The sci-fi series Three Body Problem sustains the argument that intelligent civilizations evolve into being compelled to mask their existence from interstellar detection, as a matter of survival. General idea is there are always bigger in the ocean, and the time required for interstellar travel is so long that non-zero probability of any newly detected life being hostile becomes intolerable. I.e. civilizations survive over Gyr timescale by concealing themselves, and destroying any neighbors who make themselves observable.

Eric Nylund's "Signal to Noise" and "A Signal Shattered" posits something similar - they're out there, and they're out to get you - but FTL communications exist and the others are more rabidly mercantile than invasive.

(To be fair, I've only read The Three Body Problem, and I'm not sure how it evolves from there.)

The idea that any rational/game-theoretic civilization ends up rabidly genocidal, or close, has become an increasingly well known premise in SF. Modern use maybe dates to "The Killing Star" by Pellegrino & Zebrowski? It probably says something about the way we have come to view ourselves, compared to the era when it was argued that any rational/game-theoretic civilization would necessarily be enlightened and friendly and seek out opportunities for mutual benefit.

(Of course the more general idea, that it might be smart not to be noticed until we know what's out there, goes back much farther.)

I've been thinking about this, and I think it's easy to say all humans are destructive, violent, control freaks when global communications can always drum up an example of this. People are being arrested for allowing their children to walk to school, or shop in a store at the mall by themselves. It'd be hard to convince me that this frenzy isn't caused by the vast accessibility of information which always seems to bring us horror stories from around the globe.

Any single member of a collective may not be a good representation of the collective as a whole, or its actions.