Antisocial Behavior in Online Discussion Communities · HackerPapers discussions

Antisocial Behavior in Online Discussion Communities — mentioned by room271

Thu, 04 Aug 2016 23:00:09 GMT

Indeed, I've seen at least one paper where they used Mecanical Turk and aggregated results (by showing the same examples to multiple people) to check for quality. It sounds like they did almost exactly the same thing here. Paper: 'Antisocial Behaviour In Online Discussion Communities' (Cheng et al., 2015) Link: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.00680v1.pdf (Search for 'Mechanical Turk' / section Data Preparation -> Measuring text quality.)

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Antisocial Behavior in Online Discussion Communities — mentioned by themeekforgotpw

Sat, 27 Jun 2015 01:01:10 GMT

Definitely not all strategic communications could be detected and blocked. However some research has been tasked on the issue. Take "Antisocial Behavior in Online Discussion Communities" (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.00680v1.pdf). This paper, though it terms it 'antisocial', studies online influence operations and is mentioned on NATO's propaganda ("strategic communication") centre for excellence Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/StratComCOE). The point of having a rule set that can be pushed to like the system described here is that it can be fed information from a centralized task force.…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Antisocial Behavior in Online Discussion Communities — mentioned by themeekforgotpw

Wed, 17 Jun 2015 03:37:19 GMT

This is tangentially related to the same general topic, so I hope it is welcomed here. Methods for state censorship are making their way onto content providers online. For example, in the United States we have a system across Twitter, Reddit, Facebook and other sites whereby links will be blocked from publication. A recent academic publication "Antisocial Behavior in Online Discussion Communities" (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.00680v1.pdf) has been reported as a boon for 'anti-troll' applications of the internet - though it finds its funding from counter-propaganda funding from the US and NATO.…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Antisocial Behavior in Online Discussion Communities — mentioned by RcouF1uZ4gsC

Thu, 30 Apr 2015 20:58:30 GMT

I don't think this technique is going to be all that helpful. This is because you cannot consider specificity and sensitivity without taking into account the prevalence. Let us look at the data from the paper [1]. From the chart on page 3, we can see that the percentage of banned ranges from 1.7% to 3.3%. On the last page we have the phrase "Though average classifier precision is relatively high (0.80), one in five users identified as antisocial are nonetheless misclassified". Based on this, I think we have a specificity of 80%, and a sensitivity of 80%. Let us look at 1000 hypothetical…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Antisocial Behavior in Online Discussion Communities — mentioned by sqrt17

Thu, 30 Apr 2015 19:14:58 GMT

The article is reporting about a scientific study (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.00680v1.pdf discussed in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9399090) that specifically talks about "future banned users" without asking why these users would be banned; The rest of the economist article is journalistic speculation. The study authors do report that there's a propensity for polarization, i.e., that "we find a community bias against FBUs: posts written later in an FBU’s life are more likely to be deleted, regardless of whether they are actually worse".

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Antisocial Behavior in Online Discussion Communities — mentioned by diminoten

Thu, 30 Apr 2015 17:05:57 GMT

The work is here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.00680v1.pdf According to the data, FBUs (future banned users, aka trolls) are significantly more readable in their writing than NBUs (never banned users). That's certainly surprising. Also of note is that FBUs tend to reply more than NBUs, which actually meshes with some features of HN -- the inability to reply to a nested comment from within the nest (one has to click on the comment itself to reply -- though this feature has always been somewhat ambiguous and not really deterrent of impulsive replies; I don't even notice it anymore). Also, I think…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Antisocial Behavior in Online Discussion Communities — mentioned by perdunov

Sat, 18 Apr 2015 12:29:01 GMT

The concentration of inside-the-box thinking and bullshit science in this is unbearable, I think it gave me cancer. So was this actually written for April Fools' Day? arXiv:1504.00680v1 [cs.SI] 2 Apr 2015

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Antisocial Behavior in Online Discussion Communities — HN submission

Sat, 18 Apr 2015 11:37:14 GMT

Antisocial Behavior in Online Discussion Communities [pdf]

49 points; 25 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.