Slashdot Mirror
Why Trolls Win With Toxic Comments
Hugh Pickens writes "The Web is a place for unlimited exchange of ideas. But according to an NPR report, researchers have found that rude comments on articles can change the way we interpret the news. 'It's a little bit like the Wild West. The trolls are winning,' says Dominique Brossard, co-author of the study on the so-called 'Nasty Effect.' Researchers worked with a science writer to construct a balanced news story on the pros and cons of nanotechnology, a topic chosen so that readers would have to make sense of a complicated issue with low familiarity. They then asked 1,183 subjects to review the blog post from a Canadian newspaper that discussed the water contamination risks of nanosilver particles and the antibacterial benefits. Half saw the story with polite comments, and the other half saw rude comments, like: 'If you don't see the benefits of using nanotechnology in these products, you're an idiot.' People that were exposed to the polite comments didn't change their views really about the issue covering the story, while the people that did see the rude comments became polarized — they became more against the technology that was covered in the story. Brossard says we need to have an anchor to make sense of complicated issues. 'And it seems that rudeness and incivility is used as a mental shortcut to make sense of those complicated issues.' Brossard says there's no quick fix for this issue (PDF), and while she thinks it's important to foster conversation through comments sections, every media organization has to figure out where to draw the line when comments get out of control. 'It's possible that the social norms in this brave new domain will change once more — with users shunning meanspirited attacks from posters hiding behind pseudonyms and cultivating civil debate instead,' writes Brossard. 'Until then, beware the nasty effect.'"
That's Why.
Not sure what kinds of forums they're talking about, but I'm pretty sure there isn't any trolling on any of the forums I post on.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I don't know if anyone felt like this, but I remember in middle school being with a group of kids and as soon as someone said something nasty/ negative about an individual, everyone felt they had to agree and chime in. Whenever it was something positive, the responses were mostly neutral.
Now as a 30-something, I sense this "negative groupthink" with the younger coworkers, but with my peers we have disagreeing opinions. I know at least when I debate I try to see it from all angles, whereas people younger (and much older) than me seem to only have one point of view, and only theirs is the correct one. Or, it's easier to follow than to create your own set of opinions and facts to support it.
TV ads have used anchoring for decades - "You won't pay $300, or $200, or $150 for this product, but it's yours today for 3 low payments of $29.99".
The first prices anchor your expectation, and $29 sounds like a great deal. Even those smart enough to mentally say "you mean $90" still come up with a 2-digit number instead of 3 digits, and it seems like a good deal.
Stores do this too. A slow-selling model will suddenly jump up in price when placed next to the product's big brother, at a higher price. The goal isn't to sell the more expensive product, it is to anchor your price to the smaller version seems like a deal.
When people have no idea what is going on, they need an anchor. This seems to be true of anything.
Automatic Master's thesis in any subject in advertising - take something advertisers have known for decades, make your thesis about how that applies to your field, and then do a study.
Advertisers have the financial incentive to know how people think, and the only problem is they stopped before generalizing into behavior patterns, and just made it about purchasing.
I've never come across a news site that allowed "open" comments not become dominated by their inaneness.
Why do news sites allow them? I suppose there may be a connection between allowing them and traffic (I really don't know) - but I see highly serious, respectable local news outlets that already have a strong base suddenly decide "Hey, everyone's doing it, why not us?"
In ye old days we had "Letters to the Editor". Open comments are not a viable replacement. The former were heavily moderated.
Beetle B.
The study had the subjects read an article and the comments. I'm curious what effect rude comments have when noone reads the article, so we can better understand Slashdot.
Thank you very much for your time spent reading this, ladies and gentlemen.
It's called "hellbanning", and it's done in more places than you might think. You can even have the hellbanned trolls see the other hellbanned troll posts, giving them all a nice padded room to go nuts with Nerf.
Big mistake. The idea that any rude comment or any comment that you disagree with is a troll. Any clear view on a subject, any unpopular opinion is a troll.
I've been marked as a troll, for example, for my ideas regarding religion (I understand that religion is detrimental for modern humans, that teaching religion to children is a form of abuse, and therefore indoctrinating anyone under 18 should be illegal).
Truth is, regardless of what you think about my idea (please don't turn this into a religious discussion, I only used it as an example), that doesn't mean I'm trolling, it only means I have a radically different idea, and that yours and mine are incompatible, it doesn't mean I'm intentionally trying to upset you. If you are so sensitive, the problem lies with you, not with my comment.
Also, the idea that anything rude must be a troll. Rude comments win (if the underlying idea has any basis) because rude shows conviction, certainty. If I say "nanotechnology is a good idea, you should be more open-minded", I sound weak. If I say "Fuck this anti-science bullshit. We need to get rid of fear of technology, anyone that doesn't understand the benefits of nanotechnology after reading this article is a backwards idiot that has no place in modern society", I'm essentially saying the same fucking thing, but with different wording. This PC society we live in tells us we need to be nice to everybody. That is simply not truth, if you understand that something is simply wrong, and you are certain of your ideas, grow some fucking balls and express them in a way that is actually effective.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
One name I have heard for this strategy is a "shadow ban"
I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
Not that slashdot is an island of perfection it has a pretty good BS filter, one of the best troll filters, and potentially one of the best off-topic filters. So if there is an article on black holes and someone starts ranting about 911 conspiracies they end up with a -1 pretty damn quick. If someone posts their slightly strange theory on black holes they may or may not survive but probably won't get a 5 and if someone goes half off-topic but against the grain of slashdotters and says blackholes are just a theory and the bible has a better answer they too will get badly spanked.
Where self moderating groups like slashdot and reddit can go wrong is when you violate a cultural taboo. Saying valid good things about Microsoft or valid bad things about Linux will get you a karmic black eye and on reddit not being racist will get you in trouble in many sub sections. Yet reddit is pretty good at sorting out fact from fiction (compared to many news organizations' comments sections).
The quality of many news organizations' comments moderation is best shown by the number of spam/completely bonkers comments that they let survive.
On a side note I am not happy with the number of organizations using Discus (I have hosts blocked them). I had an experience with one of their people and man o man do they seem to gather data.
In some certain circumstances enemies don't cost you anything and friends get you some small benefit
One example would be a deep Red (or Blue) district politician who acts like trolls and makes as many enemies as friends. But his friends are in his/her district enemies are outside, so he does not care.
Or even an obnoxious car salesman advertising in radio "Costoria Buick! Owner Ed has gone mad! He is stackin' 'em deep, selling 'em cheap"!. Yeah, that guy is irritating, but you might still remember the name of the dealership, and the irritated millions do not bother him. The few sales leads that he does get is enough for Ed Costoria.
So I don't see the internet trolls as winners, but the sites hosting them as losers.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Pseudonyms and rude behavior are separable issues, and should be treated as such. Rude behavior can be addressed with moderation (and should be.)
Pseudonyms are important for a number of reasons, including protection from stalkers, rouge governments (but I repeat myself), troll shadowing, bullying, ex-(wives|husbands|jackbooted thugs|etc), revolutionary ideas that step on other people's turf, or could, critical political commentary, and, oh yes, privacy, should one desire that.
The fact that pseudonyms are the first layer for many trolls is irrelevant if moderation is adequate. And that, in turn, can be addressed in many ways. Slashdot, for instance, reduces visibility of trolls by rare (unfortunately) moderation. Other sites let the users detect and suppress the trolls; that kills trolls faster, but it also kills contrary ideas and that's not good.
So it seems to me that the most important thing here is to get moderation up to the highest possible standard. When you run a site, after all, it's your barbecue... you should get right in there and see that the level of discourse you want is maintained. If you don't, it's your fault. Don't blame the pseudonymous folks for your failings.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Jon Stewart pointed this out once when he noted that, "no Congressman ever got ahead by jumping on his desk and yelling 'be reasonable!'"
"You suck" is much more powerful than "me, too."
John
For some reason I decided to hunt through the Slashcode repository to see how moderation works, and I think you're right. To be on the list of eligible users, you have to have a certain minimum karma and a UID that's older than a certain limit. The list is then processed to select "good" moderators based on metamoderation and whether they actually use all their mod points. The good moderators are more likely to receive tokens, which eventually become mod points. I'm not clear on whether anything else can give tokens, since there are a lot of files and I'm manually reading through the repository. But it looks like you can get more mod points just by moderating fairly, which I guess was the whole point of metamod in the first place.
I didn't do anything like a full survey of the code base, so obviously take this with a grain of salt.
Visit the