Abstract:When discussing difficult topics online, is it common to meaningfully engage with people from diverse perspectives? Why or why not? Could features of the online environment be redesigned to encourage civil conversation across difference? In this paper, we study discussions of gun policy on Reddit, with the overarching goal of developing insights into the potential of the internet to support understanding across difference. We use two methods: a clustering analysis of Reddit posts to contribute insights about what people discuss, and an interview study of twenty Reddit users to help us understand why certain kinds of conversation take place and others don't. We find that the discussion of gun politics falls into three groups: conservative pro-gun, liberal pro-gun, and liberal anti-gun. Each type of group has its own characteristic topics. While our subjects state that they would be willing to engage with others across the ideological divide, in practice they rarely do. Subjects are siloed into like-minded subreddits through a two-pronged effect, where they are simultaneously pushed away from opposing-view communities while actively seeking belonging in like-minded ones. Another contributing factor is Reddit's "karma" mechanism: fear of being downvoted and losing karma points and social approval of peers causes our subjects to hesitate to say anything in conflict with group norms. The pseudonymous nature of discussion on Reddit plays a complex role, with some subjects finding it freeing and others fearing reprisal from others not bound by face-to-face norms of politeness. Our subjects believe that content moderation can help ameliorate these issues; however, our findings suggest that moderators need different tools to do so effectively. We conclude by suggesting platform design changes that might increase discussion across difference.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
### What problems does this paper attempt to solve?
This paper aims to explore whether people can meaningfully discuss with those holding different views on social media platforms, especially when it comes to controversial topics. Specifically, the researchers chose the gun policy discussions on Reddit as the research background to understand whether the Internet can promote cross - ideological understanding and dialogue. The following are the main problems of the paper:
1. **In online discussions, will people have meaningful exchanges with those holding different views?**
- The researchers attempted to understand whether users are willing to interact with those with different opinions when discussing controversial topics on social media, and explored whether these interactions can bring more mutual understanding.
2. **What are the factors affecting cross - ideological discussions?**
- The researchers analyzed which factors support or hinder cross - ideological discussions. For example, how Reddit's "karma" mechanism (the upvote and downvote system) affects users' willingness to speak, and the impact of anonymity on the discussion atmosphere.
3. **How can cross - ideological dialogue be improved through platform design?**
- The researchers proposed possible design improvement measures to encourage more meaningful cross - ideological discussions. This includes redesigning certain functions of Reddit, such as the upvote/downvote mechanism, content moderation methods, etc., to reduce the antagonism between users.
### Research methods
To answer these questions, the researchers adopted two methods:
1. **Cluster analysis**:
- Conducted cluster analysis on gun - policy - related posts on Reddit to reveal the topics and patterns of the discussions. By analyzing post titles, the researchers identified three main discussion groups: conservatives in support of guns, liberals in support of guns, and liberals against guns.
2. **Interview study**:
- Conducted in - depth interviews with 20 Reddit users to understand their motivations for participating in the discussions, the obstacles they faced, and their views on cross - ideological discussions. The interviews helped the researchers better understand the reasons behind users' behaviors.
### Main findings
- **Differences in discussion topics**:
- There are significant differences in the topics discussed in communities with different political stances. For example, the conservative pro - gun community is more concerned with electoral politics and court rulings, while the liberal anti - gun community is more concerned with gun - violence research and news events.
- **Polarization effect**:
- Users are pushed away from communities with opposite views and pulled towards like - minded communities. This phenomenon results in users rarely interacting with those with different opinions.
- **Impact of platform design**:
- Factors such as Reddit's "karma" mechanism and anonymity affect users' willingness to speak. Users are worried about losing social recognition or receiving negative evaluations due to expressing different opinions, thus reducing cross - ideological discussions.
### Conclusion
The researchers suggest that by redesigning the functions of social media platforms, more meaningful cross - ideological discussions can be promoted. For example, introducing a more fair content moderation mechanism, reducing users' fear of negative feedback, and providing more cross - community interaction opportunities.
In conclusion, this paper, through empirical research, reveals the current situation of cross - ideological interactions in online discussions and their influencing factors, and provides valuable insights for future platform design.