[SrslyJosh]

> There are no mechanisms to lower the temperature when arguments get intense, for example.

This is a second, third, or fourth-tier concern after stuff like white supremacists using platforms for organizing/harassment, governments using them to facilitate genocide, scammers using them to profit off of the pandemic, etc., etc.

"When arguments get intense" completely ignores the incredibly low-hanging fruit: banning networks of bad actors. (They have the data to do this, they just don't want to.)

> Do you know of anyone working on healthy engagement?

Twitter is trying to warn users about "intense" conversations. Unsurprisingly, they suck at it:

https://twitter.com/angryblacklady/status/144754672404668416... https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1446879163307028481

[Fnoord]

> Twitter is trying to warn users about "intense" conversations.

Discourse, too. It gives a statistic that X% of the posts are yours, and asks you to consider letting other's voice their opinion. It says that after you typed your post. I'm not going to not post, then, but I admit that yes it does remind me to consider spending less time on the platform in general (!).

HN has it, too. Deep threads hide the reply button if posts are made in quick succession.

The orig. comment claimed:

> [...] There are no mechanisms to lower the temperature when arguments get intense, for example.

Addressed above.

> Nothing to help keep us from misconstruing comments out of context.

I don't agree with this. Factchecking occurs, thumb-up/heart on factual content helps. Also, quoting, logic, and linking sources allows to dispute (such) fallacies. These tools are available.

> Nothing to assist us in feeling compassion for the people we're talking to, or understanding their intent as they mean it to be understood. [...]

Bingo.

Because polarized people don't want to. They want to 'win' a discussion instead of learn from it.