Are a few people ruining the internet for the rest of us?

Alternative platforms, blocking, and self‑curation

• Experiences on Lemmy/Mastodon are mixed: some find them boring or equally toxic; others say they become usable once a handful of toxic users are blocked.
• Mastodon’s newer algorithms are seen as recreating Twitter dynamics by privileging highly followed accounts; users recommend aggressive blocking and avoiding “popular” feeds.
• Blogs and RSS are praised as calmer, more interesting spaces with less incentive to perform or provoke.

Voting systems, dogpiles, and “hivemind” effects

• Old forums are remembered as having a couple of people arguing while others observed; now downvote systems can produce dogpiles and suppress valid but unpopular opinions.
• Some participants consciously upvote greyed‑out or disagreeable but sincere comments to counteract herd punishment.
• Others report quitting Reddit after constant downvotes on technical content.

Ads, algorithms, and outrage farming

• Many tie the problem not to individuals but to ad‑driven “engagement” optimization: outrage and “ragebait” keep people commenting, resharing, and seeing more ads.
• This is framed as the internet’s “original sin”: platforms maximize quantity and emotional intensity over quality.
• Some argue that platform‑controlled feeds are inherently misaligned with user well‑being; user‑side filters/agents might help but would hurt monetization.

Is it really just “a few people”?

• Several reject the idea that a tiny group ruins everything, pointing to armies of propagandists, commercial grifters, and countless minor bad actors.
• Others invoke Zipf‑like concentration: a small minority produces a disproportionate share of toxic content, reminiscent of Usenet and shock‑jock radio.
• There’s concern that over‑focusing on “a few trolls” obscures structural incentives (ads, algorithms, propaganda industries).

Speech, anonymity, and polarization

• Some claim offline political discussion is suppressed by social and economic risk, pushing grievances into anonymous online spaces where they’re amplified.
• Others counter that “I can’t speak” often means “people dislike my behavior,” and real‑world frank speech is still possible—though some countries criminalize certain insults.
• Participants disagree whether “politically correct” or “anti‑PC” camps are more intolerant; many conclude online anonymity and scale bring out the worst in all sides.

Online vs offline reality and the study’s claims

• People debate whether online discourse is a distorted funhouse mirror or a more honest exposure of hidden divisions.
• Some note that it feels harder and harder to avoid culture‑war content despite efforts to curate.
• The cited unfollow experiment is viewed with caution: skepticism about psychology’s replication record, missing statistical details, and doubts that platforms could (or would) significantly de‑amplify outrage without gutting their business model.