Assessing Externalities: Toxic Debate and Pluralistic Values

The aim of the study can be described as twofold:

(1) We explore online incivility and toxicity with the aim of understanding better the dynamics that trigger and bring about toxic debates. This involves the conceptualisation of toxicity as a public-political issue rather than an interpersonal issue of psychological harm. In addition, by proposing that toxicity is an umbrella term that could be better understood as a gradient, we try to investigate which degrees or which aspects of incivility may permit deliberation, which, despite being emotionally laden, still leaves room for rational understanding. Indeed, the presupposition that an ideal speech situation would be rational rather than emotionally charged can be contested on the grounds that fallacies are frequently camouflaged through the rational construction of arguments. The pathos/logos dichotomy thus ceases to hold ground in much the same manner as any distinction between private/public domains becomes increasingly hazy in the present conjuncture of social media use, where the performative effects of language in a private context easily seep into public space.

(2) We also aim to explore the normative concepts that can be useful to examine and tackle the phenomena grouped under the label of toxicity. In this regard, the sources or grounds of normativity are distinguished into interpersonal or micro, intersubjective or meso, and institutional or macro levels. Beyond these levels, we establish a connection between pluralistic values and toxic debates, taking into account that pluralism is intertwined with free speech and inclusive open debate, which may entail the freedom to use language in a way that collides with the sensibilities of those with whom we share public space.

The paper is structured into three main parts. After defining toxicity and incivility, Part I offers some basic theoretical reflections, namely on the roots or sources of the normative concepts of toxicity, and the who, what and how of toxic debates. Part II reviews the relevant research findings conducted in the EUMEPLAT Project to connect these reflections to the present-day experience of platformed communication. Part III presents an analysis of the Future Scenario Essays produced within the framework of the Project's Work Package 5: it offers a view of the futures of platformed and algorithmically mediated communication and some prescriptions by the experts taking part in the Delphi+ workshops. We conclude by bringing together and discussing the diverse issues and interests that centrally relate to the theme of toxic debates and pluralistic values.