Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

.
The title here comes from a review (http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/07/w ... ad-trolls/) of the following recently reported study:

Title: Anyone Can Become a Troll: Causes of Trolling Behavior in Online Discussions
Authors: Justin Cheng, Michael Bernstein, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Jure Leskovec
(Submitted on 3 Feb 2017 [or presentation at a computer-science meeting])

Abstract: In online communities, antisocial behavior such as trolling disrupts constructive discussion.
While prior work suggests that trolling behavior is confined to a vocal and antisocial minority, we
demonstrate that ordinary people can engage in such behavior as well. We propose two primary trigger
mechanisms: the individual's mood, and the surrounding context of a discussion (e.g., exposure to
prior trolling behavior). Through an experiment simulating an online discussion, we find that both
negative mood and seeing troll posts by others significantly increases the probability of a user trolling,
and together double this probability. To support and extend these results, we study how these same
mechanisms play out in the wild via a data-driven, longitudinal analysis of a large online news
discussion community. This analysis reveals temporal mood effects, and explores long range patterns
of repeated exposure to trolling. A predictive model of trolling behavior shows that mood and
discussion context together can explain trolling behavior better than an individual's history of trolling.
These results combine to suggest that ordinary people can, under the right circumstances, behave like
trolls.

The full paper is at:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.01119.pdf
or, in Ebook format, at:
https://files.clr3.com/papers/2017_anyone.pdf

Several of the many on-line reviews of the study also elucidate the problem well, and some consider possible solutions.

(The "Suggestion" here is that the findings of this study -- not all of it new, but some surprising -- might suggest ways to moderate (that is, reduce) unproductive excesses which discussions here s/t fall into.)

cjmacie wrote:...

Many thanks, cjm, that looks like an interesting paper. I haven't read more than the article and the abstract, but it makes a lot of sense. I think we need to make a clear distinction between two types of individuals: the person who expounds what they don't believe in, purely to get some gratification from the mayhem they can cause; and the person who is being difficult and disruptive. The article deals with the second type, I believe.

The idea of "mood" is particularly suggestive. We start with a bad mood, and this is picked up and criticised by others, which puts us into a worse mood, and so on...

Here on DW we have, at least in theory, a way to short-circuit that process. It would be interesting to see whether forums which mainly deal in discussion between co-religionists are in general less prone to such behaviour than average. Most religions have built-in mechanisms governing how we deal with others.

Again, thank you.

Sam Vara wrote:Here on DW we have, at least in theory, a way to short-circuit that process. It would be interesting to see whether forums which mainly deal in discussion between co-religionists are in general less prone to such behaviour than average. Most religions have built-in mechanisms governing how we deal with others.

Most religions also seem to have a hidden curriculum -- the unspoken, unwritten rules of thinking and behaving, but it is those rules that actually matter, not the written ones. The officially stated rules for how to deal with others are more "for show," than to be actually applied.

A covertly authoritarian social system is, I suspect, more conducive to trolling than an overtly authoritarian one or a democratic one.

On the whole, I think people troll because they resent the unfairness and the power games that take place in a covertly authoritarian social system.

Sam Vara wrote:I think we need to make a clear distinction between two types of individuals: the person who expounds what they don't believe in, purely to get some gratification from the mayhem they can cause; and the person who is being difficult and disruptive.

What a strange, even if common, theory of trolling ...
While trolls generally don't measure up to a Hans Kohlhase, I think what drives trolling is something similar: seeking redress for a wrongdoing; both the original wrongdoing, as well as for the wrongdoing of the authorities who side with the wrongdoer.

binocular wrote:On the whole, I think people troll because they resent the unfairness and the power games that take place in a covertly authoritarian social system.

That may well be so; it certainly sounds plausible. We are in any case extremely fortunate to know what to do with that resentment, and how to guard against it:

It's impossible, there is no way that — when appreciation has been developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken as an awareness-release — resentment would still keep overpowering the mind. That possibility doesn't exist, for this is the escape from resentment: appreciation as an awareness-release.'

What a strange, even if common, theory of trolling ...

I'm not attempting to present a theory, binocular. Just differentiating between two different types of trolling.

Sam Vara wrote:

cjmacie wrote:...

...Here on DW we have, at least in theory, a way to short-circuit that process...

What is this "way to short-circuit that process"?

cjmacie wrote: What is this "way to short-circuit that process"?

I should perhaps have said a whole raft of ways. One of them is outlined in my response to binocular above. We have to hand a number of different techniques and reminders which - if we are willing - prevent us as "good people" from becoming "bad online trolls". Mindfulness, calm, appreciation, compassion, heedfulness, the precept regarding right speech, etc., etc.

i like to troll mahayanists but i don't think that interest is completely wholesome

Go ask /pol. I'm sure they will answer directly if you want to know why. Where best to get the reason than from the belly of the beast?
Many people writing these abstracts have no idea what they are talking about. The quoted article is a prime example.

These results combine to suggest that ordinary people can, under the right circumstances, behave like
trolls.

Topkek

Maitri wrote:Go ask /pol. I'm sure they will answer directly if you want to know why. Where best to get the reason than from the belly of the beast?
Many people writing these abstracts have no idea what they are talking about. The quoted article is a prime example.

These results combine to suggest that ordinary people can, under the right circumstances, behave like
trolls.

Topkek

Where's the refutation? Ordinary people as well as inveterate trolls can behave so -- as in this case, which ever the case it may be.

cjmacie wrote:.
we demonstrate that ordinary people can engage in such behavior as well. We propose two primary trigger
mechanisms: the individual's mood, and the surrounding context of a discussion (e.g., exposure to
prior trolling behavior). Through an experiment simulating an online discussion, we find that both
negative mood and seeing troll posts by others significantly increases the probability of a user trolling,
and together double this probability.

Sounds like the "broken window theory" for vandalism.

Also sounds like a good justification for posting well, as your posting habits will help change the environment you post in.

cjmacie wrote:Why good people become bad online trolls

Just out of curiosity: What would be a good online troll?

binocular wrote:

cjmacie wrote:Why good people become bad online trolls

Just out of curiosity: What would be a good online troll?

This gets to the heart of it. Why are we assuming that they are good people? Maybe they are just normal people who like to heckle? There are lots of assholes in the world, but most trolling behavior has to do with society's suppression of speech and impulses in everyday society.

Some trolling is done for comedic value such as Ken M.

cjmacie wrote:

Maitri wrote:Go ask /pol. I'm sure they will answer directly if you want to know why. Where best to get the reason than from the belly of the beast?
Many people writing these abstracts have no idea what they are talking about. The quoted article is a prime example.

These results combine to suggest that ordinary people can, under the right circumstances, behave like
trolls.

Topkek

Where's the refutation? Ordinary people as well as inveterate trolls can behave so -- as in this case, which ever the case it may be.

There are multiple types of trolls. Idiots can be trolls and not realize it. People trying to troll and fail at trolling. Trolls are ordinary people behaving with anonymity. The researcher thinks there is some deep seated reason for people behaving this way. Is anyone surprised that people like to goad and give others a hard time? The more people demand the use of "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" the more lulz can be had in provoking a response.

Greetings,

Maitri wrote:The more people demand the use of "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" the more lulz can be had in provoking a response.

I think this is getting close to the mark, but more fundamentally what you see at /pol/ and in other comparable settings is a counter-cultural reaction to the soft totalitarianism of political correctness, and the identity politics that it shields.

One faction counters identity politics by attacking the premise of identity politics itself, often through the art of mockery and in highlighting its logical inconsistencies and disastrous consequences... something /pol/ and folks like Paul Joseph Watson and Milo Yiannopoulos are adept at. This video gives an interesting overview of how absurdity is used as a means (or should that be memes?) to provoke and highlight the inconsistencies and over-sensitivities inherent in PC culture...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpVGmi5Sbek

Yet then, there's a second faction that thinks "well, if progressives are going to force us into the sphere of identity politics, I'm going to fight for my side, just like they're fighting for theirs". These two factions are very different ideologically, but some people try to deliberately conflate them in order to paint the first faction as extremists.

The first faction (aka "civic nationalism", aka "Alt-Light", aka "New Right") is, I think, actually very useful as a movement to de-legitimise and defuse the destructive and divisive model of identity politics known as "critical theory" that creates so much conflict, division and mutual distrust in the 21st century. The second faction (aka "Alt-Right") represents an unfortunate mirror reaction to what they perceive as an orchestrated program of white genocide.

The following article does a good job as differentiating between the two: The Alt-Right Branding War Has Torn the Movement in Two.

In January, when I met Gavin McInnes, the founder of a “pro-Western fraternal organization” called the Proud Boys, I asked whether I should refer to him as alt-right. “Nope,” he said, swigging from a can of Budweiser. “They care about the white race. We care about Western values.” This is a view that has come to be known as “civic nationalism,” as opposed to white nationalism—or “alt-light,” as opposed to alt-right.

As highlighted by his recent speech in Poland, Donald Trump would be a "civic nationalist" - one who is anti-globalist, promotes Western values, but does so without recourse to race.

Either way, the use of the term "trolls" as a catch-all definition for "anyone who disagrees with me online", is falling apart in real-time. Even those I outline above do not have shared motivation, methods, ideologies or intentions, let alone anyone else, hence why Maitri's point about directly asking people their motivations, rather than inferring them based upon personal prejudices is probably a wise move.

Metta,
Paul.

binocular wrote:

cjmacie wrote:Why good people become bad online trolls

Just out of curiosity: What would be a good online troll?

Good question.

Perhaps along the lines of an observation I saw once in a discussion of "Gamer-gate" scandal (handling on-line abuse of women players), to the effect that "moderating" (i.e. discussion groups) can be seen as a form of "trolling".