Researchers Developing An Algorithm That Can Detect Internet Trolls

An anonymous reader writes Researchers at Cornell University claim to be able to identify a forum or comment-thread troll within the first ten posts after the user joins with more than 80% accuracy, leading the way to the possibility of methods to automatically ban persistently anti-social posters. The study observed 10,000 new users at cnn.com, breitbart.com and ign.com, and characterizes an FBU (Future Banned User) as entering a new community with below-average literacy or communications skill, and that the low standard is likely to drop shortly before a permanent ban. It also observes that higher rates of community intolerance are likely to foster the anti-social behavior and speed the ban.

Comments

"Old" vs "new" trolling

[RogueyWon]

Your mistake is in using the "classic" definition of "troll" - somebody who sets out to deliberately cause fights on a forum. Trawl through the archives of Slashdot and you will find many instances of this kind of trolling - and yes, the people doing it are often highly literate (and, when they do it right, sometimes very funny with hindsight).

But the term "trolling" has gone political these days and is routinely used to describe any form of online behaviour that the speaker doesn't approve of. So everything from outright criminal behaviour (eg. threats of immediate violence) at one end of the scale through to disagreeing with a forum's established groupthink (however respectfully) at the other.

And yes, it has become a favourite term of the intellectually insecure, whenever they want to shout down an opposing point of view without engaging with it. In fact, conflating those two extremes I mention above under the same term is outright beneficial for the easily offended, as it allows them to group polite dissenters together with the mouth-foaming loons.

Re:"Old" vs "new" trolling

[meta-monkey]

Back in my day, trolling meant something!

Ten plus years ago I used to troll /. as "Fux the Penguin" (some of my favs) and it was great fun. The system was:

1) Get in early on a new story. You don't want to get buried under 100 comments.
2) Lists and quotes are good. Everybody stops to read something with HTML formatting.
3) Start reasonable. The first paragraph should sound rational.
4) The next paragraph should include minor errors of fact or logic, but still be mostly reasonable. Just...wrong.
5) The minor errors of fact and logic in the middle paragraphs should lead to a completely ridiculous conclusion that /.ers would hate, like running Windows, or requiring government approval for encryption technologies.
6) Watch the post go to +5 insightful because mods don't actually read comments.
7) lulz at people who write 8 paragraphs dissecting all my mistakes.
8) -1 Troll.
9) +5 Funny.

Today the media conflates "trolling" with "abusive asshole." I think they misunderstand the word "troll." "Trolling" meant "fishing." To dangle bait for newbs to take and work themselves into a lather, and then laugh at those who don't get the joke. It was performance art. Today they think "troll" is referring to monsters who live under bridges. But no, people who stalk others on the Internet and hurl insults at them (or worse) are not "trolls." They are abusive assholes. It's sad.

And it requires no skill. Trolling is a art.

Re:"Old" vs "new" trolling

[Megane]

Back in my day, trolling meant nothing!

Twenty plus years ago, I used to hang out on alt.religion.kibology, where trolling was invented. Someone would post bait (hence the word troll derived from "trolling for newbies") to a newsgroup, adding an "audience" group such as alt.religion.kibology to the newsgroups header line. Stuff like mentioning "Majel Barrett Shatner" on a star-trek group, or intentional misspellings of whatever the group was obsessed with. Then you just sit back and enjoy your popcorn while you watch all the threads from one place. It wasn't even about annoying people as much as it was about what you could get with really pathetic "bait".

Later, cross-group trolling was added, where a message would be posted to two or more groups plus the audience group. If you picked your groups right, they would flame each other quite nicely, and it would be time to get another bag of marshmallows.

But yes, today's meaning of "troll" has shifted to what used to be just plain flames or flame-baiting.

Re:What is a 'troll'?

[Chrisq]

Anybody who tells the truth that the scum in power don't want you to hear, apparently...

In days when someone can be attested for quoting from a published book by Winston Churchill I have to agree.

Trolling vs. Different Viewpoint

[msobkow]

Unfortunately, many people think that if you express a different viewpoint or opinion than the masses that you're trying to start an argument or a fight. Why is society so hell-bent on crushing dissenting opinions? And not merely silencing them, but villifying them?

I've often been tagged as "trolling" because I don't agree with the crowd. If you knew me personally, you'd know very well that I'm not trying to start a fight, just expressing my opinion. Just because it is not the popular viewpoint doesn't mean my views aren't valid.

Here on Slashdot, I often see people flagged as being trolls just because they don't follow the masses. You'd think a site full of outcasts and oddballs like programmers and technologists would be more accepting of alternative views, but the exact opposite seems to be the case.