One Percent of Reddit Users Cause 75 Percent of the Drama (theoutline.com)
Just 1 percent of all Reddit communities set off 74 percent of all conflicts on the site, a new research has found. The Outline: In the self-published research from Srijan Kumar, Jure Leskoec, William Hamilton, and Dan Jurafsky of Stanford University, "intercommunity conflict" is defined as "negative sentiment to comment in another community." These users wouldn't necessarily qualify as trolls or sockpuppets; they're instigators, posting links to other subreddits and encouraging other users to target, harass, and fight with users on that subreddit.
Sadly, 74% actually seems low to me. - Just say'n....
___ I don't respond to Anonymous Cowards, and I Never Mod them UP.
..causes all the drama. The rest of us just make memes about it.
Sent from my TARDIS
A few people ruin it for all of us.
The people that did this study are probably part of that 1% group trying to point fingers at other 1% members by blaming them for the drama?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Reddit discovers internet trolls are a thing.
Tries to claim they're something new and different this time.
Usenet, 4chan, et al. not mad, just disappointed.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
This is at least as old as the British Empire.
"Hey, let's you and him fight. (While I sit over here actually running everything.)"
Nope, no sig
Let me guess, 99% of that 1% are SRS regulars aren't they?
I hope no one paid money for this study because this is a 'water is wet' fact right here. I'd love to know what dirt they've got on Spez to get away with breaking the rules the way they do.
when all is said and done, all a man has left are his blades and his honor.
If they did this for a day or two, it would be the fault of that one percent of the users. After a month or two it would be the fault of the Reddit moderators and owners for putting up with the one percent of the users. After many years, all the remaining users are now to blame for putting up with the Reddit moderators and owners who put up with the one percent of the users.
I've been a moderator of a few forums over the years (not Reddit). The obvious bad-eggs don't last long, they're easy to isolate and remove. A lot of the problems come from people who like to do the wind-up but they do it subtly. People who do just enough to provoke a conflict (sometimes just stoking the fire and sitting back). They never do one act that by itself is bad enough to get them the boot, but they do lots of winding-up, getting other people to overreact. They are the real problem of most forums, and they're hard to justify booting for a single act. They know what they're doing, and they do it slyly.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
1% of the Reddit users have 90% of the comments/posts that solicit debate and controversy. The other 99% spend all their time in pseudo-intellectual masturbation and patting each other on the back in a self-congratulatory echo chamber!
People will criticize each other, grow up.
I could not find a definition of 'conflict' in this research.
Only: "examining cases where users of one community are mobilized by negative sentiment to comment in another community."
Wow, that included normal criticism, is this thought control?
Of course it's fine for a platform like Reddit to manage disagreements between communities.
But calling it a 'conflict' is ridiculous.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
These users wouldn't necessarily qualify as trolls or sockpuppets; they're instigators, posting links to other subreddits and encouraging other users to target, harass, and fight with users on that subreddit.
For those of us old enough to remember what the word "troll" used to mean back in the usenet days, that sounds exactly like what we used to call a troll. Of course now the term has been adopted by the mainstream media, the meaning has changed to mean more someone that causes offence or attacks others.
Ah, true trollery. It's easy to say offensive words. It's art to make others overreact to say them for you.
Now who is more at fault; the one who "winds-up" a thread or the people who overreact? I know it's the troll but there is a reason you don't feed the trolls.
I think it's indisputable that a small number of people create the majority of chaos in any social circle. However, I've observed an increasing percentage of online participants that cannot ignore anything they disagree with (yes, this is a behavior with a long and glorious tradition https://xkcd.com/386/ ).
Everyone seems to be so damn serious these days and no incursion against our beliefs can remain unchallenged (exacerbated by the fact that sarcasm is easily missed when it's in written form). The 1% want drama and we give it to them. The oldest counsel is best: Don't Feed The Trolls.
https://www.smbc-comics.com/?i...
Link to the actual work, instead of an article commenting on it:
abstract
Community Interaction and Conflict on the Web
Who's at fault when someone provokes a bear, and the bear attacks? And what value is provided by those provocations, anyway?
First off, why the hell are you directing traffic to a bullshit aggregator when the original paper is RIGHT THERE?
Second, wtf are they talking about? Ah: "examining cases where users of one community are mobilized by negative sentiment to comment in another community." ie, "Brigading" for anyone not in the know.
Third, The paper never mentions "Drama", they're exclusively talking about this sort of conflict that comes from brigading. IE, 1% of reddit communities do the brigading thing. (Because that's what they can track. Of course they can't track all drama in Reddit, it'd just be a list of all posts)
Fourth, The paper says 1% of communities, not 1% of users. Which is, kind of a DUH statement. There are topics which are political and those who are dedicated towards shifting other people's opinions, but most aren't. Nobody in ELI5 is going to be wing-nut extremist educationalist rousing the masses to explain, en-mass, complex topics in simple terms to other communities.
This is why you don't link to a bullshit opinion pieces re-interpreting a paper. Does slashdot even have editors anymore?