(In)civility and online deliberation: readers’ reactions to race-related news stories

Brokensha, Susan; Conradie, Marthinus

doi:10.1080/17533171.2017.1335000

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Further afield, a study in South Africa detects instances of collective ranting, threats to democracy, antagonistic stereotyping, and sarcasm [89]. It's interesting to note that here the data was collected from a South African newspaper Mail & Guardian Online, one of the few national media establishments that permitted user comments at that time of election which might hint at a level of censored speech.…”

Section: User-driven Toxicity: Who Are the Uncivil Users?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The medium is the message: toxicity declines in structured vs unstructured online deliberations

Klein,

Majdoubi

2024

World Wide Web

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humanity needs to deliberate effectively at scale about highly complex and contentious problems. Current online deliberation tools—such as email, chatrooms, and forums—are however plagued by levels of discussion toxicity that deeply undercut the willingness and ability of the participants to engage in thoughtful, meaningful, deliberations. This has led many organizations to either shut down their forums or invest in expensive, frequently unreliable, and ethically fraught moderation of people's contributions in their forums. This paper includes a comprehensive review on online toxicity, and describes how a structured deliberation process can substantially reduce toxicity compared to current approaches. The key underlying insight is that unstructured conversations create, especially at scale, an “attention wars” dynamic wherein people are often incented to resort to extremified language in order to get visibility for their postings. A structured deliberation process wherein people collaboratively create a compact organized collection of answers and arguments removes this underlying incentive, and results, in our evaluation, in a 50% reduction of high-toxicity posts.

show abstract

Section: User-driven Toxicity: Who Are the Uncivil Users?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The medium is the message: toxicity declines in structured vs unstructured online deliberations

Klein,

Majdoubi

2024

World Wide Web

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The first supplies a content analytic scheme for gauging levels of reciprocity; that is, the model charts the degree to which interlocutors interact through questions, answers, agreements and disagreements as opposed to monologues (Brooks and Lutton 2015). We deductively expanded this model, focusing on whether participants aimed agreements and disagreements at journalists, or at each other, and whether agreements/disagreements are fortified by reason-giving (Brokensha and Conradie, 2017). This first-level analysis suggested that arguments commonly centred on a specific component: the care invested in connecting evidence to conclusions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A discourse analysis of audience deliberation in online forums on race-relevant news

Conradie

Brokensha

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a post-cyber-utopian world, scholars are aware that online discussions emanating from newspaper articles do not automatically exhibit democratic discourse. Against this background, we aim to delineate some of the main attributes of deliberative discourse in an online news site for the South African Mail & Guardian. We are particularly interested in determining how interlocutors justify conclusions through warrants. Warrants are discourse moves that link conclusions with evidence, and we examine their role in contesting the ideological productiveness of opposing arguments. Focusing on race-sensitive discussions, we combine a content-and discourse-analytic framework to identify the deliberative dynamics of warrants in online debates hosted by the Mail & Guardian. We argue that warrants, as a conceptual tool, offer a fruitful purchase on the enactment of deliberation in naturally-occurring settings. Moreover, they seem cardinal for the contestation of ideology, notably when deliberation is suffused with the analysis of power relations in highly-charged topics.

show abstract

Assessing the Politics of Debasement: From Impoliteness to Demonization in Political Communication

Feldman

2023

Political Debasement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(In)civility and online deliberation: readers’ reactions to race-related news stories

Cited by 6 publications

References 41 publications

The medium is the message: toxicity declines in structured vs unstructured online deliberations

The medium is the message: toxicity declines in structured vs unstructured online deliberations

A discourse analysis of audience deliberation in online forums on race-relevant news

Assessing the Politics of Debasement: From Impoliteness to Demonization in Political Communication

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About