[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.
[5] These include deindividuation and reduced awareness of other people's feelings (online disinhibition effect),[6][7][8] conformance to perceived norms,[9][10] miscommunication caused by the lack of social cues available in face-to-face communication,[11][12][13] and anti-normative behavior.
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]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.
For instance, offline communications networks can impact the way people act online and can lead them to engage in flaming.
[16] 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.
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.
In turn, Thomas Carlyle called Emerson a "hoary-headed toothless baboon"[18] 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.
The term "flaming" is documented in The Hacker's Dictionary,[19] which in 1983 defined it as "to speak rabidly or incessantly on an uninteresting topic or with a patently ridiculous attitude".
Jerry Pournelle in 1986 explained why he wanted a kill file for BIX:[20] ...whereas an open computer conference begins with a small number of well-informed and highly interested participants, it soon attracts others.
In 2012, it was announced that the US State Department would start flame trolling jihadists as part of Operation Viral Peace.
[23] 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.
[24] A flame war results when multiple users engage in provocative responses to an original post, which is sometimes flamebait.
Someone who posts a contrary opinion in a strongly focused discussion forum may be easily labeled a "baiter", "flamer", or "troll".
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.
[16] 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.
[26] Corporate flaming is when a large number of critical comments, usually aggressive or insulting, are directed at a company's employees, products, or brands.
Based on an assessment of the damage, companies can take years to recover from a flame war that may detract from their core purpose.
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.
As each successive technology is released, it develops its own outspoken fan base, allowing arguments to begin anew.
[18] 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.
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.