[readflaggedcomm]

>block users who derail conversations and use emoji to convey emotions in text

Blocking people who use emojis seems extreme. In fact, an emoji-based rating system could improve conversation by replacing the urge to comment lightly with a "thoughtful" or "informative" label. They needn't have any weight other than their visibility.

Some old-style forums implemented this to cut down on noisy "I agree" posts, and it worked. Maybe reducing conversation surface area reduces chances for conflict.

[mariodiana]

I read that totally differently.

> We found that people like some features that are already present in social media, like the ability to delete inflammatory content, block users who derail conversations and use emoji to convey emotions in text.

I mentally inserted an Oxford comma before the last "and." Thus:

People like some features that are already present in social media, like the ability to:

  * delete inflammatory content
  * block users who derail conversations 
  * use emoji to convey emotions in text

[metalliqaz]

me too. If anything, emojis seem to reduce emotional misunderstanding of intent

[readflaggedcomm]

The author could have used a comma if she meant that...

[jjk166]

The lack of an "and" between "delete inflammatory content" and "block users" unambiguously makes it a list of three items. The oxford comma, while useful, is not necessary here.

[readflaggedcomm]

So you're saying the obvious interpretation of the text is impossible to render because you insert grouping breaks where you please? I reject that.

[jjk166]

According to your "obvious" interpretation, the sentence is:

"We found that people like some features that are already present in social media, like the ability to delete inflammatory content, block users who do X."

Does that sound like a grammatically correct complete sentence?