Toxic Sociality

In online communities – previously forums, now Facebook and similar platforms, wikis, and other social media platforms – there is a known percentage group. I know that 1% also means something negative in the criminal world, but in the digital environment, there is its own percentage gang – and in a completely different tone.

The Few and the Chosen

In content consumption versus content production, there is a proven 99-1 rule of thumb:

• 99% only consume, meaning they read and follow
• 1% produce all the content

Of course, this rule doesn’t apply in small communities, but no mass theory applies there at all. That’s why Facebook groups are usually calm and pleasant for users up to about 1000 members – because the percentage of participants is higher, and everyone shares roughly the same viewpoint.

When the membership exceeds 2000, the first of the originals stop producing any content, including both posts and comments. The tone and style of the group begin to change as new active members reshape the environment. When the 10,000-member milestone is surpassed, only a handful of the originals remain, forming the 1% core group.

In wiki platforms, the 90-9-1 rule is known.

• 90% only consume
• 9% edit and comment
• 1% produce new content

In Facebook groups, this is no longer the case, and the percentages of active participants must be reversed:

• 9% make the posts (usually questions and photo shares)
• 1% respond

Various rules of thumb have been formed about the activities of digital communities. One could be the 90-10-1 rule (with some variations), where

• 10% produce 90% of all content
• of that content, 1% produces 90%

All this means the same thing over and over. The reputation, image, and quality of the content of the community are in the hands of so few that the matter is always personified. And the person is responsible for everything – yes, the percentage gang is so small that it can be thought of as one person, because every community inevitably polarizes at some point, and like-minded people remain to produce similar content.

The 9 Percent’s Responsibility

The percentage gang is responsible for whether anyone comes to the community at all and whether there is anything for the remaining 90% to consume. On the other hand, the commenting 9% are responsible for whether the community is maintained and whether it benefits the visitor.

Content creators are known, and their ways are understood. It can be argued that they create the image. In contrast, the commentators are the ones who establish the reputation. And that minority is also the one to be watched – from the administration’s point of view. The same minority is the group that builds or destroys the community.

The Katiska Facebook group is (in the dog world) exceptionally calm. Many have left because the content is slowly becoming similar to other dog groups, which is entirely in the hands of the 9+1 – if content creators do not produce content and steer the style in the direction they want, is it then the fault of the new minority filling the vacuum?

The calmness comes from moderation. Katiska is occasionally labeled as a Nazi group, where it’s easy to get kicked out. The claim always comes from those who have been kicked out of the group. The number of those kicked out has remained reasonably stable at 0.1% of the total membership.

Nazi behavior means:

• blocking, usually by administrators
• personal attacks
• poor behavior
• spamming

I guarantee that the Nazi behavior will remain in my Facebook groups. None of that will change because – sorry – jerks get offended.

The Existing Style Dictates Everyone’s Behavior

What plagues all social media groups comes from that participating 9% group. Let’s create a new rule of thumb: 9-1.

• 9% participate in content creation, meaning they start threads and respond
• 1% of them poison the entire thread

The administrative problem is that primarily that -1% (the minus sign refers to attitude) doesn’t do anything that would warrant them being excluded based on rules. However, their way of responding, or even not responding and changing the subject, is the core problem.

On large forums, there is primarily a moderator line that beats any Facebook group, including flea markets, 5-0 in terms of administrative line. The difference is that on Facebook, the line is often arbitrary, while on forums, it is consistent.

• Off-topic is closed immediately
• Poor quality responses lead to the loss of the user’s right to respond if repeated
• Duplicate questions are either closed or merged

This is because every (well, most) old forums have understood one basic thing: most people arrive from search engine results directly to the content, and what they read directly determines their own behavior.

It is often assumed that people inherently know how to behave and think for themselves. This forgets the saying stupidity intensifies in groups. If the administration allows poor behavior, then otherwise sane and basic-behavior-capable adults quickly move to the reptilian brain side – everyone knows what follows from that.

Toxic Positivity: Salt in the Wounds

I once made a fundamental mistake in my dog related Facebook group. I allowed poor responses. I defend myself by saying that things aren’t always so clear-cut. Many have praised responses that have made me facepalm repeatedly and wonder how anyone benefits from zero information.

Toxicity, however, should never have been allowed. I made a mistake there – and no longer have the diligence to correct the situation.

The toxic, poisonous approach is familiar to everyone:

• “My dog has problem X” – “I’ve never had any problems, nor have my grandparents”
• “What should I give so my dog gets everything/nutrient X” – “It’s unnecessary space science, I don’t calculate either”
• “How do I get my spayed lapdog to lose weight” – “Wonderful, we got 100 grams of fat off our agility-loving Collie bitch when we switched the whole family to eating salad, and now everyone has more energy and achieves zero faults”

Selfish pseudo-positivity is perhaps the worst thing I know. It gives the illusion of helping, yet it’s solely about self-promotion and self-emphasis. It’s done by rubbing salt in the wounds and trampling the initiator.

Weight loss groups are unfortunately notorious for this, but the same behavior is prevalent in all communities promoting well-being, naturalness, and mental balance – there’s the paradox.

Weight loss programs rely on communal peer support. The service provider offers minimal marginal starting information, which is almost free to produce. After that, other paying customers handle the continuation.

An overweight customer asks what to do when the weight doesn’t drop, and the provided diet starts to become tedious. Then comes a response brimming with positivity, encouraging by saying that the responder lost 2 kilos in the first week and is now down to 52 kg.

That’s toxic positivity. It doesn’t provide advice or even peer support. It comes to tell the one who hasn’t reached the goal that they succeeded – and at the same time, they remember to mention that they are otherwise at a normal weight. The only consequence is that the questioner’s failure is highlighted.

The end result is that the questioner leaves the group, and the seller can only present happy success stories in their advertisements.

I belong to another percentage gang. I dare to speak up and don’t fear responses.

I would ask the weight loss example responder,

• couldn’t you have kicked me in the balls any harder
• are you in a weight loss group because of your poor body image, which might be more in the realm of mental health work

Everyone knows what would follow from that. The responder would slit their wrists because they just wanted to help (which they didn’t do, but advertised themselves). Plus, they are so positive that it’s immeasurable (except they were only positive about their own success).

The example is real. But everyone recognizes exactly the same thing in all dog groups. The aim is that it won’t be found here.

Social Blind Spot

Some have a better social sense and understanding. They usually do very well in groups. Most often the problem – in my opinion – is that they also avoid conflicts, but I admit that this was a harsh generalization. Some are so smart due to their social situational awareness that they know how to choose the time and place for an attack where they can’t lose – I admit that’s a very cynical view.

Some have weaker social awareness, and some have had their social sense turned into a social blind spot. They are not genuinely bad or mean, but truly want to help. However, they have no clue about basic consideration and thinking to realize what can be said and where — or through Finnish negativity: they don’t realize what cannot be said.

From an administrative point of view, it’s impossible to distinguish such individuals from toxic positive people unless you know the person beforehand. On the other hand, the end result is always the same. The questioner doesn’t get the response they deserve, only a bad mood and frustration – which falls on the community.

There is a third group. I belong to it, and I recognize similar people quite quickly. When you no longer care about others’ reactions, don’t have the energy to soothe or pamper, and want to focus on the matter. You reach this level when you know your stuff, have a Teflon surface, and don’t fear people.

They/I are often a problem because people are looking for small talk (in Finnish way, not like Americans understand the term), and the matter scares them. Especially just the matter is really threatening. When they/I also very easily tell people who don’t know and can’t do, that they don’t know and can’t do, the conflict is ready.

But I hate worthless and baseless positivity. It leads nowhere. Even in this kind of circles, there are a couple of people who know, are mostly kind (and fight their battles only in a safe and limited environment…), but for the same reasons, they can’t get their message across. When the other party can’t accidentally have their feelings hurt.

According to one meme:

Peace stagnates. Conflict mobilizes. Remember that.

The Questioner’s Responsibility

Almost always, the problem is not in the responders but the questioner. However, since both belong to that 9% group producing content, it’s the same subject.

I’ve ranted about this before. Most often directly in threads when the initiator starts selecting their responses.

Questions are asked about things and problems because they don’t know. When they don’t know, where is the knowledge to value responses as useful or useless?

The other is an attitude problem. It’s assumed that any Facebook group or forum is a personal support area, a customer service, where service can be demanded like at a store counter. I complain. That’s not the case, not even close.

Of course, you can complain about off-topic. And you should. Then the responder is an example of one of the previously introduced groups. But you can’t get over or around the fact that most often, the questions in the posts are about the wrong thing – especially in more complex matters.

There is a problem being tried to solve. When the self-thought solution doesn’t work, help is asked for that solution model. Help should be asked for the problem. The starting point would probably be that they want to get the problem solved, not the self-thought solution model.

There are numerous examples. The most typical example with dogs, although nowadays quite innocent, but in the golden age of barfing a guaranteed way to get on the block list, is the question about constipation caused by bones. The question is always phrased as how to treat constipation. However, the question should be why the dog has constipation.

Then, the seemingly correct answer is to give soaked flaxseed meal, Levolac, or something else. The genuinely correct and problem-solving answer, however, is to stop giving that reindeer minced meat because constipation is caused by too much bone.

Guess which answer is acceptable?

The Bubble of Selfishness

People are incredibly selfish. Or self-centered. I’ve always been a bit unclear on the difference between the two. However, one’s own belly button always shows in the answers.

If you want to buy a horse and specify that you want a 140 cm Estonian mare, over 10 years old, who only knows the basics, and the price cap is 2000 euros. You can be sure that the PM box will fill with responses selling a 5-year-old warmblood stallion who masters the intricacies of dressage with a price tag of 20,000.

That’s selfishness. Or self-centeredness. They’re not interested in what someone is asking, but in what they have.

When someone in dog groups asks for food suggestions for a dog with acid reflux issues, the thread soon fills with

• all the dry foods available on the market
• swearing by raw feeding with ingredients that guarantee acid reflux
• suggestions to do an elimination with one dry food
• statements that their own dog has never had acid reflux. Nor has their grandfather’s.

If we leave out the last one, in all other responses, people are well-meaning and want to help. The problem is that they don’t help and don’t answer the question. They tell what they themselves do or what they like.

For the same reason, any supplement thread quickly fills with offended and hurt respondents if the product is questioned. People don’t want to learn or improve their actions once they’ve taken on the role of advisor. A situation where they would have to admit that their purchase only tells about their own purchase, and that maybe they’ve made a useless, foolish, or harmful choice, is insurmountable.

To me, that’s a completely incomprehensible behavior model. I’ve always been grateful when someone has shown a better solution. But then again, I’ve always been more interested in achieving the goal.

When you ask someone recommending a risky diet for acid reflux why such a thing, why it would help, what the initiator gets, the wrists droop again. This time, they appeal to experiences. The fact that the questioner might ask for experiences with a suitable diet for acid reflux is due only to the eternal and global basic truth: people don’t know what they should ask.

Yes, there are useless experiences. Quite a lot, actually. If you don’t believe it, let’s take an extreme example: go check out how many positive experiences can be found in homeopathy groups.