Summary
‘Antisocial Behavior in Online Communities’ should perhaps be titled ‘Negatively Social Behavior in Online Discussion Communities’ (although this may just be me not understanding the terminology perfectly). It focuses primarily on primarily attempting to figure out why people do things which are meant to purposely hurt or instigate others in online communities. This study also sets out to differentiate itself as a quantitative study, where most studies on the subject have been qualitative. They used CNN, IGN, and Breitbart as their sources, mostly because they had large enough obtainable datasets. Then they go over various predictions for antisocial behavior, such as how they write, how they write over time, and whether or not their writing changes significantly should they be censored. They then spend quite some time reiterating some ideas that they honestly have already gone over. Finally ending with a discussion on how to identify the future banned users.
Reflection
It’s interesting that frequently banned users tend to post completely differently than others, that is in small antagonistic focused quantities. It is also a bit odd that people who usually post this type of material worsen over time. This may suggest that accepting them in to the community might help the antisocial behavior. CNN bans more users than Breitbart, but deletes significantly less posts, especially when compared to the number of posts reported to be inflammatory. Some of the research isn’t particularly surprisingly from a logical standpoint. It turns out people who are there to be antagonistic don’t use much non-definitive language, they’re much more likely to curse, and much less likely to talk in a positive fashion. Angry people also don’t write as well. As well should someone have a post ‘unfairly’ censored, they are more likely to write poorly in the future. So there may be some link between post quality and general outrage at the site. A lot of the information isn’t overall very surprising. Much of it makes perfect sense when you think about it (mind you, most information does once it is presented to you). Some of the research is important though. The fact that users who will be banned in the future use much angrier or hostile language makes basic sense. They are often trying to inflame others. That said, the fact that users who will be banned in the future have their writing deteriorate at a faster rate over time than normal users is interesting.
Questions
-Do you think that acceptance or rejection either would or do play a role in antagonistic user’s postings?
-What line do you think must be crossed for a user to have their posts deleted? Is deleting or censoring a user ever okay?
-Why do you think a large portion of “Antisocial Users” exists? To purposely inflame others, or because they actually have major differing opinions?
