mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Thread With Caution: Proactively Helping Users Assess and Deescalate Tension in Their Online Discussions

arXiv 2212.01401 ↗First posted 2 Dec 2022cs.HC cs.AI cs.CLcited by 11

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Incivility remains a major challenge for online discussion platforms, to such an extent that even conversations between well-intentioned users can often derail into uncivil behavior. Traditionally, platforms have relied on moderators to -- with or without algorithmic assistance -- take corrective actions such as removing comments or banning users. In this work we propose a complementary paradigm that directly empowers users by proactively enhancing their awareness about existing tension in the conversation they are engaging in and actively guides them as they are drafting their replies to avoid further escalation. As a proof of concept for this paradigm, we design an algorithmic tool that provides such proactive information directly to users, and conduct a user study in a popular discussion platform. Through a mixed methods approach combining surveys with a randomized controlled experiment, we uncover qualitative and quantitative insights regarding how the participants utilize and react to this information. Most participants report finding this proactive paradigm valuable, noting that it helps them to identify tension that they may have otherwise missed and prompts them to further reflect on their own replies and to revise them. These effects are corroborated by a comparison of how the participants draft their reply when our tool warns them that their conversation is at risk of derailing into uncivil behavior versus in a control condition where the tool is disabled. These preliminary findings highlight the potential of this user-centered paradigm and point to concrete directions for future implementations.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 88 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Dec 2022.

Builds on

17 of 88 references.

References · 17

  1. 2017Automated Hate Speech Detection and the Problem of Offensive Languagecited by 724
  2. 2016Ex Machina: Personal Attacks Seen at Scalecited by 208
  3. 2016Winning Arguments: Interaction Dynamics and Persuasion Strategies in Good-faith Online Discussionscited by 106
  4. 2013A Computational Approach to Politeness with Application to Social Factorscited by 104
  5. 2018Conversations Gone Awry: Detecting Early Signs of Conversational Failurecited by 73
  6. 2018Community Interaction and Conflict on the Webcited by 72
  7. 2019Trouble on the Horizon: Forecasting the Derailment of Online Conversations as they Developcited by 41
  8. 2018Before Name-calling: Dynamics and Triggers of Ad Hominem Fallacies in Web Argumentationcited by 32
  9. 2017Anyone Can Become a Troll: Causes of Trolling Behavior in Online Discussionscited by 30
  10. 2021Conversations Gone Alright: Quantifying and Predicting Prosocial Outcomes in Online Conversationscited by 20
  11. 2017An Army of Me: Sockpuppets in Online Discussion Communitiescited by 18
  12. 2021What Makes Online Communities 'Better'? Measuring Values, Consensus, and Conflict across Thousands of Subredditscited by 13
5 more
  1. 2018Forecasting the presence and intensity of hostility on Instagram using linguistic and social featurescited by 11
  2. 2019Content Removal as a Moderation Strategy: Compliance and Other Outcomes in the ChangeMyView Communitycited by 9
  3. 2017Asking Too Much? The Rhetorical Role of Questions in Political Discoursecited by 8
  4. 2020Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood: Comparing Intentions and Perceptions in Online Discussionscited by 6
  5. 2020RECAST: Interactive Auditing of Automatic Toxicity Detection Modelscited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 2; 2025: 6; 2026: 1.

11 papers.