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

In other words

[fustakrakich]

Automated censorship. Eh, saves us the trouble, I guess

Re:In other words

[Kyogreex]

The original paper doesn't seem to be about automatic banning at all; that seems to have been added to the headline and the article linked to here (and therefore the summary). The paper says this: "automatic, early identification of users who are likely to be banned in the future."

While that identification could be used for automatic banning, I think it would be more likely to be used to flag potential problem users, which could be very useful in determining which reported posts to investigate first rather than dealing with all of the "I don't like this post so I'm reporting it" instances.

This is fucking stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Trolls are usually above average literacy and trying to skilfully cause a fight. It's easy to identify "illiterate" people and humans are way too quick to judge someone who cannot spell as having nothing to contribute or (worse) malicious, but these are not trolls. This is just another classist meme where the person is judged positively by the overcomplexity of their language and convolution of their sentences, as this must mean they have been educamated right.

BTW I went to a £30k/year British boarding school, so I have no axe to grind, nor insecurity about describing things as they are.

Re:This is fucking stupid.

[Mr D from 63]

It is stupid to me because it does not solve a problem. Detecting trolls is certainly not a problem, dealing with them is. They need to work on algorithm for that.

Re:This is fucking stupid.

[marcello_dl]

> Trolls are usually above average literacy.
Your right.

Re:This is fucking stupid.

[Mr D from 63]

No need. Remove anonymity from said sites and the problem is solved. Better yet, don't bother having user comments everywhere.

posted by an AC. LOL.

Re:This is fucking stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Douché.

Re:This is fucking stupid.

[plover]

While I believe that people who are less sensitive tend to thrive more than others, I don't agree that "thicker skin" is a workable solution. Too many people have fragile emotional states and simply don't have the neural hardware psychological capacity required to dismiss the hate and insults that often happen on line. There have been some high-profile suicides among teens who were attacked online, and who knows how many people remove themselves from public comment because of the hate they've received? For safety reasons I don't think society should completely abrogate the forums to the trolls.

Does that not mean some people are overly sensitive? Sure. But just as we shouldn't velour-line the internet to cater to absolutely every person with a psychological disorder; we also don't have to tolerate the diarrhea that spews forth from the trolls. We don't have to draw a hard-and-fast line on the ground, either, and define "these words are always 100% bad in 100% of situations". Instead, we should be welcoming humans in the loop, asking them to pass judgment when needed. That gets us to a more fluid state than full automation. It also lets the user choose. Don't like the judgment process on Slashdot? Don't hang out on Slashdot.

I know full automated filtering is the holy grail of internet forum moderation, but as soon as you deploy a filter it becomes a pass/fail test for the trolls, who quickly learn to adapt and evade it. Human judges can adapt, too, and are about the only thing that can; there are simply too few for the volume of trolls out there. A tool like this might help them scale this effort to YouTube volumes.

Dear algorithm

[ArcadeMan]

I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

Unicorns, skittles, rainbows, etc.

[pla]

within the first ten posts after the user joins

So, this algorithm only needs nine more posts than a troll will actually make per throwaway account, then?

That's some mighty fine police work there, Lou!

"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.

Poof!

[RogueWarrior65]

There goes Gawker.

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.

Research

[Sir_Eptishous]

Researchers have detected researchers detecting an algorithm detecting researchers researching.

Re:This, if true, will utterly destroy

[Stan92057]

Your talking about racism, this article is about internet trolls They are not the same. A person with a different view is not a troll. A person with a different opinion then you is not a troll. Ive been tagged a troll because of my views a few times.Many here will post as anomoue because they know there opinions will be viewed and tagged as a troll.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Re:This, if true, will utterly destroy

[Immerman]

Nonsense. Next you'll be suggesting that the technology might be intentionally abused to silently bias "unmoderated" conversations about [REDACTED], which would be a frightful step toward &^%- - -
[REMAINDER OF COMMENT DISCARDED AS TROLLING]