
'Troll hunting' algorithm could make web a better place - oska
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-04/14/google-algorithm-predicts-trolls-antisocial-behaviour
======
xnull2guest
This has everything to do with Russian and other foreign propagandists and
virtually nothing to do with real trolls and trolling. Unfortunately the wide
net this will cast will undoubtedly catch legitimate free speech by citizens.
How is NK hacking SONY 'attacking free speech' while censoring political
comments, civilian or otherwise, trolling or otherwise, not?

Is our nation under that much of a threat? I know America's power is waning,
but if it is waning this badly we should all get very worried.

------
nothunttroll
Supposing I was a troll, I would like an algorithm that correct my spelling
and grammar, and at the same time gives a watered down form,non conflict form
and zen way of speaking, to my colorful words. It should take care mainly of
the first five or ten lines just to scape from the hunting algorithm.

If some mega corporation is stealing your properties and rights, it should
phrase that as somethign like: An act not really understood by this person is
being performed by a big company, and you are feeling a little sad about it.

Counterexamples: What happens when you apply that algorithm to R. Stallman,
Linux Torvald, or people with strong opinions? Sometimes those supposed trolls
are the person with the real information and correct views and not the blind
sheep. By the way the former president of the FMI is now in a very difficult
position in Spain, surely algorithms doesn't work so well to detect what they
should detect.

Disclaimer: Not a native speaker. Edit: grammar. Added counterexamples.

~~~
xnull2guest
My prediction would be that websites would develop private versions of their
troll hunting algorithm that would include input from notifications and
information sharing programs (PRISM, TAXII). This would enable services to
respond to government requests with minimum overhead to respond to changes in
foreign 'diplomacy operations/HUMINT'.

------
reitanqild
I read this totally expecting something very politically correct and was
delighted to see someone have a neutral, technical take on this.

------
SeanDav
One of the things that I take from this article is that it appears to support
the use of hellbanning as an anti troll measure. Not that hellbanning is a
perfect solution - like everything else it depends on how it is implemented
and managed.

~~~
ryanlol
There is no good way to implement hellbans, the only people affected by them
are the ones not expecting to get banned.

~~~
jfoster
Why do you think people expecting to get banned wouldn't be affected by them?
Those that are aware of the existence of hellbanning probably won't be impeded
very much, but I'm not convinced that hellbanning is widely known of. I'm sure
lots of HN participants are aware of the existence of hellbans, but I think
your average troll may not be. They may eventually figure it out, but if it
slows them down, it has already done something good.

~~~
ryanlol
Hellbanning is most definitely widely known of where it is used. It maybe
useful in a few individual cases, but most definitely not always. (And that's
all ignoring the ethical issues)

~~~
danneu
I don't know about that, and it depends how it's implemented.

HN broadcasts the fact that it hellbans users. There's even a toggle in your
profile to see the posts of the damned. HN also seems to gratuitously hellban
people - if someone isn't hellbanned for being an obvious troll, sometimes
they seem to be hellbanned over lightweight snark or nothing at all. HN even
has its own notoriously hellbanned "HN celebrity": the creator of Temple OS.
It's no secret.

Yet every day I notice hellbanned posts where the user has been hellbanned for
some time now and they do not notice.

On my forum, I only hellban users so uncontroversially egregious (bots,
spammers, and people who only post to pilfer value from the community) that
nobody notices or would care if they did.

To "expose" the system, a user would pretty much have to create a topic like
this: "Hey everyone, you don't know me because I've been trying to PM new
users with links to my competing forum for half a year, but I just found out
that nobody has been receiving my PMs because I've been hellbanned. Help me
protest this system!"

------
paulhauggis
"including negative words and profanities."

This is why I have a problem with things like this. "negative words" might be
why I disagree with the politics of the article...and poor spelling and
grammar? Are we now discriminating against a certain type of person now? Do
people that can't spell very well deserve to have their opinions ignored?

This seems like nothing more than a smoke-screen to silence opposing view
points and opinions. The up/down vote buttons already serve this purpose quite
well.

The same is already happening on Twitter. Activist groups against
discrimination pass out lists of people to perma-ban based on nothing more but
opposing opinions...doing the same exact thing they are supposed to be
against.

~~~
karmacondon
They didn't just choose those criteria out of thin air. They compiled data and
ran a logistic regression that was able to predict whether or a not a given
user would be banned from a web community based on the content of their posts.
And it turned out that negative words, profanity, spelling and grammar were
all predictive features in determining that result.

Here's how science works: If you don't like the conclusions, you can question
the methodology. You can conduct the experiment yourself to see if you can
reproduce the results. You can run your own studies and see if you come up
with different conclusions. But you don't get to say "Hmm, the data don't
conform to my preconceived notions about how the world should work, so I
reject their implications."

Everyone doesn't agree with the idea that every thought from every person
should be heard at all times. Some people are just jerks. "Trolling", by
definition, is about making provocative statements to incite reactions, as
opposed to contributing to conversations. There are places where that kind of
thing is accepted (4chan) and places where it is not (hn). Tools that help
communities to encourage their preferred forms of communication are good
things, and will be increasingly important in the future.

~~~
MCRed
Having a minority opinion is often perceived as "provocative" by people who
feel threatened by that opinion, no matter how well articulated. These days
the feeling of being "threatened" is at an all time high. (I say this having
participated in discussions online for 30 years.)

The assumption that "trolls" are trying to "incite reactions, as opposed to
contributing to conversations" is often repeated, but in practice, "troll" is
a term that is often used against people whose viewpoint is minority, but who
are legitimately arguing it.

Those with the majority viewpoint often find it convenient to dismiss (and
attempt to discredit) those they disagree with by simply calling them troll.
And it's not uncommon for forums to be operated in such a way as to actually
ban people with minority viewpoints.

~~~
quesera
> but in practice, "troll" is a term that is often used against people whose
> viewpoint is minority, but who are legitimately arguing it.

Of course, but the "troll" _wants_ to have that conversation, and the rest of
the community _does not_. That doesn't mean the conversation or opinions are
unworthy or wrong, just that they are unwelcome in this context.

Good or bad doesn't matter, the "troll" is a disruptive influence that turns a
comfortable place into an uncomfortable one.

Most people don't come to the Internet to have their beliefs challenged, no
matter how wrong those beliefs might be.

------
Hytosys
A broad brush[1] is acceptable if you're unable to use the Internet without
being harassed by "contrarians".

I am someone who is not often harassed online, but I am involved with people
who frequently experience harassment. I've been using Twitter block lists[2]
and have noticed a great absence of hateful responses. This is not a long-term
solution, but it lowers the number of times a day that my heart sinks. I
accept any incidental losses.

The article suggests a finer brush using something like crowdsourcing. Perhaps
harassment targets could pay to submit their profiles for monitoring, and the
resultant block list could be made public for subscription by anyone on Block
Together[2].

It would be nice to see networks take a stand against repeat harassers, but
clearly people are tired of waiting around for that.

[1]
[https://github.com/freebsdgirl/ggautoblocker](https://github.com/freebsdgirl/ggautoblocker)

[2] [https://blocktogether.org/](https://blocktogether.org/)

EDIT: Without responses, I'm coming to some disappointing conclusions.

~~~
return0
Where does 'written harassment' ends and where does groupthink begin?

Should such harassment be an actual problem, there would already be such
filtered alternatives to twitter and facebook. Right now i see it as an
attempt to silence unfavorable opinions.

~~~
tsotha
Anybody using lists like ggautoblocker is far past the point where groupthink
began. They're not blocking "hateful" responses - they're blocking anyone who
disagrees with them.

This is just part of an ongoing slide into the sort of factionalism that ends
(eventually) in bloodshed.

~~~
Hytosys
I'll ask this with the obvious risk of making a correlation: would you have
the same opinion of kkkautoblocker — a tool that blocked anyone who associated
with the leaders of a hate group?

~~~
ryanlol
Depends entirely on the contents of those peoples tweets. What if one of those
leaders of a hate group was also a linux kernel developer and regularly made
interesting technical tweets?

~~~
Hytosys
I alluded to this dilemma in my original post: "I accept any incidental
losses." This choice of course only applies to the case where people use block
lists themselves, not where social networks ban people.

My suggestion is that social networks ban users wherein harassment is strictly
obvious, not wherein a prejudice opinion is even only implied. This is a
tricky judgement call that the article tries to dissect, and unfortunately to
which I clearly have little to contribute.

~~~
ryanlol
Well then, my opinion on kkkautoblocker would be no different than my opinion
on ggautoblocker. They're both stupid non-solutions, anyone who's actually
trying to harass people will be able to circumvent them...

People should also consider that if they can't handle the vile cesspit that
the internet is, using it is optional.

