We built a data set of 45 million comments on news articles on the Huffington Post website between January 2013 and February 2015.
I am no expert but I feel like this is a really bad data set choice for this study.
It is. They should’ve used Reddit and Twitter posts/comments from it’s start to the present to get a more accurate database
Or from the start up until like 2016 when the shills and bots started showing up en masse.
It’s just a bad data set for basically anything
Yup, comments on news articles are pure cancer. Comments about news articles can be decent though, but they need to be hosted elsewhere.
we built a dataset of three of my comments and found that…
Interesting. But the article headline is misleading. The article states that the biggest difference was between volatile anonymity where people could make arbitrarily many accounts, and stable pseudonyms, where a ban cannot easily be evaded. Stable pseudonyms are a lot better as the article states.
Between stable pseudonyms and real names, the difference is smaller, as stated in the article. Real names make it only slightly worse.
Or in other words, effective bans work best for moderating a community. Shocking news I tell you.
The greater internet fuckwad theory applies to all things digital. It turns 20 this april: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/greater-internet-fuckwad-theory
You can take out the anonymity part and the equation is pretty much the same. The real problem is the audience imo.
Removed by mod
am still sour [._.]
I was not sure where to share that “interesting blog post” so here is it on the main community. Most of us care about anonymity, so always interesting to see that it’s supported by evidences
How dare anyone impugn the integrity of Weedlord Bonerhitler69? The man stands as a colossus of virtue.
