Hubbry Logo
Flaming (Internet)Flaming (Internet)Main
Open search
Flaming (Internet)
Community hub
Flaming (Internet)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Flaming (Internet)
Flaming (Internet)
Flaming (Internet)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Flaming is the act of posting insults, often including profanity or other offensive language, on the internet.[1] Flaming emerges from the anonymity that Internet forums provide for users which allows them to act more aggressively.[2] Anonymity can lead to disinhibition, which results in the swearing, offensive, and hostile language characteristic of flaming. Lack of social cues, less accountability of face-to-face communications, textual mediation, and deindividualization are also likely factors.[3] Deliberate flaming is carried out by individuals known as flamers, which are specifically motivated to incite flaming.[4] These users specialize in flaming and target specific aspects of a controversial conversation.

While these behaviors may be typical or expected in certain types of forums, they can have dramatic, adverse effects in others. Flame wars can have a lasting impact on some internet communities where even once a flame war has concluded a division or even dissolution may occur.[3]

The individuals that create an environment of flaming and hostility lead the readers to disengage with the offender and may potentially leave the message board and chat room. The continual use of flaming within the online community can create a disruptive and negative experience for those involved and can lead to limited involvement and engagement within the original chat room and program.[5]

Purpose

[edit]

Social researchers have investigated flaming, coming up with several different theories about the phenomenon.[6] These include deindividuation and reduced awareness of other people's feelings (online disinhibition effect),[7][8][9] conformance to perceived norms,[10][11] miscommunication caused by the lack of social cues available in face-to-face communication,[12][13][14] and anti-normative behavior.[2]

Jacob Borders, in discussing participants' internal modeling of a discussion, says:

Mental models are fuzzy, incomplete, and imprecisely stated. Furthermore, within a single individual, mental models change with time, even during the flow of a single conversation. The human mind assembles a few relationships to fit the context of a discussion. As debate shifts, so do the mental models. Even when only a single topic is being discussed, each participant in a conversation employs a different mental model to interpret the subject. Fundamental assumptions differ but are never brought into the open. Goals are different but left unstated. It is little wonder that compromise takes so long. And even when consensus is reached, the underlying assumptions may be fallacies that lead to laws and programs that fail. The human mind is not adapted to understanding correctly the consequences implied by a mental model. A mental model may be correct in structure and assumptions but, even so, the human mind—either individually or as a group consensus—is apt to draw the wrong implications for the future.[15]

Thus, online conversations often involve a variety of assumptions and motives unique to each user. Without social context, users are often helpless to know the intentions of their counterparts. In addition to the problems of conflicting mental models often present in online discussions, the inherent lack of face-to-face communication online can encourage hostility. Professor Norman Johnson, commenting on the propensity of Internet posters to flame one another, states:

The literature suggests that, compared to face-to-face, the increased incidence of flaming when using computer-mediated communication is due to reductions in the transfer of social cues, which decrease individuals' concern for social evaluation and fear of social sanctions or reprisals. When social identity and ingroup status are salient, computer mediation can decrease flaming because individuals focus their attention on the social context (and associated norms) rather than themselves.[16]

A lack of social context creates an element of anonymity, which allows users to feel insulated from the forms of punishment they might receive in a more conventional setting. Johnson identifies several precursors to flaming between users, whom he refers to as "negotiation partners," since Internet communication typically involves back-and-forth interactions similar to a negotiation. Flaming incidents usually arise in response to a perception of one or more negotiation partners being unfair. Perceived unfairness can include a lack of consideration for an individual's vested interests, unfavorable treatment (especially when the flamer has been considerate of other users), and misunderstandings aggravated by the inability to convey subtle indicators like non-verbal cues and facial expressions.[16]

Factors

[edit]

There are multiple factors that play into why people would get involved with flaming. For instance, there is the anonymity factor and that people can use different means to have their identity hidden.[17] Through the hiding of one's identity people can build a new persona and act in a way that they normally would not when they have their identity known. Another factor in flaming is proactive aggression "which is initiated without perceived threat or provocation" and those who are recipients of flaming may counter with flaming of their own and utilize reactive aggression.[17] Another factor that goes into flaming is the different communication variables. For instance, offline communications networks can impact the way people act online and can lead them to engage in flaming.[17] Finally, there is the factor of verbal aggression and how people who engage in verbal aggression will use those tactics when they engage in flaming online.[17]

Flaming can range from subtle to extremely aggressive in online behaviors, such as derogatory images, certain emojis used in combination, and even the use of capital letters. These things can show a pattern of behavior used to convey certain emotions online. Victims should do their best to avoid fighting back in an attempt to prevent a war of words. Flaming extends past social media interactions. Flaming can also take place through emails, and whether someone calls an email a "flame", is based on whether she or he considers an email to be hostile, aggressive, insulting, or offensive. What matters is how the person receives the interaction. So much is lost in translation when communicating online versus in person, that it is hard to distinguish someone's intent.[18]

History

[edit]

Evidence of debates that resulted in insults being exchanged quickly back and forth between two parties can be found throughout history. Arguments over the ratification of the United States Constitution were often socially and emotionally heated and intense, with many attacking one another through local newspapers. Such interactions have always been part of literary criticism. For example, Ralph Waldo Emerson's contempt for Jane Austen's works often extended to the author herself, with Emerson describing her as "without genius, wit, or knowledge of the world". In turn, Thomas Carlyle called Emerson a "hoary-headed toothless baboon".[19]

In the modern era, "flaming" was used at East Coast engineering schools in the United States as a present participle in a crude expression to describe an irascible individual and by extension to such individuals on the earliest Internet chat rooms and message boards. Internet flaming was mostly observed in Usenet newsgroups although it was known to occur in the WWIVnet and FidoNet computer networks as well. It was subsequently used in other parts of speech with much the same meaning.

The term "flaming" was seen on Usenet newsgroups in the Eighties, where the start of a flame was sometimes indicated by typing "FLAME ON", then "FLAME OFF" when the flame section of the post was complete. This is a reference to both The Human Torch of the Fantastic Four, who used those words when activating his flame abilities, and to the way text processing programs of the time worked, by placing commands before and after text to indicate how it should appear when printed.

The term "flaming" is documented in The Hacker's Dictionary,[20] which in 1983 defined it as "to speak rabidly or incessantly on an uninteresting topic or with a patently ridiculous attitude". The meaning of the word has diverged from this definition since then.

Jerry Pournelle in 1986 explained why he wanted a kill file for BIX:[21]

...whereas an open computer conference begins with a small number of well-informed and highly interested participants, it soon attracts others. That's all right; it's supposed to attract others. Where else would you get new ideas? But soon it attracts too many, far too many, and some of them are not only ignorant but aggressively misinformed. Dilution takes place. Arguments replace discussions. Tempers are frayed. The result is that while computer conferencing began by saving time, it starts to eat up all the time it saved and more. Communications come from dozens of sources. Much of it is redundant. Some of it is stupid. The user spends more and more time dealing with irrelevancies. One day the user wakes up, decides the initial euphoria was spurious, and logs off, never to return. This is known as burnout, and it's apparently quite common.

He added, "I noticed something: most of the irritation came from a handful of people, sometimes only one or two. If I could only ignore them, the computer conferences were still valuable. Alas, it's not always easy to do".[21]

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) research has spent a significant amount of time and effort describing and predicting engagement in uncivil, aggressive online communication. Specifically, the literature has described aggressive, insulting behavior as "flaming", which has been defined as hostile verbal behaviors,[22] the uninhibited expression of hostility, insults, and ridicule, and hostile comments directed towards a person or organization within the context of CMC.[22]

Types

[edit]

Flame trolling

[edit]

Flame trolling is the posting of a provocative or offensive message, known as flamebait,[23] to a public Internet discussion group, such as a forum, newsgroup, or mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument.

Flamebait can provide the poster with a controlled trigger-and-response setting in which to anonymously engage in conflicts and indulge in aggressive behavior without facing the consequences that such behavior might bring in a face-to-face encounter.[citation needed] In other instances, flamebait may be used to reduce a forum's use by angering the forum users. In 2012, it was announced that the US State Department would start flame trolling jihadists as part of Operation Viral Peace.[24]

Among the characteristics of inflammatory behavior, the use of entirely capitalized messages, or the multiple repetition of exclamation marks, along with profanity have been identified as typical.[25]

Flame war

[edit]

A flame war results when multiple users engage in provocative responses to an original post, which is sometimes flamebait. Flame wars often draw in many users, including those trying to defuse the flame war, and can quickly turn into a mass flame war that overshadows regular forum discussion.[citation needed]

Resolving a flame war can be difficult, as it is often hard to determine who is really responsible for the degradation of a reasonable discussion into a flame war. Someone who posts a contrary opinion in a strongly focused discussion forum may be easily labeled a "baiter", "flamer", or "troll".[26]

Flame wars can become intense and can include "death threats, ad hominem invective, and textual amplifiers,” but to some sociologists flame wars can actually bring people together. What is being said in a flame war should not be taken too seriously since the harsh words are a part of flaming.[27]

An approach to resolving a flame war or responding to flaming is to communicate openly with the offending users. Acknowledging mistakes, offering to help resolve the disagreement, making clear, reasoned arguments, and even self-deprecation have all been noted as worthwhile strategies to end such disputes. However, others prefer to simply ignore flaming, noting that, in many cases, if the flamebait receives no attention, it will quickly be forgotten as forum discussions carry on.[19] Unfortunately, this can motivate trolls to intensify their activities, creating additional distractions.

"Taking the bait" or "feeding the troll" refers to someone who responds to the original message regardless of whether they are aware the original message was intended to provoke a response. Often when someone takes the bait, others will point this out to them with the acronym "YHBT", which is short for "You have been trolled", or reply with "don't feed the trolls". Forum users will usually not give the troll acknowledgment; that just "feeds the troll".

Political flaming

[edit]

Political flaming typically occurs when people have their views challenged and they seek to have their anger known. Through the covering of one's identity people may be more likely to engage in political flaming.[17] In a 2015 study conducted by Hutchens, Cicchirillo, and Hmielowski, they found that "those who were more experienced with political discussions—either online or offline—were more likely to indicate they would respond with a flame", and they also found that verbal aggression also played a role in a person engaging in political flaming.[17] Internet flaming has also contributed to pushing some politicians out of their field, including Kari Kjønaas Kjos of the Norwegian Progress Party who elected to leave politics in April of 2020 due to hostility she was experiencing online.[28]

Corporate flaming

[edit]

Corporate flaming is when a large number of critical comments, usually aggressive or insulting, are directed at a company's employees, products, or brands. Common causes include inappropriate behavior of company employees, negative customer experiences, inadequate care of customers and influencers, violation of ethical principles, apparent injustices, and inappropriate reactions. Flame wars can result in reputational damage, decreased consumer confidence, drops in stock prices and company assets, increased liabilities, increased lawsuits, and a decrease in customers, influencers, and sponsors. Based on an assessment of the damage, companies can take years to recover from a flame war that may detract from their core purpose. Kayser notes that companies should prepare for possible flame wars by creating alerts for a predefined "blacklist" of words and monitoring fast-growing topics about their company. Alternatively, Kayser points out that a flame war can lead to a positive experience for the company. Based on the content, it could be shared across multiple platforms and increase company recognition, social media fans/followers, brand presence, purchases, and brand loyalty. Therefore, the type of marketing that results from a flame war can lead to higher profits and brand recognition on a broader scale. Nevertheless, it is encouraged that when a company utilizes social media they should be aware that their content could be used in a flame war and should be treated as an emergency.[29]

Examples

[edit]

Any subject of a polarizing nature can feasibly cause flaming. As one would expect in the medium of the Internet, technology is a common topic. The perennial debates between users of competing operating systems, such as Windows, Classic Mac OS and macOS operating system, or operating systems based on the Linux kernel and iOS or Android operating system, users of Intel and AMD processors, and users of the Nintendo Switch, Wii U, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One video game systems, often escalate into seemingly unending "flame wars", also called software wars. As each successive technology is released, it develops its own outspoken fan base, allowing arguments to begin anew.

Popular culture continues to generate large amounts of flaming and countless flame wars across the Internet, such as the constant debates between fans of Star Trek and Star Wars. Ongoing discussion of current celebrities and television personalities within popular culture also frequently sparks debate.

In 2005, author Anne Rice became involved in a flame war of sorts on the review boards of online retailer Amazon.com after several reviewers posted scathing comments about her latest novel. Rice responded to the comments with her own lengthy response, which was quickly met with more feedback from users.[19]

In 2007, tech expert Kathy Sierra was a victim of flaming as an image of her depicted as a mutilated body was spread around online forums. In addition to the doctored photo being spread virally, her social security number and home address were made public as well. Consequently, Sierra effectively gave up her technology career in response to the ensuing harassment and threats that she received as a result of the flaming.[30][27]

In November 2007, the popular audio-visual discussion site AVS Forum temporarily closed its HD DVD and Blu-ray discussion forums because of, as the site reported, "physical threats that have involved police and possible legal action" between advocates of the rival formats.[31]

The 2016 Presidential election, saw a flame war take place between Republican candidate Donald Trump and the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. The barbs exchanged between the two were highly publicized in an example of political flaming and a flame war.[32] Similar messages were shared leading up to the 2024 Presidential election, with Donald Trump referring to his opponent, Kamala Harris, as "Lyin' Kamala," and the incumbent, Joe Biden, as "Crooked Joe Biden" on his X account.[33]

[edit]

Flaming varies in severity and as such so too does the reaction of states in imposing any sort of sanction.[34] Laws vary from country to country. In most cases, constant flaming can be considered cyber harassment,[35] which can result in Internet service provider action to prevent access to the site being flamed. However, as social networks become more and more closely connected to people and their real lives, the more harsh words may be considered defamation of the person.[36] For instance, a South Korean identity verification law was created to help control flaming and to stop "malicious use of the internet" but opponents to the law argue that the law infringes on the right to free speech.[2]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Flaming (Internet)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Flaming in communication constitutes the deliberate transmission of hostile, insulting, or messages via online platforms, often evoking strong negative emotions in recipients. This behavior typically manifests in forums, , and exchanges, characterized by aggressive that targets individuals or groups to provoke conflict or assert dominance. Distinct from mere disagreement, flaming escalates through personal attacks, profanity, and obscenity, frequently amplified by the and asynchronicity of digital environments. The phenomenon traces its documented origins to early computer-mediated communication systems in the 1970s and 1980s, with the term "flaming" appearing in hacker culture and Usenet newsgroups by the early 1980s. Empirical studies attribute flaming's prevalence to the online disinhibition effect, wherein reduced social cues—such as absence of facial expressions or tone—combined with perceived anonymity, lower users' inhibitions against aggressive expression compared to face-to-face interactions. Research indicates that while flaming disrupts productive dialogue and correlates with negative perceptions of online discussions, its actual incidence may not exceed that of offline hostility, though digital permanence heightens its visibility and impact. Key characteristics include rapid escalation into flame wars—prolonged exchanges of mutual antagonism—and differentiation from trolling, which prioritizes provocation for amusement over genuine hostility. Factors influencing flaming encompass demographic variables like age and cultural background, as well as psychological traits such as low , though causal links remain debated due to methodological challenges in quantifying online . Despite efforts to mitigate it through and norms, flaming persists as a defining, if disruptive, element of .

Definition and Core Features

Defining Flaming

Flaming denotes the exchange of hostile, aggressive messages in (CMC), characterized by insults, , , or other offensive language intended to provoke or demean recipients. This behavior manifests as anti-normative interactions that deviate from constructive discourse, often escalating emotional intensity due to the absence of nonverbal cues in digital exchanges. Scholars describe it as verbal attacks aimed at offending individuals or groups, distinguishing it from mere disagreement by its explicit intent to inflict psychological harm. The term emerged in early computing culture, with references in The Hacker's Dictionary (1983) defining it as speaking "rabidly or incessantly on an uninteresting topic or with a bad attitude," evolving to encompass broader online antagonism by the . In CMC contexts, flaming typically occurs in asynchronous environments like , newsgroups, or forums, where and lack of immediate feedback disinhibit users, amplifying compared to face-to-face interactions. Empirical studies confirm its prevalence in organizational , where it correlates with , as hostile phrasing bypasses norms inherent in verbal communication. Core to flaming is its interpretive dimension: not all profane language constitutes flaming, but rather messages perceived as personally targeted and inflammatory by recipients or observers. Research in journals like Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication emphasizes that while flaming can serve expressive purposes, such as venting , it often undermines productive , with definitions converging on as the defining trait across platforms. This contrasts with trolling, which may prioritize disruption over direct aggression, though overlaps exist in practice.

Key Characteristics and Distinctions

Flaming manifests as hostile, aggressive verbal exchanges in digital environments, characterized by insulting, profane, or belittling language aimed at opponents in discussions. This behavior often escalates rapidly due to the absence of nonverbal cues, enabling participants to overlook the emotional impact on recipients and prioritize cathartic expression over constructive dialogue. Empirical analyses of computer-mediated communication identify flaming's stylistic markers, including direct ad hominem attacks, sarcasm, exaggeration, and threats, which distinguish it from neutral or polite online discourse. Unlike offline arguments, where physical presence and social accountability temper intensity, flaming thrives on perceived impunity, with studies showing higher incidence in asynchronous forums like email or comment sections compared to real-time video interactions. A core driver is the , wherein anonymity, invisibility to others, and minimized authority cues dissolve typical self-regulatory barriers, prompting benign individuals to unleash unfiltered hostility. Research attributes this to reduced from lacking and delayed feedback loops, which amplify and normalize aggressive norms within echo-like group settings. Flaming episodes frequently self-perpetuate through reciprocity, where initial barbs provoke retaliatory flames, forming chains of mutual antagonism that derail substantive debate. Flaming is distinct from trolling, which entails calculated provocation to elicit reactions for or disruption, often detached from personal investment, whereas flaming stems from genuine frustration or perceived slights. It contrasts with or , which involve repeated, targeted victimization across sessions, in that flaming is typically situational and thread-bound, emerging organically in public forums rather than as premeditated campaigns against individuals. Civil online disagreement, by comparison, adheres to evidence-based rebuttals without personal vitriol, highlighting flaming's hallmark as emotionally charged over rational contestation.

Causal Factors and Mechanisms

Psychological Drivers

The , first articulated by psychologist John Suler in , represents a primary psychological driver of flaming, wherein individuals display heightened and online due to diminished inhibitions stemming from , invisibility to others, asynchronous communication, and minimized authority cues. This toxic disinhibition manifests as flaming through impulsive verbal attacks, as the absence of nonverbal feedback reduces and , allowing users to dissociate their online actions from real-world consequences. Empirical studies confirm that these factors correlate with increased hostile language, with experiments showing participants using more aggressive terms when anonymous compared to identifiable conditions. Deindividuation theory further elucidates flaming's psychological underpinnings, positing that erodes self-awareness and personal responsibility, fostering impulsive and antisocial behaviors within online groups. In virtual communities, this leads to conformity-driven escalations where individuals amplify hostility to align with group norms, as social identity overrides individual restraint. Research applying to digital contexts has found that anonymous users in forums exhibit higher rates of flaming, particularly when perceiving low personal identifiability, supporting causal links between reduced self-evaluation and aggressive outbursts. Individual differences, including and reactive , amplify these environmental drivers, with studies identifying psychological traits like external and low as predictors of flaming propensity. Motivational analyses via reveal that flamers often seek thrills, social bonding through dominance, or cathartic release from , as evidenced by surveys linking such behaviors to interpersonal distress and virtual dissociation. Demographic factors, such as younger age and male , also correlate with higher flaming tendencies, though these interact with situational rather than acting in isolation.

Technological and Social Contributors

Technological affordances of (CMC) platforms, including and the absence of nonverbal cues, facilitate flaming by diminishing and enabling misinterpretations of tone. Dissociative , where users operate without linking their online to real-world identity, reduces perceived consequences for aggressive behavior, as individuals feel detached from their actions' repercussions. —lacking visual or auditory presence—further erodes , allowing users to aggress without witnessing immediate emotional fallout. Asynchronicity in platforms like forums and permits delayed, ruminative responses, escalating over time rather than diffusing it through real-time feedback. These elements interact in Suler's framework, where they collectively lower psychological barriers to disinhibited expression, often manifesting as profane or insulting exchanges characteristic of flaming. Text-based interfaces exacerbate flaming by stripping away paralinguistic signals, such as facial expressions or vocal inflections, leading to attribution errors where neutral statements are perceived as hostile. Empirical analyses of and forum interactions confirm that reduced cues correlate with higher incidences of obscenity and insults, as users project intentions onto ambiguous text. Platform designs that prioritize rapid posting and minimal moderation, as seen in early groups and modern comment sections, amplify this by enabling viral escalation without built-in conflict resolution mechanisms. theory complements these observations, positing that anonymous CMC environments blur individual , fostering impulsive aggression akin to crowd behavior in physical settings. Studies of synchronous and asynchronous online groups demonstrate this effect, with anonymous participants exhibiting significantly more antisocial verbal behaviors than identifiable ones. Social contributors to flaming arise from group-level dynamics, including depersonalization and normative pressures within online communities, which reinforce hostile exchanges as acceptable. In virtual settings, via group immersion reduces self-awareness, prompting to aggressive norms where flaming signals in-group loyalty or dominance. Social identity processes heighten this, as users align with echo-like subgroups, interpreting out-group views as threats and responding with amplified to affirm collective bonds. Coordination challenges in dispersed networks, lacking hierarchical feedback, perpetuate cycles of retaliation, as seen in analyses of forum disputes where initial insults trigger reciprocal escalations. Personal predispositions toward hostility interact with these , but community-level uninhibited behaviors—driven by perceived impunity—predominantly sustain flaming prevalence. Research on virtual communities identifies these mechanisms through surveys linking group and identity salience to elevated flaming rates, underscoring causal pathways beyond individual traits.

Historical Development

Early Origins in Pre-Web Networks

The practice of flaming, characterized by hostile and inflammatory exchanges in text-based communication, emerged in the late within early distributed computer networks lacking graphical interfaces or real-time visual cues, which amplified misunderstandings and disinhibited aggressive responses. These pre-web environments, including mailing lists and nascent systems, fostered asynchronous discussions where users often escalated disagreements into personal attacks due to the absence of nonverbal signals and the relative of pseudonymous handles. One of the earliest documented uses of the term "" in an online context appeared in 1978 on an -connected , referring to a heated, vigorous or outburst in a discussion thread, predating widespread but signaling the recognition of such behavior as a distinct . By 1981, the term was in common use among ARPANET participants to describe pointed, rebuttals that deviated from substantive debate. This linguistic precedent likely drew from offline slang like "," denoting a spectacular failure or crash, adapted to digital vitriol amid the technical culture of engineers and researchers. Usenet, developed in 1979 by students Tom Truscott and Jim Ellis as a decentralized news distribution system using protocols, quickly became a hotspot for flaming within its first three years of operation, as growing participation led to rants and retaliatory posts that overwhelmed topical discussions. Initial guidelines implicitly acknowledged the risk of abuse through flaming by emphasizing cooperative norms over technical moderation, relying on community self-regulation to curb escalations, though violations—such as inflammatory cross-posting—prompted early calls for restraint. Flame wars on Usenet, often sparked by technical disagreements or cultural clashes, shaped emergent rules like avoiding excessive capitalization or shouting, which were codified in documents such as the 1983 "Netiquette" precursors. Parallel developments occurred in dial-up , with the first such system, , launched in February 1978 by Ward Christensen and Randy Suess in to facilitate hobbyist and messaging amid Midwest blizzards that halted in-person meetings. BBS message boards, accessed via modems by small user bases, routinely featured flame-like arguments over hardware preferences or software bugs, as limited bandwidth and sequential posting encouraged terse, combative replies that mirrored the resource constraints of personal computing era. These interactions, while localized compared to Usenet's scale, normalized flaming as a byproduct of unmoderated, pseudonymous in non-academic settings, influencing later network cultures.

Evolution in the Web and Social Media Era

The graphical World Wide Web, popularized after Tim Berners-Lee's 1991 proposal and Mosaic browser's 1993 release, expanded online discourse beyond text-only networks into accessible forums and chat rooms by the mid-1990s. Flaming behaviors, already present in Usenet, adapted to these platforms, often manifesting as ritualized sarcasm to enforce community norms against perceived disruptions by newcomers. For instance, in 1994 Usenet groups like alt.tasteless, responses to novice queries involved exaggerated insults intended as humorous corrections rather than personal attacks, reflecting a culture where such exchanges were viewed as normative discourse rather than abuse. Web 2.0 technologies around 2004 enabled dynamic on sites like blogs and early wikis, intensifying flaming through unmoderated comment threads where anonymity persisted via pseudonyms. Platforms such as , launched in , exemplified this with user-moderated discussions prone to heated debates, but escalations remained relatively contained within niche communities due to slower dissemination and manual moderation tools like kill files. This era's flaming emphasized threaded arguments over viral spread, with hostility often framed as passionate engagement in specialized topics. The advent of mainstream —Facebook opening to the public in 2004, in 2006, and Reddit's growth post-2005—marked a shift toward real-time, algorithm-driven interactions that amplified flaming's scale and speed. Unlike forum-based exchanges, these platforms' feeds prioritized emotionally charged content, fostering rapid pile-ons where hostile comments could garner thousands of replies and shares, evolving flaming into performative outrage or trolling for audience reactions. notes this change increased visibility of hostility, with users reporting greater fear of aggressive responses deterring participation, as platform designs inadvertently rewarded provocative behaviors over . Empirical data underscores the escalation: a 2023 survey found 52% of Americans experienced online harassment, largely via , compared to more localized incidents in pre-social web forums. While early flaming was often contained and culturally tolerated as "," 's global reach and reduced barriers—replaced by echo chambers—facilitated group-driven hostility, blending individual into collective mob dynamics that propagate faster due to notifications and virality.

Manifestations and Types

Individual and Interpersonal Forms

Individual flaming manifests as direct, hostile targeted at a single recipient in online exchanges, such as emails, direct messages, or private chats, often featuring insults, , , and threats intended to demean or provoke. These interactions differ from broader group conflicts by focusing on personal animosity between two parties, where the aggressor leverages text-based to express unfiltered disdain without immediate physical or social repercussions. Empirical analyses of electronic communication identify motivations including tension release and , with flames structured as pointed attacks on the target's character or competence rather than substantive . In interpersonal contexts, flaming typically escalates from disagreements in dyadic communication into flame wars—prolonged online arguments devolving from substantive discussions into mutual personal attacks and antagonism that draw additional participants—commonly in asynchronous venues like Usenet, forums, and social media, where the absence of nonverbal cues like facial expressions or tone exacerbates misinterpretations and disinhibits aggressive responses. Factors such as dissociative —where users operate under pseudonyms detached from real identities—and asynchronicity, allowing delayed and unemotional replies, enable individuals to dissociate their online actions from offline self-concepts, resulting in "toxic " like name-calling or . Recipients often report heightened emotional distress from such targeted , as the medium's invisibility minimizes and amplifies perceived severity. Deliberate individual flaming may serve signaling functions, such as asserting dominance or venting , but lacks the mob seen in group variants, relying instead on the aggressor's internal drivers. on computer-mediated interpersonal exchanges confirms that flames in these forms correlate with reduced self-regulation, with users 2-3 times more likely to employ rude language than in face-to-face equivalents due to minimized and imagined separation from .

Group Dynamics and Escalations

In online environments, flaming often transitions from individual exchanges to collective phenomena when participants perceive support from like-minded others, fostering a sense of group solidarity that amplifies hostility. This dynamic is evident in studies of early group support systems, where flaming incidents correlated with shifts in discussion topics and group cohesion, as members aligned against perceived outsiders, leading to heightened aggression rather than resolution. Empirical analysis of harassment forums, such as Kiwi Farms, reveals that threads escalate when initial posts attract endorsements from core group members, drawing in peripheral participants who contribute increasingly severe content, including personal targeting, over time spans of days to weeks. Deindividuation plays a central role in these group escalations, as and reduced in digital crowds diminish personal , prompting behaviors that individuals would avoid in identifiable settings. Research on comments demonstrates this mechanism, where users in large, anonymous threads exhibit impulsive aggression influenced by immediate peer responses, mimicking offline mob dynamics but accelerated by the platform's visibility and reply chains. Similarly, experiments on interactions show that exposure to aggressive peer comments—regardless of anonymity levels—increases the likelihood of users adopting hostile language, creating a feedback loop where normative aggression spreads contagiously within the group. Escalation intensifies through networked patterns, where groups coordinate attacks on targets, diffusing responsibility across members and enabling from verbal barbs to doxxing or threats. In such cases, initial flames serve as signals for mobilization, with group size correlating positively with atrocity levels, as observed in analyses of online mobs where bystanders either join or amplify via retweets and shares, perpetuating cycles of retaliation. This process is exacerbated in echo chamber-like structures, where confirmatory biases reinforce extreme positions, turning isolated disputes into sustained campaigns that persist until external intervenes or the target withdraws.

Political and Ideological Variants

Political flaming manifests as hostile online rhetoric rooted in partisan or ideological clashes, often devolving into personal vilification, threats, and obscenity rather than policy-focused discourse. These exchanges are commonly triggered by direct challenges to core beliefs, with anonymity in platforms disinhibiting aggressive responses and amplifying emotional intensity. Empirical observations link surges in such hostility to real-world events, like elections or protests, where offline developments spill into digital spaces, sustaining flame wars over extended periods. Ideological asymmetries appear in the prevalence and style of flaming behaviors. Analysis of 670,973 U.S. tweets from March to May 2016, using ideological classification via Bayesian models and hostility detection through BERT, revealed conservative-leaning users expressing higher (correlation r = 0.210), name-calling (r = 0.146), threats (r = 0.092), and stereotypes (r = 0.110) than liberals, even when targeting conservative groups. Tweets referencing left-leaning identities, such as feminists or Black Americans, contained elevated rates, including (3.5% vs. 0.5% for right-leaning targets) and threats (4.1% vs. 2.9%). In parallel, a 2018 survey of 3,724 Finnish users found supporters of the right-populist more prone to provocative actions—like initiating flame wars—(beta = 0.34, p < .001), while left-leaning and Left Alliance affiliates favored protective tactics, such as reporting content (betas 0.40 and 0.69, respectively, p < .01 and p < .001). Symmetry emerges in some contexts, however. Examination of online abortion debates showed liberals and conservatives mirroring hostile language patterns, with one side's escalation prompting reciprocal increases in the other, rather than unilateral dominance. These patterns suggest right-leaning flaming often adopts direct, confrontational forms suited to open forums, whereas left-leaning variants may integrate institutional levers, like platform moderation requests, to marginalize dissent—reflecting differing strategic adaptations to digital environments. Academic research on these dynamics, conducted amid systemic left-wing biases in scholarly institutions, may underemphasize coordinated progressive aggression, such as deplatforming campaigns, relative to overt conservative threats. Overall, political flaming variants exacerbate polarization by reinforcing echo chambers and eroding cross-ideological dialogue.

Commercial and Organizational Instances

Flaming manifests in organizational contexts primarily through internal electronic communications, such as , where and lack of nonverbal cues exacerbate aggressive exchanges. A 2007 study analyzing behaviors found that users consistently identify attributes like , all-capital letters, excessive , and direct insults as hallmarks of flaming, which often intensifies interpersonal and group conflicts within workplaces. These incidents can escalate into "flame wars," prolonging disputes and undermining team cohesion, as evidenced by surveys where 68% of participants reported flaming s heightening organizational tensions compared to face-to-face interactions. Organizations have faced legal repercussions from such communications; for instance, companies frequently litigate employee disputes, with courts reviewing inflammatory messages that include personal attacks or threats, leading to settlements or firings as of the mid-2000s. In commercial settings, flaming often arises in public online forums, review platforms, and , where businesses become targets or participants in hostile exchanges affecting reputation and finances. Research indicates that larger firms and those reporting negative are disproportionately flamed on investor message boards, with over 1,200 documented instances analyzed showing stock prices dropping by an average of 0.5-1% on days of peak flaming activity due to investor sentiment shifts. For example, during the early dot-com era, tech companies like those in the sector experienced coordinated flaming campaigns on sites like Yahoo Finance, correlating with heightened short-selling pressure and volatility. Customer-facing flaming appears in e-commerce reviews, where aggressive posts—defined by insults toward company policies or products—spike during service failures, as seen in analyses of platforms like Amazon, prompting operational responses like policies to mitigate review bombing. Occasionally, corporate accounts engage in retaliatory flaming, though this risks backlash; a 2013 review of incidents highlighted cases like airline brands responding to complaints with sarcastic or confrontational tweets, escalating to widespread user flaming and temporary dips in scores. Such organizational involvement in flaming underscores effects in lean media, where absent cues lead to impulsive hostility, per uses-and-gratifications analyses of electronic communication motivations. Empirical data from workplace implementations of computer-mediated systems further reveal flaming as a persistent downside, with early adopters reporting up to 20% of messages containing aggressive elements before netiquette training reduced incidence.

Empirical Evidence and Research

Studies on Prevalence and Patterns

Early empirical research on (CMC) suggested that flaming occurred more frequently online than in face-to-face interactions due to reduced and , with one experimental study finding that anonymous groups exhibited significantly higher rates of hostile or profane messages compared to groups. Subsequent analyses, however, have questioned the ubiquity of flaming, proposing that perceptions of often exceed actual incidence, as observers misinterpret neutral or emphatic messages as flames. Quantitative measures of prevalence remain context-specific and challenging to standardize, partly due to varying definitions of flaming across studies. In unmoderated online forums and social newsgroups like , flaming has been observed to comprise a notable portion of exchanges, particularly in response to provocative "flamebait" posts, though exact rates fluctuate by topic and moderation level. Self-reported data indicate higher exposure among younger users; a 2022 survey of Russian adolescents and youth found that 51-58% of 12-13-year-olds, 64% of 14-17-year-olds, and 45-69% of young adults had encountered flaming or trolling online. Similarly, a study of adolescent social media use reported that 36.5% characterized aggressive interactions as public "flaming" or "hating" episodes. Patterns of flaming consistently correlate with environmental and demographic factors. and lack of nonverbal cues amplify disinhibited , leading to escalation in politically charged or ideologically divided discussions. Younger users, males, and those with certain psychological traits like low show higher participation rates, while flaming decreases in moderated or identity-verified settings. Experimental evidence further links flaming to perceived offenses or disagreement, often manifesting as profanity-laced retorts rather than premeditated attacks. Despite these insights, recent meta-analyses note a decline in dedicated flaming amid rising online , potentially underestimating its persistence in platforms like .

Measured Impacts on Behavior and Discourse

on internet flaming, defined as hostile or aggressive messaging in , reveals correlations with altered user behaviors such as increased and retaliatory aggression. A 2007 study of 323 employees found that perceived flaming in emails—characterized by , insults, and —was positively associated with perceptions, explaining 14-22% of variance in conflict measures through . Similarly, experimental work on verbal venting in contexts demonstrated that amplifies aggressive language use, with anonymous participants exhibiting higher rates of overt insults and covert in comments compared to identified ones, fostering cycles of escalation. Flaming also prompts behavioral withdrawal or avoidance, reducing overall participation in online forums. Surveys and content analyses indicate that exposure to frequent flaming leads users to self-censor or exit discussions, with one analysis of news comment sections showing that high-flaming threads experienced 20-30% lower sustained from neutral users. In political contexts, intentions to flame correlate with , where participants reported heightened emotional arousal and diminished trust in interlocutors, perpetuating adversarial stances over collaborative exchange. Regarding discourse, flaming degrades communicative quality by prioritizing emotional venting over substantive argument, often amplifying polarization. A study of online political news discussions linked flaming prevalence to reduced learning outcomes, with participants in flame-heavy threads scoring 15-25% lower on comprehension tests of article content due to distraction by . Toxicity akin to flaming drives short-term spikes—up to 2-3 times higher click-through rates—but correlates with long-term user dissatisfaction and fragmented chambers, as hostile exchanges reinforce ideological silos rather than bridging divides. These effects persist across platforms, though moderated by controls, which studies show can mitigate flaming incidence by 10-40% through identity verification. Overall, while causal links remain debated due to self-selection in observational data, longitudinal analyses affirm flaming's role in eroding norms.

Notable Examples

Pre-Social Media Cases

One of the earliest documented contexts for flaming emerged in Systems (BBSes), dial-up networks popular from the late 1970s through the 1990s, where users exchanged messages asynchronously and engaged in heated disputes over technical or personal matters. These interactions often escalated due to the absence of nonverbal cues, mirroring later online hostility, though specific large-scale flame wars were less centralized than in . Usenet, launched in 1979 as a distributed discussion system among universities, became a primary venue for flaming by the , with "flame wars"—prolonged exchanges of insults that typically started with provocative posts challenging technical or ideological views and escalated through successive replies laden with personal attacks—frequently disrupting newsgroups. The term "flaming" itself first appeared in print in 1983's The Hacker's Dictionary, defined as vituperative argumentation via , reflecting its rapid adoption in hacker and academic circles. A prominent example is the 1992 Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate on the comp.os.minix newsgroup. On January 29, 1992, operating systems professor criticized ' newly announced as an "obsolete" monolithic design unfit for modern computing, likening it to a in a era. responded defensively, arguing practicality over theoretical purity, with exchanges involving mutual accusations of poor judgment and irrelevance; the debate spanned weeks, drawing hundreds of participants and exemplifying ideological clashes in early communities. The Meow Wars (1996–1998) represented an extreme escalation, originating in late 1996 when a user repeatedly posted "meow" messages in alt.fan.karl-malden.nose, prompting retaliatory insults and automated spam scripts that flooded over 80 newsgroups. Participants, dubbed "Meowers," sustained the conflict for nearly two years, rendering affected groups temporarily unusable and highlighting emergent tactics like scripting for disruption, which prefigured modern trolling. This event involved hundreds of users and underscored Usenet's vulnerability to coordinated hostility before centralized .

Modern Platform-Specific Instances

One prominent instance of flaming on (later rebranded as X) occurred during the 2014 controversy, where users engaged in coordinated hostile exchanges targeting developers and journalists accused of ethical lapses in coverage. Initiated by a blog post alleging conflicts of interest, the dispute escalated into widespread insults, threats, and derogatory posts amplified via the #GamerGate hashtag, affecting figures like Zoe Quinn and with over 10,000 harassing messages reported in some cases. Cancel culture dynamics on the platform have frequently manifested as mass flaming, particularly against individuals expressing views diverging from prevailing norms on topics like biology and identity. For example, author faced sustained barrages of profane insults and accusations of bigotry following her 2020 tweets defending the immutability of biological sex, with hashtags like #RIPJKRowling trending and drawing millions of engagements in aggressive replies. Similar patterns emerged in attacks on podcaster in 2022 over episode guest selections, involving thousands of users posting attacks and demands for . In 2025, a high-profile interpersonal flame war unfolded between and on X, triggered by policy disagreements, with Musk posting pointed criticisms of Trump's decisions and Trump responding with retorts labeling Musk ungrateful, amassing over 50 million views across threads laden with mutual barbs. On Reddit, platform-specific flaming has proliferated in moderated subreddits, such as during Gamergate extensions where users in gaming communities like r/KotakuInAction exchanged vitriolic comments exceeding 100,000 in volume on ethics debates, often devolving into personal attacks moderated under site rules against harassment. Facebook instances include ethnic-tinged flame wars in groups from 2017 onward, where anti-Rohingya posts with slurs and calls for violence garnered millions of interactions, contributing to real-world escalation as documented in platform audits.

Societal Impacts and Controversies

Potential Benefits in Open Discourse

Flaming in online discourse can enhance user engagement by amplifying emotional expressiveness, which sustains and invigorates discussions. Analysis of BBC forum data from 2008-2009 revealed that posts with negative emotional tones, such as anger or disgust, generated significantly higher follow-up activity, with users contributing more replies compared to neutral or positive content; this effect persisted even after controlling for topic popularity and user activity levels. Such dynamics suggest that flaming acts as a catalyst for prolonged interaction, potentially broadening participation in otherwise stagnant threads and fostering collective emotional states that propel community vitality. By surfacing underlying social and political tensions, flaming serves as a mechanism for conflict revelation and agonistic engagement, preventing the suppression of in pluralistic environments. Scholars argue that hostile exchanges reflect pre-existing societal divides rather than artifacts of digital alone, functioning productively at multiple scales: individually by sparking creative responses or , collectively by reinforcing group norms and identities, and societally by necessitating coexistence amid opposition. This provocative quality can compel participants to articulate positions more forcefully, akin to rhetorical strategies in offline polemics, thereby enriching debate through explicit challenge rather than veiled consensus. In political contexts, elements of flaming, such as , may function as a rhetorical tool to distinguish arguments amid , drawing attention to substantive critiques that might otherwise be overlooked. Empirical observations of online political talk indicate that uncivil expressions can elevate visibility of dissenting views, prompting deeper scrutiny and counterarguments that test idea resilience. However, these benefits hinge on contextual factors, including the presence of substantive content beneath , as unanchored risks devolving into without advancing resolution.

Harms and Criticisms

Flaming, characterized by hostile and insulting online exchanges, has been empirically linked to adverse psychological effects on recipients, including heightened anxiety, depression, and stress levels. A 2022 study on cyber-aggression, which encompasses flaming behaviors, found that exposure correlates with diminished outcomes, reduced , and interpersonal strain, attributing these to the disinhibiting effects of in digital communication. Similarly, research integrating flaming within frameworks reports that victims experience elevated depressive symptoms and emotional distress, with longitudinal data indicating persistent impacts beyond immediate encounters. These effects stem causally from the aggressive rhetoric's ability to provoke reciprocal , amplifying emotional without physical cues to mitigate escalation. On a broader scale, flaming contributes to degraded online discourse by fostering polarization and reducing constructive engagement. Empirical analysis of news comment sections demonstrates that high volumes of flaming, often triggered by challenging viewpoints, mediate negative emotions that impair users' information processing and learning from content, leading to entrenched biases rather than reasoned . Critics argue this pattern erodes in public forums, with studies noting flaming's role in perpetuating echo chambers and deterring moderate participation, as evidenced by decreased user retention in flame-prone threads. Prevalence data ties flaming to incidents, where approximately 27% of adolescents report recent exposure to such hostilities, correlating with broader declines including in severe cases. Criticisms of flaming extend to its real-world spillover, where online hostilities translate into offline consequences such as relational breakdowns or increased aggression. A psychological examination highlights how flaming's profane and deindividuating nature bridges virtual and physical realms, prompting victims to withdraw from social networks or exhibit heightened irritability in daily interactions. Researchers critique the phenomenon for exploiting internet anonymity to normalize behaviors unacceptable in face-to-face settings, with peer-reviewed reviews underscoring underestimation of its harms due to inconsistent definitions and measurement in prior studies. Despite calls for nuanced research avoiding overgeneralization, evidence consistently points to flaming's net negative impact on both individual well-being and collective rationality in digital spaces, outweighing any purported cathartic value unsupported by causal data.

Debates on Free Speech Versus Moderation

The debate over free speech and content moderation in the context of internet flaming centers on whether platforms should tolerate hostile exchanges as legitimate expression or intervene to mitigate toxicity. Proponents of minimal moderation argue that flaming, while abrasive, fosters unfiltered debate and innovation in discourse, with excessive restrictions risking viewpoint discrimination and self-censorship among users. Empirical analysis of social media contexts indicates that fears of a "chilling effect" from moderation policies often overstate their impact, as users adapt message content minimally rather than abstaining from posting. Public surveys reveal limited appetite for aggressive moderation even against severe toxic speech, suggesting that users prioritize open platforms over sanitized ones. Critics of lax policies contend that unchecked flaming erodes , amplifies harms like psychological distress, and incentivizes echo chambers or user exodus, justifying platform-led removals to sustain viable communities. Causal evidence from moderation experiments demonstrates that deleting toxic content not only curbs but also correlates with reduced offline hate incidents, implying broader societal benefits from intervention. Platforms embracing "free speech absolutism," such as Gab and , have hosted elevated levels of flaming and uncivil as alternatives to mainstream sites, attracting users alienated by prior bans but facing advertiser pullouts and risks. Following Elon Musk's 2022 acquisition of (rebranded X), policy shifts toward reduced proactive moderation reinstated accounts previously suspended for inflammatory content, sparking claims of enhanced free expression amid rising visibility of contested views. However, data from the platform post-changes show persistent enforcement against spam and targeted , with critics alleging selective application that amplifies divisive flaming under the guise of openness. Free speech advocates, including organizations like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, praise these reforms for countering perceived pre-acquisition biases in enforcement, which disproportionately targeted conservative-leaning rhetoric. Moderation supporters, often from groups, warn that diminished oversight correlates with surges in hate-adjacent flaming, potentially undermining democratic deliberation.

Boundaries with Harassment and Defamation

Flaming in online discussions typically involves heated, often profane exchanges of opinions or insults within the context of a , which are generally protected as free speech under frameworks like the U.S. First Amendment when they constitute or rhetorical excess rather than verifiable falsehoods or threats. However, the boundary with emerges when such behavior escalates into a persistent pattern of targeted abuse intended to intimidate or distress a specific individual, as distinguished by legal standards requiring evidence of repeated unwanted contact causing reasonable fear of harm. For instance, U.S. under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A defines as using electronic means to engage in a course of conduct that places a person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, differentiating it from isolated flaming by emphasizing repetition and intent to coerce or intimidate. Defamation, by contrast, requires a of fact presented as true, communicated to a third party, and resulting in reputational harm, with online flaming crossing this line if it asserts unsubstantiated accusations such as criminality or professional incompetence without basis in truth. In jurisdictions like the , the imposes a "serious harm" threshold, meaning fleeting or context-bound insults in flames rarely qualify unless they demonstrably damage reputation, whereas persistent false claims in targeted campaigns do. Courts often apply defenses like fair comment for opinion-based flaming, but liability attaches when anonymity shields provably false assertions, as seen in cases unmasking posters via for libel suits. The overlap intensifies with behaviors like doxxing or threats embedded in flames, transforming mutual argumentation into unilateral prosecutable under state laws, such as New Jersey's cyber-harassment statute (N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4.1), which penalizes communications with purpose to harass via lewdness, threats, or annoyance. Empirical distinctions in legal analyses highlight that flaming's and reciprocity mitigate liability, whereas harassment's one-sided and defamation's factual falsity trigger civil remedies like injunctions or , with platforms invoking immunity but users facing personal accountability. This delineation underscores causal factors: flaming as discourse byproduct versus deliberate targeting, with evidentiary burdens on plaintiffs to prove malice or harm beyond subjective offense.

Platform Liability and Policy Responses

, internet platforms are largely insulated from civil liability for user-generated flaming under of the of 1996, which immunizes providers of interactive computer services from being treated as the publisher or speaker of third-party content, provided they do not materially contribute to its unlawfulness. This protection extends to inflammatory exchanges that do not rise to criminal levels, such as or true threats, as platforms are not required to preemptively monitor or remove such content. Courts have consistently upheld this immunity in harassment-related suits, distinguishing platform facilitation of speech from direct authorship or endorsement. Efforts to reform have intensified amid broader concerns over online harms, including aggressive discourse, with the U.S. Department of proposing in 2020 to narrow immunity for platforms that fail to address "systemic" issues like repeated abusive content, though no major legislative changes had materialized by 2025. Internationally, jurisdictions like have debated imposing direct liability on platforms for hosted content, potentially encompassing unchecked flaming if deemed harmful, as explored in deliberations by mid-2025. Such approaches contrast with U.S. precedents, where attempts to impose for platform design enabling —such as algorithmic amplification of disputes—have faced First Amendment hurdles. In response to flaming, platforms have adopted proactive policies framed as standards against abusive or harassing , often employing reviewers, automated filters, and user reporting to detect and mitigate flame wars—defined as escalating threads of personal attacks. For instance, guidelines emphasize techniques, such as temporary post locks or user timeouts, to prevent discussions from devolving into hostility without blanket . These measures aim to balance user retention with , though enforcement varies; Meta's 2025 updates prioritized free expression by reducing removals for non-violent , aligning with recommendations to avoid over- of heated but lawful . Empirical evaluations of these policies highlight trade-offs: aggressive filtering can suppress legitimate , while lax approaches correlate with user exodus from toxic environments, as seen in community migrations following unmoderated flare-ups. Platforms like X (formerly Twitter) have experimented with transparency reports detailing flaming-related removals, reporting millions of actions annually against violations, though critics argue such undercounts subtle escalations due to definitional ambiguities between passionate argument and . Overall, policy evolution reflects ongoing tensions between liability shields and voluntary self-regulation, with no uniform global standard as of 2025.

References

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167923602001902
  2. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223415043_Flaming_in_electronic_communication
  3. https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1393/1311
  4. https://psynso.com/flaming-internet/
  5. https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/13/1/43/4583034
  6. https://www.academia.edu/88943756/Flaming_What_flaming_The_pitfalls_and_potentials_of_researching_online_hostility
  7. https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/11547/10076
  8. https://iacis.org/iis/2011/425-435_AL2011_1737.pdf
  9. http://www.jatit.org/volumes/Vol97No19/19Vol97No19.pdf
  10. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.05404
  11. https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1202/1202.0617v1.pdf
  12. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED355572.pdf
  13. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563210001627
  14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563211002317
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5768638/
  16. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461444814522947
  17. https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/11547
  18. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/who-is-that-the-study-of-anonymity-and-behavior
  19. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261457859_Factors_Affecting_Individual_Flaming_in_Virtual_Communities
  20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178923000435
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9636490/
  22. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/1094931041291295
  23. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8451443_The_Online_Disinhibition_Effect
  24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563298000326
  25. https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/papers/netnews-hist.pdf
  26. http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/header/mins05.txt
  27. https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/613/534
  28. https://medium.com/timeline/flame-wars-early-cyberbullying-1c509aa5ffad
  29. https://www.ucdavis.edu/magazine/what-explains-increase-online-hate-speech
  30. https://studyofhate.ucla.edu/smash-social-media-hate/
  31. https://johnsuler.com/article_pdfs/online_dis_effect.pdf
  32. http://www.carnegiecyberacademy.cit.cmu.edu/defenderBlogs/importance/importance_netiquette.html
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563211002317
  34. https://www.academia.edu/1276672/Flaming_among_first_time_group_support_system_users
  35. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3641015
  36. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2056305116664220
  37. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3641015
  38. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19331681.2021.1950095
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10681799/
  40. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46574-2
  41. https://arxiv.org/html/2311.16831v2
  42. https://www.wired.com/2006/02/the-secret-cause-of-flame-wars/
  43. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-top-10-corporate-social-media-disasters-2013-11
  44. https://martinlea.com/contributed-flaming-computer-mediated-communication-observations-explanations-implications/
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0747563296000040
  46. https://flanagin.faculty.comm.ucsb.edu/CV/OSullivanandFlanagin2003%28NMS%29.pdf
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9528198/
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9888041/
  49. https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/29/2/zmae001/7618999
  50. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563215003416
  51. https://d.lib.msu.edu/etd/2986
  52. http://www.promarket.org/2025/07/16/how-toxic-content-drives-user-engagement-on-social-media/
  53. https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/download/11547/10076
  54. https://spectrum.ieee.org/social-medias-dialup-ancestor-the-bulletin-board-system
  55. https://www.wired.com/story/internet-origin-story-bbs/
  56. https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/613/534
  57. https://www.linfo.org/obsolete.html
  58. https://www.oreilly.com/openbook/opensources/book/appa.html
  59. http://xahlee.info/Netiquette_dir/_/meow_wars.html
  60. https://www.npr.org/2019/08/30/756034720/how-gamergate-became-a-template-for-malicious-action-online
  61. https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/23/us/gamergate-harassment-reddit-twitter-cec
  62. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/07/17/has-twitters-cancel-culture-gone-too-far/5445804002/
  63. https://helpfulprofessor.com/cancel-culture-examples/
  64. https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2025/06/elon-musks-regret-in-trump-flame-war.html
  65. https://mashable.com/video/elon-musk-donald-trump-stephen-colbert
  66. https://www.asc.upenn.edu/research/centers/milton-wolf-seminar-media-and-diplomacy/blog/road-hell-paved-good-intentions-role-facebook-fuelling-ethnic-violence
  67. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378437111002731
  68. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0022207
  69. https://delibdemjournal.org/article/id/967/
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11382744/
  71. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0736585320301301
  72. https://cyberbullying.org/2023-cyberbullying-data
  73. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/e341422004-001
  74. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1573164/full
  75. https://academic.oup.com/cybersecurity/article/10/1/tyae026/7928395
  76. https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/assets/articlePDFs/v35/Bedi-The-Myth-of-the-Chilling-Effect.pdf
  77. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/toxic-speech-and-limited-demand-for-content-moderation-on-social-media/405333D7072585903E81BEF1729378F8
  78. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/effect-content-moderation-online-and-offline-hate
  79. https://www.businessinsider.com/how-parler-rose-from-obscurity-conservative-alternative-twitter-platform-2020-11
  80. https://www.thefire.org/news/twitters-new-era-continues-stir-debate-around-online-free-speech
  81. https://fortune.com/2022/10/29/musk-twitter-content-moderation-policing-hate-speech/
  82. https://tumthinktank.de/wp-content/uploads/ContentWarning_Report_2025_CML.pdf
  83. https://www.lco-cdo.org/en/our-current-projects/defamation-law-in-the-internet-age/
  84. https://leppardlaw.com/federal/computer-crimes/analyzing-the-distinction-between-cyberstalking-and-other-online-behaviors-in-the-us/
  85. https://www.keepersecurity.com/blog/2023/06/29/cyberstalking-vs-cyberbullying-vs-cyber-harassment-whats-the-difference/
  86. https://www.brabners.com/insights/litigation-disputes/defamation-and-harassment-on-social-media-what-to-do-if-youre-a-victim-of-online-abuse
  87. https://rmwarnerlaw.com/blog/anonymous-blogging-and-defamation-balancing-interests-of-the-internet/
  88. https://onlineharassmentfieldmanual.pen.org/state-laws-online-harassment/
  89. https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/2022/11/15/internet-harassment-in-the-workplace-civil-and-criminal-legal-actions-possible/
  90. https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk15026/files/media/documents/53-online-Wright.pdf
  91. https://www.wileyconnect.com/justice-department-proposes-reform-of-online-liability-shield-section-230-of-the-communications-decency-act
  92. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/circumventing-section-230-product-liability-lawsuits-threaten-internet-speech
  93. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=ipilr
  94. https://abovethelaw.com/2025/06/why-making-social-media-companies-liable-for-user-content-doesnt-do-what-many-people-think-it-will/
  95. https://bettermode.com/blog/flaming
  96. https://usa.kaspersky.com/resource-center/preemptive-safety/what-is-netiquette
  97. https://www.thefire.org/news/metas-content-moderation-changes-closely-align-fire-recommendations
  98. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/guide-content-moderation-policymakers
  99. https://getstream.io/blog/social-media-moderation/
  100. https://www.netmanners.com/38/flaming-emails/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.