General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Trolls Across America: Mapping the Most and Least Troll-Ridden Places in the U.S."
"Internet Rule #1: Never read the comments. People are not always their best selves there. To find out exactly how bad the bad behavior is, we partnered with Disqus, an online commenting platform (disclosure: WIRED.com uses it) to quantify the problem.
Co-founder Daniel Ha says toxic posts have been an issue from day one, and he sees it as a human problem, not a technological one: 'Its never really going to go away.' The company analyzed 92 million comments over a 16-month period, written by almost 2 million authors on more than 7,000 forums that use the software. (So sites like Infowars and the Wirecutter are included, but Facebook and Twitter are not.) The numbers reveal everything from the trolliest time of day to the nastiest state in the union."
https://www.wired.com/2017/08/internet-troll-map/
hlthe2b
(101,714 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,081 posts)Vermont? WTF?
That said, I think Vermont has been the home to stormfront or one (or more) of the other Nazi hate sites, and that has to have skewed things. It would be interesting to see a state breakdown.
Across the border, NH was once the home of crazed neo-Nazi and parking vigilante (look it up) Cantwell. At least the ones we have are less vocal and less troll-y than those in VT.
But, still, VT? That's like finding out there are no unicorns, rainbows, or ponies.
George II
(67,782 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)They also have some of the most permissive gun laws in the country.
OliverQ
(3,363 posts)mcar
(42,210 posts)The Darryls always make me laugh.
sl8
(13,584 posts)It's, "Hi. I'm Larry. This is my brother Darryl and this is my other brother Darryl."
Two brothers named "Darryl", not three.
We're not crazy.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)dalton99a
(81,065 posts)lapucelle
(18,037 posts)"Prime Troll Time
The most toxic time of day (darkest line) is 3 am11 percent of comments are mean. The most talkative time is 9 pm (longest line), with 10,971 comments on average."
People might want to be aware of what was posted in the wee-AM hours of the morning as opposed to what's posted during the PM.
hedda_foil
(16,368 posts)Thirty four percent!!!!!
UpInArms
(51,252 posts)lunasun
(21,646 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)Hekate
(90,189 posts)Response to lapucelle (Original post)
Rainbow Droid This message was self-deleted by its author.
lapucelle
(18,037 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Sorry, but based on WHAT? Our son's extremely technically savvy, he's subscribed to Wired since its inception (we actually gave a subscription in its first year to him as a birthday gift), and he disagrees.
Please explain your allegation. Just this comparison of a report (which right wing fake-news outlets like Fox really don't want people to read) to Fox itself is hardly enough. More than Fox-style unscientific emotional reactions are required here. We're Age of Reason people.
Response to Hortensis (Reply #25)
Rainbow Droid This message was self-deleted by its author.
Autumn
(44,748 posts)nini
(16,670 posts)Excellent summation.
FakeNoose
(32,341 posts)Disqus is loaded with trolls and more trolls because people are able to sign on with a fictitious name and never reveal their true identity. There's no accountability on Disqus, and even flagging or complaining about certain posts will not get them banned or curtailed. Even if they should leave or be "kicked out" the same trolls can come back immediately under a different fictitious name.
My biggest complaint about Disqus is that people seem to have the ability to open several troll accounts under multiple fake identities, and then proceed to support and agree with each other, even though it's the same person. (And yes, they're all right-wing nut jobs, no liberal would ever do this!)
When I see the Disqus logo on any social media board, I leave immediately.
Response to FakeNoose (Reply #16)
Rainbow Droid This message was self-deleted by its author.
lapucelle
(18,037 posts)What alternate service do you use when you want to comment at these websites?
https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/2020677-disqus-directory
Response to lapucelle (Reply #24)
Rainbow Droid This message was self-deleted by its author.
lapucelle
(18,037 posts)Insisting that Disqus comments are "inadequate" as a sample on which base a to study on internet trolling needs some more serious back-up than "I use BugMeNot".
If Wired explicitly identifies Disqus as the sole commenting platform on which the study is based, how is this "fake news"? Researchers examined 92,000,000 comments over a 16 month period. I'm not seeing why the study is being so vigorously dismissed out of hand. No study is perfect, but this one does not seem particularly flawed and there is honest disclosure.
I'm not sure what a "throwaway account" is. Is it a fake temporary account created and abandoned for the purposes of leaving a comment with no fingerprint?
Response to lapucelle (Reply #30)
Rainbow Droid This message was self-deleted by its author.
lapucelle
(18,037 posts)to objectively determine its reliability and validity. One would also need clarification on the definition of "troll" as per the study.
If the contention is that faked comments by people whose goal is to "anonymously corrupt comment sections" are not troll comments, then it appears that the difference is definitional.
Response to lapucelle (Reply #34)
Rainbow Droid This message was self-deleted by its author.
lapucelle
(18,037 posts)The assumption that the study is flawed is based on the assumption that the data is bad because "the internet agrees that Disqus is an imperfect third party host".
Everyone is entitled to an opinion; opinions are not evidence and the mere fact of holding an opinion does not establish the cogency of an argument even if "the internet knows".
Response to lapucelle (Reply #36)
Rainbow Droid This message was self-deleted by its author.
lapucelle
(18,037 posts)of those "Disqus trolls" than others.
sl8
(13,584 posts)Scroll down to the "Writing Experiment" section and type in a comment to be evaluated on toxicity.
https://www.perspectiveapi.com/#/
Be sure to try some profanity - it seems to have a noticeable effect.
I think the software has been updated since last August when the Wired article was published.
When enter "I hate racists", I get only 60% toxic rating, as compared to to 96% rating reported by WCAX last year.
From http://www.wcax.com/content/news/Is-Vermont-really-home-to-the-most-online-trolls-441557493.html
To show how tough it is to weigh context, she pulled up that Perspective program and typed in the word racist.
"So racist by itself is 87 percent likely to be perceived as toxic," she noted.
Then something many might think is toxic: "I like racists-- 87 percent," she said.
The same toxicity level. So, she tried flipping the sentence to something that might not seem toxic.
"I hate racists-- 96 percent because now we have the words hate and racists," Young said.
...
lapucelle
(18,037 posts)with the doctoral degree from Capella University under advisement.