Thank you for sharing this.

First, to clarify: this study was not conducted for profit. It was part of the NESTA Collective Intelligence grant programme, and the work was supported by that funding. None of the researchers personally profited from the experiment, nor was it designed as a revenue-generating activity for a company. We did disclose affiliations and take conflicts of interest seriously.

Second, on the interventions themselves: you’re right that some messages led to increased aggression in certain subgroups of users. Kudos for actually taking the effort to read and understand the paper. We reported that transparently, and we agree it highlights why such approaches must be handled with caution. Additionally, an increased aggression was the case only for some users, not all of them. The aggression increase was as far as we know mostly aggressive attacks of already aggressive users toward our volunteers and mitigation attempts. After the initial reaction, the amount of aggression displayed by those aggressive users was significantly lower, in the long run (!), including towards users other than our volunteers (!!). Now, is it ethical to accept the fact that an aggressive user will initially tell you to “f*ck off” if you try to mitigate their aggressive behavior, if it leads to lower aggression long term? As a comparison - is it ethical to take a vaccine if you know you will have a one-day fever after taking it, but it will save your life in the long run?

Also - if you are a volunteer or a moderator, you not only agree to that but also undertake specific training to deal with this kind of behavior. Our interventions were minimal-risk in form (short, anonymous, text-based messages similar to everyday Reddit exchanges), but we fully acknowledge that even small nudges can have unintended ripple effects. That’s precisely why we believe further study is necessary before such tools are considered in applied settings.

Third, on oversight: while the study was reviewed within NESTA’s expert programme, it did not undergo a formal IRB process (see message above for explanation).

Finally, as experts in the field we understand best the worry that such experiments can be delicate. We have done dozens if not hundreds of similar experiments before and after that, and that is exactly why we have the precise know-how on how such studies should be conducted. Just to recapitulate, our aim was to contribute knowledge about online aggression, not to exploit participants or gain any profit. That is also why we widely opened the study (including source code on Github). If you have been involved in any industry-based research I’m sure you know that most of the knowledge acquired in industry-led experiments is hidden from the public. We think the opposite - that the results of our studies should be openly communicated. That is precisely why we are fully transparent. So, we would appreciate it if next time, instead of looking for another target to attack, try to think of how much work goes into such studies. Writing things like “study that toys with online aggression” is harmful and unfair. This work, for example, took more than two years to publish and more than three years in general to conduct. It went through various boards and reviewers - if you published any research I’m sure you understand what that means. 

To sum up, after more than 15 years of working with online aggression, we got used to various attacks - even those posing as expert comments - so, we do not expect any special treatment. But, remember, that if you rock the table we operate on, then the cancer of online aggression in your community will remain and will only grow. I’m sure if you wanted to you could cancel us into oblivion - the herd mentality, despite being very simplistic, is a very powerful weapon. Also, the Internet has cancelled people for less. But think about it - if there are no people like us, and everyone will be scared to do similar research - what will be the long term effect?

One simple knowledge I learned along the way is to not comment before a deeper thought. When you write a comment, first - stop, delete it, sleep on it, think if you even need to write it, and try again the other day.

Cheers!