What Makes Online Communities ‘Better’? Measuring Values, Consensus, and Conflict across Thousands of Subreddits

Abstract

Making online social communities ‘better’ is a challenging undertaking, as online communities are extraordinarily varied in their size, topical focus, and governance. As such, what is valued by one community may not be valued by another. However, community values are challenging to measure as they are rarely explicitly stated. In this work, we measure community values through the first large-scale survey of community values, including 2,769 reddit users in 2,151 unique subreddits. Through a combination of survey responses and a quantitative analysis of publicly available reddit data, we characterize how these values vary within and across communities. Amongst other findings, we show that community members disagree about how safe their communities are, that longstanding communities place 30.1% more importance on trustworthiness than newer communities, and that community moderators want their communities to be 56.7% less democratic than non-moderator community members. These findings have important implications, including suggesting that care must be taken to protect vulnerable community members, and that participatory governance strategies may be difficult to implement. Accurate and scalable modeling of community values enables research and governance which is tuned to each community's different values. To this end, we demonstrate that a small number of automatically quantifiable features capture a significant yet limited amount of the variation in values between communities with a ROC AUC of 0.667 on a binary classification task. However, substantial variation remains, and modeling community values remains an important topic for future work. We make our models and data public to inform community design and governance.

Counterspeakers’ Perspectives: Unveiling Barriers and AI Needs in the Fight against Online Hate

“…Moreover, counterspeaking can create connection and solidarity against hate among users as they respond to online hate speech collectively as a part of an organized movements such as #iamhere [12,42]. While content moderators sometimes use counterspeech to de-escalate conversations and algorithmic support for such proactive moderations have been investigated (e.g., flagging conversations that are likely to devolve into toxicity [116]), most counterspeakers who are everyday users have different positionality and power compared to the moderators [140]. Therefore, in our work, we focus on counterspeakers and the public to understand the barriers to counterspeaking and tools to support counterspeech.…”

Hate Cannot Drive Out Hate: Forecasting Conversation Incivility following Replies to Hate Speech

“…Althoff 2021, 2022), we further conduct analyses for each type of community to explore whether the differences between high and low incivility across communities exist. The 39 subreddits are grouped into five categories based on the taxonomy from Weld, Zhang, and Althoff (2022). The authors hand-labeled communities in the categories iteratively until reaching agreement among them.…”

Beyond Denouncing Hate: Strategies for Countering Implied Biases and Stereotypes in Language

“…To intrinsically motivate and empower annotators, which can increase annotation quality (August et al, 2018), we instructed annotators to select the most convincing statement as a "content moderator". However, this framing could limit the context of convincingness of counter-statements to one group of users whose values and decisions can sometimes disagree with the community members (Weld et al, 2022). Therefore, future works should expand this framing and perform experiments under multiple contexts with varying audiences and intentions, especially focusing on counterspeaker motivations (Buerger, 2022), to understand how these variations interact with strategy effects and preferences.…”