the first ten replies. In the second prediction task, we show that the structural characteristics of the conversation are also predictive of whether the next reply posted by a specific user will be toxic or not. We observe that the structural and linguistic characteristics of the conversations are complementary in both prediction tasks. Our findings inform the design of healthier social media platforms and demonstrate that models based on the structural characteristics of conversations can be used to detect early signs of toxicity and potentially steer conversations in a less toxic direction.

Key facts. Cited by 22 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 25 May 2021.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 3; 2023: 5; 2024: 5; 2025: 6; 2026: 2.

22 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2023ConGraT: Self-Supervised Contrastive Pretraining for Joint Graph and Text Embeddingscited by 32
  2. 2023Watch Your Language: Investigating Content Moderation with Large Language Modelscited by 14
  3. 2022Representation Learning in Continuous-Time Dynamic Signed Networkscited by 6
  4. 2024Eagle: Ethical Dataset Given from Real Interactionscited by 4
  5. 2021Leveraging Transformers for Hate Speech Detection in Conversational Code-Mixed Tweetscited by 3
  6. 2022Enriching Abusive Language Detection with Community Contextcited by 3
  7. 2024Putting Context in Context: the Impact of Discussion Structure on Text Classificationcited by 3
  8. 2024Social Orientation: A New Feature for Dialogue Analysiscited by 2
  9. 2024The Constant in HATE: Analyzing Toxicity in Reddit across Topics and Languagescited by 2
  10. 2025Mapping the Italian Telegram Ecosystem: Communities, Toxicity, and Hate Speechcited by 2
  11. 2026An Empirical Study of Collective Behaviors and Social Dynamics in Large Language Model Agentscited by 2
  12. 2023Conversation Derailment Forecasting with Graph Convolutional Networkscited by 1
10 more
  1. 2024Characterization of Political Polarized Users Attacked by Language Toxicity on Twittercited by 1
  2. 2025Graphically Speaking: Unmasking Abuse in Social Media with Conversation Insightscited by 1
  3. 2026Bye Bye Perspective API: Lessons for Building and Governing Measurement Infrastructurecited by 1
  4. 2022Personalized Prediction of Offensive News Comments by Considering the Characteristics of Commenterscited by 0
  5. 2023Digital Emotion Regulation on Social Mediacited by 0
  6. 2023Enhancing Sentiment Analysis Results through Outlier Detection Optimizationcited by 0
  7. 2025Before the Outrage: Challenges and Advances in Predicting Online Antisocial Behaviorcited by 0
  8. 2025Queuing for Civility: Regulating Emotions and Reducing Toxicity in Digital Discoursecited by 0
  9. 2025Computational Analysis of Conversation Dynamics through Participant Responsivitycited by 0
  10. 2025Addressing Antisocial Behavior in Multi-Party Dialogs Through Multimodal Representation Learningcited by 0