Politically-engaged Redditors tend to be more toxic – even in non-political subreddits::A new study links partisan activity on the Internet to widespread online toxicity, revealing that politically-engaged users exhibit uncivil behavior even in non-political discussions. The findings are based on an analysis of hundreds of millions of comments from over 6.3 million Reddit users.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Political topics are also the topics that are most strongly gamed by political actors using Persona Management software to make it seem like their opinion is in the majority. The idea that people who participate in things such as “forum sliding” aren’t toxic in their interactions is absurd, so we’re left with assuming a large number of these toxic accounts aren’t actually real people.

    I’m not saying people deep into politics can’t be toxic. Plenty of them are, sure. However, it’s in the interest of people with political power (especially politicians with politically unpopular ideas) to make regular people not want to participate in politics. One way you do that is to make all political people seem unhinged, angry, and just terrible. People wonder why hardly anyone votes in elections, this kind of stuff is why, and it’s not on accident that these folks seem like the majority.

    I’m fully convinced the majority of them are bots trying to make politics in general seem more toxic than it actually is to dissuade more people from even wanting to be involved. The intent is to drive political apathy.


    Sources:

    US government developing Persona Management software in 2011: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

    Eglin Air Force Base is most “Reddit Addicted City” in 2014: https://web.archive.org/web/20160604042751/http://www.redditblog.com/2013/05/get-ready-for-global-reddit-meetup-day.html

    One of many research papers on Persona Management and Influencing Social Networks from Eglin AFB: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.5644.pdf


    Helpful Reading Materials:

    The Gentleperson’s Guide To Forum Spies: https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

    • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      100% agree with you. The worst part is the bots are getting better and better. I have a policy that you respond once to clarify and then walk away. These are for obvious bad actors, but now they’re seeming more and more like decent people with a flawed idea until you keep talking and realize it’s a bot. I don’t know how to counteract that.

      • voidMainVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        38
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know how to counteract that.

        Simple. You don’t. When I’m debating, I’m usually not trying to convince the person I’m debating with. I’m trying to convince a disinterested third party who reads the exchange later.

        • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          I completely agree that it’s for the later people, it’s just a waste of time for me when it’s become a lengthy thread that nobody is going to read anyway.

          The other thing they do is a bot attack of taking what people are saying, changing it, and then posting a lot of them to bury comments that they don’t want others to see. Not sure how to counteract that either.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        How do you know they’re actually bots? 90% of the time, when I’m debating with someone who is passionately defending their position, they’ll at some point accuse me of being a bot or a shill. I also can’t recall any time I’ve debated someone and have been convinced they are a bot.

        I’m just skeptical as it’s a convenient ad hominem.

        • lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          To be totally honest with you, I wouldn’t for one second be surprised if the bots are programmed to accuse humans of being bots.

          • aidan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Or “smart” person. There are almost certainly bots who espouse beliefs that align with yours too.

    • alvvayson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Up until a few weeks ago, it seemed these bots were mostly absent on Lemmy.

      But recently, I have noticed they have arrived here, too.

      I fully agree with your analysis.

      • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        In what way? Lemmy has been very political from the start. It arguably got less-so after the influx of redditors.

        What are you seeing in the last month or so that makes you think there’s something more abnormal happening than usual?

          • eric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            If “trying to find common ground and building from there” is normal human behavior, then normal behavior is in the minority these days. I haven’t had an in-person conversation with someone that disagrees with me that is even remotely attempting to find common ground in a very long time. It’s definitely not typical in my experience.

            • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The funny thing is that I read this comment, and then looked at your post history completely expecting to find an obvious troll*, but no. You are consistently and commendably courteous in your disagreements, even as you collect an Olympian number of downvotes on what seem to be very innocuous statements.

              *Every time someone says something along the lines of others not wanting to find commonality with them, I look at their post history. I am only rarely disappointed, lol

              • eric@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                I do appreciate you saying that.

                I try to be kind unless someone’s being an absolute turd, but I’m also trying to be less afraid to leave downvoted comments that I genuinely believe in. I kinda had a problem with deleting any heavily downvoted comments in my Reddit history, so Lemmy’s obfuscation of karma has been quite helpful in that regard, and it’s nice to see that some of those comments helped subvert your assumptions.

                  • eric@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It is definitely difficult to gauge a stranger’s tone. Not sure what it is exactly about the way I write, but people often suspect I’m trolling when I’m being genuine.

                    As for the karma, I suspect that the total on the desktop site will be going away soon. It used to exist in the apps I use, but one day comment and post karma disappeared from Voyager, and recently Avelon dropped their summed total karma altogether. At first I resisted losing the counts, but after asking around, I learned that showing the totals is being actively discouraged to devs of the various apps because it’s thought to lead to unhealthy user behaviors. The more I thought about it, the more I agreed I’m guilty of a lot of those behaviors as a result of my 15 years on Reddit, so I’ve since tried to embrace its absence.

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I haven’t had an in-person conversation with someone that disagrees with me that is even remotely attempting to find common ground in a very long time.

              It’s because it’s not only untrue, but almost the exact opposite of the truth. Humans tend to defend themselves when they find their beliefs threatened, not open themselves up.

              This is the heart of a lot of lots of couples therapy: learning how to express your discontent without making it about your partner. If interested, read up on “I” statements. And we’re talking about people in committed relationships shutting themselves down to each other. Imagine how easy it is to do when you label the person as “the other team.”

          • aidan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Argumentative accounts that personally attack and downvote, even though there is absolutely zero reason - there wasn’t even any disagreement on the main points, just anger on minor details.

            That’s been here for a while. When I became a mod of c/politics some users stalked my profile to use it as proof my me being a terrible choice. They’re evidence was me not having a degree in political science, disagreeing with them on some issues, and having a complicated relationship with my mom. I said simply check the modlogs, and there haven’t been any complaints since.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Normal human behaviour is to try and find common ground and build from there.

            This is wildly untrue. Even outside the confines of the Internet. People tend to circle the wagons when their beliefs are threatened, rather than try and find common ground. Which is why the way we debate ( and I’m debating now) is so ineffectual. You need to guide the person to come to the conclusion themselves (which is why the Socratic method is so widely respected), not tell them they are wrong and you are right and here’s why. It’s a low success method.

            On the Internet, it’s even less true. Now I’m just a dehumanized bunch of words, not even an individual, so your mind is rushing to try and figure out to categorize me so you can make assumptions about me. This just compounds the above issues.

            Your argument seems to rest on the claim that this is atypical human behavior. This is a false assumption, and thus conclusions based on it are faulty.

    • thepiggz@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Intriguing. I don’t totally know what I think about this argument. A purposeful initiative to make politics toxic to get people to stop paying attention. It’s not one I had totally considered before. You think that’s really going on?

      I have had many experiences with real people not on the internet that seem to fixate largely on politics and believe so fervently that they are right that they allow themselves to become toxic. I always thought it was a kind of inconsistent latent belief in utilitarianism combined with overconfidence.

    • aidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Found a reddit mod with a dozen plus accounts. Made a new account to disagree with me, I pointed it out, and he denied it, but never used that account again.

      It was probably just someone with no life, but I’d feel better about the world if he were being paid for it.

    • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Are there any sources on this from the last decade?

      Because I’m not sure if you noticed, but 2016 was kind of a big moment for politics and it triggered a lot of anger and controversy. Politics on social media are a very different thing now than they were in 2011/2012. Which is to say nothing of the well-documented uptick in foreign troll farms and manipulative content sorting, which may have been present in the early 2010s, but no where near the degree it was in the latter half, and still is today.

      It’s also worth pointing out this uptick in “political toxicity” is mirrored in real life. You can’t blame the protests and increasingly violent altercations in real life on some psyops trying to make people not engage in politics.

      And frankly…if the goal is to get people turned off from voting, they’re failing. Turn out has been going up.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why, what happened in 2016? Did 46% of registered voters lose their goddamned minds and vote to put an entirely incompetent and demented convicted fraud and rapist sociopath who wears clown makeup in charge of the federal government or something? Why would that increase the fervor of fucking social fucking media for fuck’s sake jesus goddamned christ on a busted motherfucking crutch!!!

        Sorry. You were saying?