Thoughtful SOA. Morals and ethics are baked into the code.

... complete with lingo ("toxic") that is vague enough that it cannot be defined or disputed. Convenient!

But they do define "toxic" explicitly:

>What's toxic? >This model was trained by asking people to rate internet comments on a scale from "Very toxic" to "Very healthy" contribution. Toxic is defined as... "a rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable comment that is likely to make you leave a discussion."

Yet it is defined right in the article:

..."toxic" being defined as a "rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable comment that is likely to make you leave a discussion."

Make who leave a discussion?

The reader who finds the statements to be toxic.

Why would that qualify as toxic by their definition? That's not rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable.

But more likely too let the person leave the discussion.

There are definitely things said that can cause me to leave a discussion, even if said in a civil manner. I am not going to stick around to debate a person who believes the earth is flat, no matter how polite.

I interpret "rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable comment that is likely to make you leave a discussion" as (rude OR disrespectful OR unreasonable) AND likely to make you leave a discussion. So making you want to leave a discussion is necessary but not sufficient.

The point is, that's three categories that are very subjective.

Yeah, it is very subjective. Of course, have you ever found an objective definition for any value judgement of text?

The more the better. But think of the incentives this vague "definition" creates. By labelling your opponents "toxic" (claiming that their rude etc. stuff is making you want to leave), you can get them censored. It is rewarding thin-skinnedness with power. This does not end well.