# The Structure of Toxic Conversations on Twitter

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.11596 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.11596/

## Key facts

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

## Built on by (most cited first, 22 of 22)

- [ConGraT: Self-Supervised Contrastive Pretraining for Joint Graph and Text Embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14321/) (2023)
- [Watch Your Language: Investigating Content Moderation with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.14517/) (2023)
- [Representation Learning in Continuous-Time Dynamic Signed Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.03408/) (2022)
- [Eagle: Ethical Dataset Given from Real Interactions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14258/) (2024)
- [Leveraging Transformers for Hate Speech Detection in Conversational Code-Mixed Tweets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.09986/) (2021)
- [Enriching Abusive Language Detection with Community Context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.08445/) (2022)
- [Putting Context in Context: the Impact of Discussion Structure on Text Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.02975/) (2024)
- [Social Orientation: A New Feature for Dialogue Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04770/) (2024)
- [The Constant in HATE: Analyzing Toxicity in Reddit across Topics and Languages](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18726/) (2024)
- [Mapping the Italian Telegram Ecosystem: Communities, Toxicity, and Hate Speech](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.19594/) (2025)
- [An Empirical Study of Collective Behaviors and Social Dynamics in Large Language Model Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.03775/) (2026)
- [Conversation Derailment Forecasting with Graph Convolutional Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.12982/) (2023)
- [Characterization of Political Polarized Users Attacked by Language Toxicity on Twitter](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.12471/) (2024)
- [Graphically Speaking: Unmasking Abuse in Social Media with Conversation Insights](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.01902/) (2025)
- [Bye Bye Perspective API: Lessons for Building and Governing Measurement Infrastructure](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.25580/) (2026)
- [Personalized Prediction of Offensive News Comments by Considering the Characteristics of Commenters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.13205/) (2022)
- [Digital Emotion Regulation on Social Media](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13187/) (2023)
- [Enhancing Sentiment Analysis Results through Outlier Detection Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.16185/) (2023)
- [Before the Outrage: Challenges and Advances in Predicting Online Antisocial Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.20614/) (2025)
- [Queuing for Civility: Regulating Emotions and Reducing Toxicity in Digital Discourse](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.00696/) (2025)
- [Computational Analysis of Conversation Dynamics through Participant Responsivity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.16464/) (2025)
- [Addressing Antisocial Behavior in Multi-Party Dialogs Through Multimodal Representation Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.17289/) (2025)

## 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.