Slashdot Mirror


Study Finds That Banning Trolls Works, To Some Degree (vice.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: On October 5, 2015, facing mounting criticism about the hate groups proliferating on Reddit, the site banned a slew of offensive subreddits, including r/Coontown and r/fatpeoplehate, which targeted Black people and those with weight issues. But did banning these online groups from Reddit diminish hateful behavior overall, or did the hate just spread to other places? A new study from the Georgia Institute of Technology, Emory University, and University of Michigan examines just that, and uses data collected from 100 million Reddit posts that were created before and after the aforementioned subreddits were dissolved. Published in the journal ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, the researchers conclude that the 2015 ban worked. More accounts than expected discontinued their use on the site, and accounts that stayed after the ban drastically reduced their hate speech. However, studies like this raise questions about the systemic issues facing the internet at large, and how our culture should deal with online hate speech. First, the researchers automatically extracted words from the banned subreddits to create a dataset that included hate speech and community-specific lingo. The researchers looked at the accounts of users who were active on those subreddits and compared their posting activity from before and after those offensive subreddits were banned. The team was able to monitor upticks or drops in the hate speech across Reddit and if that speech had "migrated" to other subreddits as a result.

24 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. Remind me... by sycodon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...who gets to define who the trolls are and what constitutes Trolling?

    Is it like Pornography?

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Remind me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Coontown was banned because of the speech it contained, not because of what our users did. Reddit's CEOs Steve Huffman and Ellen Pao both admitted this.

      The Board of Directors pushed for the banning, spez complied.

      Reddit is a left-wing propaganda mill, they hire employees specifically to promote social justice (this has been admitted too!), and they also banned my subreddit /r/alternativeright simply because they didn't want to give /r/altright 's userbase to me. My sub didn't have any doxing info on it.

    2. Re:Remind me... by WrongMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Who ever runs the website gets to decide the trolls. Don't like their definition? Start your own site.

      You have a right to free speech, but nobody owes you a soapbox.

    3. Re:Remind me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its more like common decency.

      You know how your parents eventually taught you not to shit all over the house? It is essentially the same thing. My cousin works in a day care and has the unfortunate job of doing this kind of training when the (wealthy, in theory well educated) parents fail to do so.

      I suspect this will be much the same but much older children will have to be educated.

    4. Re:Remind me... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Maybe we all just need to go back to USENET...where you can do an say most anything.

      Perhaps a public push for more people to host USENET servers for free or something.

      If the speech is short of actually inciting someone to bodily harm, then people should be allowed to post and express it, even if it is distasteful.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:Remind me... by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who are the spoiled children again? The ones who demand free speech or the ones who bitch when it is used to say things they don't like?

    6. Re: Remind me... by WrongMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Reddit, or any other website, is under no legal or moral obligation to treat both sides equally. They built the soapbox. They own the soapbox. They can give it to or take it from whomever they please.

    7. Re:Remind me... by epyT-R · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You need to stop and think about what free speech actually means. Your beloved First Amendment, that only applies to the government curtailing your speech. It sure as hell doesn't apply to something like Reddit, nor does it shield you from the responses of other people.

      Correct, yet a strawman. I never said the first amendment applies here. Stop pretending you don't understand the difference between arguing what should be vs arguing what is. It's the socjus crowd demanding that institutions (eg reddit) give them their gilded safe spaces, at taxpayer expense no less. They've demonstrated they've got no problem infiltrating such organizations to get what they want at everyone else's financial and political expense.

      For all practical purposes, Reddit is private property. They can decide what they are willing to tolerate, and what they're not. As I said, they don't owe you a platform.

      So if some site decided to toss all them "pinko commis" off their site for expressing left wing views, you'd be ok with that? It's possible your view is at least consistent on this, but I doubt it.

      I've seen a lot of lame attempts to turn the tables on the effective 'special snowflake' label the socjus crowd's been aptly branded with. These people sound like the religious right, demanding blasphem..err I mean 'hate speech' laws in the name of 'decency' so that their fragile political views won't be challenged.

      Who are the spoiled children? The ones who think they can say anything, anywhere they like, that other people should be required to tolerate it, and that there are no repercussions from being an idiot. Don't want there to be consequences of your free speech, keep it to yourself.

      Spoiled children are usually demanding that big mommy/daddy step in to solve their conflicts for them. That sounds more like the reddit/pro socjus crowd than the pro free speech people. I'm sure you'd say the same thing to the online SJWs getting flamed for their illogical arguments? Oh, right, when they're criticized, it's 'trolling'...

      The rest of your post reads like the sniveling whiny spoiled brat you describe. It's about the right amount of hypocrisy I'd expect from a progressive.

    8. Re:Remind me... by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > You need to stop and think about what free speech actually means. Your beloved First Amendment, that only applies to the government curtailing your speech.

      It's a principle that is valued as the cornerstone of democracy.

      You are attempting to use a "legalistic" argument to pretty much completely ignore a principle. You want to pretend that free speech is only defined by a single bit of law. You are eager to demonstrate WHY that law exists.

      If not for that law, people JUST LIKE YOU would use the government to do bad things.

      The Bill of Rights is not a comprehensive list of human rights. It's merely a set of limits placed on the federal government.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re: Remind me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If restricting the use of their product by people operating under the name 'coontown' as a platform for racist abuse amounts to choosing a 'side' then fuck it, I'm on that 'side'' too. What the Hell's wrong with you?

    10. Re: Remind me... by silentcoder · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm sorry, am I supposed to forgive their idiotic decision because it was made for an emotional reason that had exactly FUCK ALL to do with the decision being made ?

      If you're choosing a president of the ENTIRE COUNTRY based on "how pissed of you are at some of your fellow citizens" you are guaranteed to make an idiotic decision. No matter whether I agree with your being pissed off or not - I will STILL consider it an idiotic decision, resulting from an idiotic way to MAKE a decision.

      And you will be a complete fucking idiot for making it.

      It doesn't make me feel sorry for you. It doesn't make me feel your decision was justified or understandable. It doesn't even make me feel complicit in your idiotic decision. If you based your presidential vote on how you feel about my opinions, rather than on actual policy considerations - then you're a fucking idiot and deserve to be called a fucking idiot and feel like a fucking idiot and hopefully LEARN something and make a smarter choice next time.

      If you're still blaming me and mine for your idiotic decision- then clearly we haven't called you a fucking idiot ENOUGH yet.

      The one thing you will not achieve with that claim - is convincing me that it's MY fault you acted like a fucking idiot. You may have done it because of me - but it's STILL your fucking idiotic decision, not mine. I'm not responsible for your actions, not even the ones you do in response to me. Trump is your responsibility alone, not mine. His your fuckup. Not mine. The consequence of your idiocy, not mine. And when eventually you get bitten by the ass by the same mean laws you want him to pass on the people you don't like, as inevitably happens when people vote for this particular idiotic reason, don't come crying to me - there is only ONE thing you can do - vote SMARTER next time. Learn about the issues, learn about the candidates records and policies. And realize that voting is not just a right but a grave responsibility, you aren't voting for the chairman of your own home, you aren't voting for your own self-interest only - you're electing a president of the country, the whole country, including the people you don't like - hell even including the people you wish were not IN the country, EVEN the people you think aren't "real" Americans, you have a responsibility to all of them to make the smartest choice you can.

      If you're basing your choice on emotions, like hate or anger or annoyance at me, you're a fucking idiot who has neglected your single greatest responsibility as a citizen. If there is such a thing as being "un-American" - this is the ONLY definition it could have. There can be nothing more un-American than electing a president on anything but the MOST rational basis you are capable off.

      And if this was, indeed, the most rational you can be - then I'm sorry, the reason you can't get a job isn't because of immigrants or affirmative action or liberals or political correctness - it's because you're too fucking stupid to be employable. So maybe vote democrat next time so we can protect the social safety nett and at least you will be able to eat. Voting for a fellow idiot won't get you off foodstamps, voting with the liberals may at least make sure there are still foodstamps next month.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  2. Re:Violent crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Exactly. Banning will only encourage people to put down their keyboards and pick up a gun. They don't realize how the 1st Amendment diffuses the need for the 2nd. If the boiler can't vent, it will explode.

  3. Re:FIRST POST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OK, I'll ask you something.

    Back in the days of Usenet (e.g. alt.syntax.tactical), the point of trolling was to be as clever and sharp as possible. Today, the point is to be as blunt and moronic as possible.

    What happened? Was it weev?

  4. Re:Violent crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Nope, not a government website, 1st Amendment doesn't apply. Stay in kids school, don't make this incredibly embarrassing and ignorant mistake about the 1st Amendment.

  5. The problem is defining "troll" by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I've had posts marked down as troll because people disagreed with the points raised.

    Trolling is making inflammatory statements for the sake of getting people to respond. Disagreeing with a position does not make it a troll post.

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  6. Re:Violent crimes by barc0001 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Counterpoint: Canada. Up here we don't have a first or second amendment and surprisingly we're not on the verge of exploding. Unless our team doesn't win the Cup.

  7. Re:Did the hate just spread to other places? by Rockoon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Researchers answered the question of "did the hate just spread to other places" by checking only the place that banned it...

    I caught that as well.

    Unimaginably bad conclusion they drew given the data. Almost as if instead of scientists that they are lowly sociologists, a professions where getting away with pretending that its science is its only redeeming quality.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  8. Re:Ban the wrongthinkers! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why do you oppose the rights of Silicon Valley organizations to not host content they find offensive? (As if it makes sense to talk about "Silicon Valley" as a monolithic entity, like Tinder and Tumblr are likely to have similar codes of ethics.)

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  9. Re:Ban the wrongthinkers! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What the summary fails to mention is that most of the people who left Reddit went over to Voat. They were not silenced, just asked to leave the venue and take their speech somewhere else.

    If you really want to indulge in some fat-hate you can still get your fix. Are you really arguing that Reddit should host whatever you deem fit to post? It's there any line that should not be crossed?

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  10. word based seems flawed by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First, the researchers automatically extracted words from the banned subreddits to create a dataset that included hate speech and community-specific lingo. The researchers looked at the accounts of users who were active on those subreddits and compared their posting activity from before and after those offensive subreddits were banned. The team was able to monitor upticks or drops in the hate speech across Reddit and if that speech had "migrated" to other subreddits as a result.

    How do they know if the person using the "N" word is black, in which case it's considered OK, or non-black, in which case it's an obvious crime against all humanity? Or calling someone a fag is OK for Milo but wrong for normal people? Granted certain sub-forums are likely largely one demographic but word based still seems flawed.

  11. Re: Poor snowflake by WrongMonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Trolls don't create. You only destroy. When the creators take back control, trolls lose. Always.

  12. Re:FIRST POST by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I tried some clever trolling, but got modded +Insightful instead. Very frustrating.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  13. Re: Usenet is dead. News at 11. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Mate, that's a really sodding stupid comment. All you've done is ignore everything he wow and go work "you're so emotional!!111!1one".

    Not wanting to have every thread infested with trolls is not the same as being ruled by emotions. Sometimes, most times actually, grown-ups want to have grown up conversations that aren't interspersed with pejoratives about black people, neo Nazi rhetoric and so on and so forth.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  14. Re: Poor snowflake by silentcoder · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Ah of course, because being told "please don't be such a big asshole to people who have never done anything to you" is the worst tyranny anybody can ever experience right ?

    And that is teh TOTALITY of what PC and social justice consists off. If you consider that tyranny - then you must be an asshole of such irredeemable proportions that failing to act like one and spread shit all over innocent people would literally cause you to die.

    What a wonderful life you must lead, if the worst oppression you've ever experienced is decent people telling you to stop acting like a douchebag.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *