Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

digitalnewsasia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 161 posts

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#51

Post by protonfish »

ddingus wrote: post #40
waterlesscloud wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There should be a word for requests for data citations that are really just disguised admissions of having no meaningful response to a point.

I use the word "dodge" and that is one of a number of things people do to avoid having to deal with information they find difficult to process. A while back, I decided to compile a list of these behaviors seen on a smaller, guilty pleasure type of site I enjoy. Here are the major ones seen very frequently: 1. Subject change 2. False comparison 3. Claim of too many opponents 4. Silence 5. Claim to either be a member o…

Nice list. I try to reserve my downvotes for these behaviors especially excessive verbosity, redefinition of common words and other non-substanitive content. I think I am going to add the now common request for citation (seriously, you are on the Internet, google it yourself, man.) I am all about reading different points of view but they they should contribute something new.

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#52

Post by Oblouk »

r0s wrote: post #47
notacoward wrote: post #38

This is why I'm not particularly thrilled about programs passing the Turing test. As soon as we have programs that can write credibly human-sounding comments on sites like this, many conversations will be controlled by whoever can afford the largest sockpuppet farm. Also, for every post on the actual threads of interest, there will be dozens of comments on every thread designed to increase karma. Automated karma whor…

It seems like any kind of mass-comment system would be easy to detect. Simply limiting the post rate and comparing to other posts would work just like current anti-span filters now.

This is if all the comments came from the same IP and if the puppeteer was stupid enough to post all the comments at once.

Additionally if the AI can beat the turing test then comparing the posts would not be practical. Passing the turing test signifies that it is not possible to distinguish the comments from human comments by looking at the comments alone.

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#53

Post by jerf »

penprog wrote: post #32
sologoub wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Negative comment, 2 karma and this is an only comment you made... You look like a sock puppet to me :)

maybe you are the sockpuppet?

Behold the futility of the sock puppet accusation in practice.

(Preempting "jerf is a sock puppet". Let's skip that.)

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#54

Post by wyck »

This has been going on in one form of another throughout history. But if you want to sway opinion on the internet, it's not that easy. There are a lot of voices and noise in the mix, compared to how it was a mere 20 years ago.

This is certainly important, but in the context of history, how people consume information is on a much better track, in my opinion things are actually getting better if you look at the big picture.

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#55

Post by r0s »

Oblouk wrote: post #52
r0s wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like any kind of mass-comment system would be easy to detect. Simply limiting the post rate and comparing to other posts would work just like current anti-span filters now.

This is if all the comments came from the same IP and if the puppeteer was stupid enough to post all the comments at once. Additionally if the AI can beat the turing test then comparing the posts would not be practical. Passing the turing test signifies that it is not possible to distinguish the comments from human comments by looking at the comments alone.

You don't need to detect a machine, astroturfing now is mostly a manual process.

Recognizing the same topics repeated is enough, even if it happens over time. The longer the time between posts, the less effective the campaign. The less cohesive the topic, the less effective the campaign. This already exists somewhat, machine or human is almost irrelevant.

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#57

Post by protonfish »

ddingus wrote: post #46
waterlesscloud wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There should be a word for requests for data citations that are really just disguised admissions of having no meaningful response to a point.

Notably, I also found out a few other dynamics: Personification trumps vilification and ridicule. Let's take something really ugly, like abortion. People will post up the ugly pictures and they will post up their favorite slogans, and they will denigrate opponents with brutalities like, "baby killer" This kind of noise completely destroys rational advocacy / debate on the topic, which is why religion and politics are…

I doubt there is much written on this. It is a very new area (other that the traditional logic fallacies which still work as well as they always have) and if there is serious research being done it is probably proprietary - it's more valuable to use it secretly. Your work is some the best I've seen on online conversation manipulation. Keep up the good work.

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#58

Post by demarq »

harperlee wrote: post #50
notacoward wrote: post #38

This is why I'm not particularly thrilled about programs passing the Turing test. As soon as we have programs that can write credibly human-sounding comments on sites like this, many conversations will be controlled by whoever can afford the largest sockpuppet farm. Also, for every post on the actual threads of interest, there will be dozens of comments on every thread designed to increase karma. Automated karma whor…

Somehow you reminded me this XKCD: http://xkcd.com/810/

genius!

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#60

Post by tptacek »

jerf wrote: post #48
Andrew_Quentin wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for your constant defence of them of course

I'd like to register my objection to the currently fashionable, yet toxic idea that when a point of view is only 95% stomped out that that is still a sign of "sock puppetry" and that the remaining dissent, rather than being celebrated, must be stomped out even harder ... and then that this is treated as some sort of improvement of public discourse instead of an inevitable degradation of it. This is, admittedly, not 1…

I like this comment but also want to point out that I'm not even a dissenting voice about NSA surveillance.
Post reply on HN