Feds Spend Nearly $500K To 'Combat Online Trolling' (freebeacon.com) 184
mi writes: Washington Free Beacon reports: "The National Science Foundation is spending roughly half a million dollars to combat 'online trolling.' A joint project by Northwestern and Northeastern universities is examining how to create 'trolling-free environments' on the internet. The researchers define online trolls as those who try to influence public opinion by boosting 'misleading' and 'inauthentic comments.'" Just how can the "misleading" and "inauthentic" speech be eliminated by the government without violating the First Amendment? "Today almost every browser click that users make is collected by numerous trackers associated with a variety of online services (e.g., advertising networks, online social networks, e-commerce platforms)," a grant for the project states. "Users have often expressed concern about the lack of privacy and control over their personal data. Nonetheless, despite a substantial effort to expose and control this prevalent behavior, the reality is that users keep accepting updated online privacy policies, which in turn grant the gathering of more personal data. This project explores re-using this extensive tracking infrastructure for the benefits of both the users themselves and web services, with a goal of preventing online trolling (scenarios in which various groups deploy tactics to influence public opinion on the internet, by leaving biased, false, misleading, and inauthentic comments, and then artificially amplifying their ratings). The project aims to show how the tracking infrastructure can be re-used as a user 'fingerprint,' allowing a lightweight and privacy-preserving form of identification for third-party web sites." The lead researchers on the project, Aleksander Kuzmanovic from Northwestern University, and Alan Mislove from Northeastern University, said: "Public opinion is of paramount importance in any society. It is thus not a surprise that many governments, political parties, and various other groups deploy tactics to influence public opinion on the internet, a practice commonly referred to as trolling." They say their work could help combat "troll armies" used by Russia and China.
Re:Trool? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sometimes sharing valuable information can be trolling. But either way, on the internet, there are no such thing as safe spaces that trolls like myself cannot penetrate.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and I forgot to add: Trolling on the internet can and does spill out IRL, and no amount of government money can stop it. Case in point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Incorrect (Score:2)
Please stop using the term "cultural marxists" to describe the Social Just-us Wingnuts. Those vile, bigoted elitists espouse an ideology that's damn near the opposite of classical Marxism.
WTF (Score:3)
Title says 500 million. Summary says half a million. Does not compute
Re: (Score:1)
They mean infinitely more money than should have spent on the topic, but someone found a barrel that needed some pork.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually taking into account the subject matter "public OPINION", in this case the National Science Foundation are categorically trolling. Opinion is not facts and should never be associated with facts, opinions are modified by opinions and all opinions have exactly equal weight, practically nothing. Now if they want to pursue truth, then they have to do that in a court of law, the place with facts are presented and challenged, where opinions have their proper weight ie not much at all.
Of course what this
Wrong (Score:2)
Opinions do not all have the same weight, you are using poor reasoning skills. "The World is Round" is an opinion, and a very good one. The world is Flat is another opinion, but that opinion is bad. See how that works? There is almost nothing that is a pure true or pure false opinion, yet there are surely "good" and "bad" ones.
That people can make poor opinions is a different question. I don't care that your poor opinion is made public, it gave me a chance to make a correction for all to see.
I really d
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Any attempt to curb trolling would be tantamout to mandating that one only speaks the truth, and you can't do that.
Authoritarian regimes have been known to do a pretty decent (if shockingly brutal, bloody, & heartless at times) job of it (*their* version of it) given sufficient jackboots, strong domestic data/communications gathering/analysis, and a nearly disarmed (of any sort of effective combat-useful weapons, at least), disheartened, economically stressed, and divided population.....
"Warning! Warning! Danger, Will Robinson!"
Strat
Re: WTF (Score:2)
You have read too much bad fiction. In reality armed people usually helped authoritarian governments because former soldiers and gun nuts are usually just fine with authoritarian governments, provided it is their kind of authoritarian.
Re: (Score:3)
You have read too much bad fiction. In reality armed people usually helped authoritarian governments because former soldiers and gun nuts are usually just fine with authoritarian governments, provided it is their kind of authoritarian.
I find it telling that out of all the things I listed which are pretty much equal in terms of building-blocks towards fomenting and enabling the rise of authoritarianism in a relatively free & open society, firearms are what you chose to focus on.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
What did it tell you? That they didn't disagree with the rest of it?
Re: Guns 'n stuff (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, trolling can take the form of an attempt to prevent free speech. If people go and dox someone, try to get his employer involved with a "look what he said, do you really want someone like that working for you?", try to harass and threaten them just because they voiced their opinion, that does actually endanger free speech.
Now, the argument may be that it's not the government doing it but some private citizen or an organization, but that doesn't make it better. Actually, it makes it worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, trolling can take the form of an attempt to prevent free speech. If people go and dox someone ...
If you want to prevent doxing, then ban threatening and stalking. But there is no reason to censor speech just because it may lead to something the government doesn't like.
First they came for the trolls, and I am speaking out because I am a troll ...
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck trying to sue someone in Generistan for stalking and threatening.
The sensible thing here is to force webpages to avoid being accomplices. Anything else won't work.
Re: WTF (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The things you say can well have severe negative impact for you. Let's say you're working for a certain large corporation, not because you're so fond of it but simply because it's the only relevant employer in your area. Without protection from being outed, you could never say anything said corporation does not agree with, because you'd easily lose your job for speaking your mind.
The problem about the first amendment is that it limits governments', not your employers', ability to fuck with you.
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious error in the title is an example of on-line trolling (subcategory: nerd-bait).
The NSF will be here shortly to shut down the offending website. So long, everyone!
Re: (Score:2)
More whether the public cares. 500k wasted or 500m, does anyone still give a shit?
Re: (Score:2)
500k for a gov't agency is an agency that isn't even trying I mean come on 500k is only enough to run the keurig in the break room for a year.
What's good for the goose... (Score:4, Insightful)
The researchers define online trolls as those who try to influence public opinion by boosting 'misleading' and 'inauthentic comments.'
Where I'm from, they're called politicians.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Where I'm from, they're called politicians.
Yeah, this is pretty insightful. From the summary:
with a goal of preventing online trolling (scenarios in which various groups deploy tactics to influence public opinion on the internet, by leaving biased, false, misleading, and inauthentic comments, and then artificially amplifying their ratings)
I'd say if you remove "on the internet" from this definition, it's pretty much a description of a lot of actions by modern political parties.
Political parties are not generally interested in being "fair and balanced" -- they cite only the ideas supporting their point of view. They have no interest in lauding alternative political views. That's pretty much the definition of ideological "bias." And it's very common for political parties to focus on facts
That... That's not trolling at all. (Score:5, Informative)
No, that's commonly referred to as "astroturfing." Trolling is something totally different, and not something that state actors generally get involved in.
Rob
Re: (Score:1)
Not like the word means a fucking thing anymore. If someone says something you don't like on the Internet, you can safely call it "trolling".
Re:State trolling (Score:4, Insightful)
Again, that's not trolling, regardless of what some people are calling them. That's astroturfing for the Russian government and Putin, and against the US, Ukraine, and Alexei Navalny. Trolling is when you say controversial, annoying, and/or inflammatory shit just to get a response from people. That's not the aim of this astroturfing, which is just a relatively new way of disseminating the same old FUDdy propaganda that governments have been producing since the invention of writing.
Rob
Re: (Score:2)
I, actually, agree with you on the original meaning of "trolling". And yet, TFA talks about that "other" trolling and this subthread of ours is purely "semantics" now.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just semantics--there's a big difference between the government funding methods to discourage people from saying things that are surely just "inauthentic comments" meant to provoke a reaction, which is what "creating trolling-free environments" suggests (and is even how it is read in the quote in the /. summary), and the government funding methods to combat Russian disinfo sockpuppet factories, which is what is actually happening. Ironically, the researchers themselves could be argued to be trolli
Is this a troll? (Score:1)
Mod parent up, link is the Snowden leak on Jtrig, the UK's astroturf, fake victim, false rape claim group, used to discredit targets with smears. (e.g. Assange et al).
But regardless, GP claim is false "Astroturfing" and "Trolling" are one and the same, FREE SPEECH. Trolling is speech which in the opinion OF THE READER is something they view as a troll, but in others opinion it might be a legitimate reply. FBI has ZERO business interfering in free speech.
Look, let me give you a concrete example:
https://www.y
Even with magnitude corrected, way too much (Score:4, Insightful)
500k is an absurd amount of money to do what basically amounts to "reversing fundamental human nature".
I could spend $50 and spend the day examining how various popular online forums worked, and probably gain a lot more insight than they ever will...
Probably most of the $500k is going to Hillary election funds through various shell companies.
Re: (Score:2)
500k is an absurd amount of money to do what basically amounts to "reversing fundamental human nature".
I could spend $50 and spend the day examining how various popular online forums worked, and probably gain a lot more insight than they ever will...
They're probably just throwing a small team of researchers onto examining the issue, to see if there is a project worth spending real money on. I'm sure the NSF does small projects like this all the time, this one just happened to get a story about it.
Probably most of the $500k is going to Hillary election funds through various shell companies.
A completely out of context shot at a politician?
The thought is appreciated but I don't think they're looking for sample data yet.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not out of context at all, because a TON of money is funneled from small projects like this to political donors all the time. A nonsensical project like this that consumes hundreds of thousands of dollars for what will be in the end a very small study is the perfect vehicle for graft.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not out of context at all, because a TON of money is funneled from small projects like this to political donors all the time. A nonsensical project like this that consumes hundreds of thousands of dollars for what will be in the end a very small study is the perfect vehicle for graft.
The $500k is going to two different universities in the form of grants. And if you're looking to cover part of the professor's salaries, grad students salaries, some equipment, it's a reasonable amount to take a serious look at the project.
You actually think those professors will somehow misappropriate those grants to either donate to a Clinton campaign fund or give the money to "shell companies" who will then donate it? That's ridiculous.
Now here's the interesting questions as I see them:
1) Assuming you we
Re: (Score:2)
The $500k is going to two different universities in the form of grants.
And the universities then spend $100-$200k a pop on speaking fees for politicians, because they don't have to spend that money the grants are covering....
Stop being so naive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Contrary to the Fox News narrative, it's generally pretty hard to get an NSF grant, and they don't typically hand them out for ideas that should have gone to the shredder.
Except this time they have, which is obvious. SO then it's equally obvious the choice to fund this absurd study was made not to truly fund the study, but so that funds could be directed elsewhere. Do you truly have no inkling of how government contracts are really awarded? I say this as someone working with someone else to get an NSF gr
Re: (Score:2)
Definitions (Score:2)
And fundamental human nature does need reversed
That word, fundamental, I do not think it means what you think it means...
First! (Score:1)
Happily my custom HOSTS file already blocks out all online trolling for me. Why is this board so empty, though? Not a single comment in 30 mins?
Orwellian future. (Score:1)
Watch as 'trolling' becomes 'opinions I don't agree with'.
This is how 1984 becomes a reality.
P.S. Posting as AC because I don't have an account.
Re: (Score:2)
Watch as 'trolling' becomes 'opinions I don't agree with'.
This is how 1984 becomes a reality.
P.S. Posting as AC because I don't have an account.
For some people that has always been the case.
First Amendment in the way? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just how can the "misleading" and "inauthentic" speech be eliminated by the government without violating the First Amendment?
Easy! Just call a constitutional convention and eliminate the First Amendment. Since it's growing more unpopular every day, it shouldn't be a difficult task. In fact we can put the entire Bill of Rights on the block. Anybody got a problem with that? After all, there is a war on... and all this freedom stuff is only making total victory more elusive.
As a side note, watch for possible shadow banning, and please inform us if you see any evidence of it happening
Re: (Score:1)
The bill of Rights and the Constitution in general are threatened not by the obvious authoritarians you have in mind, but rather by the self-identified "Liberals" seeking to ban "Hate Speech" [huffingtonpost.com] and "intolerance".
Re: (Score:1)
No, they are threatened by the voters who think we have "too much" [newseuminstitute.org] freedom. They are the authoritarians I have in mind. How do we protect ourselves from them should they become a majority?
Re: (Score:3)
The same could be said of Trump who promises to sue the media for negative stories about him [mediamatters.org]. There can be a fine line with hate speech, just like you can't yell fire in a crowded theater or threaten to harm someone. Hate speech has consequences. Joining a hate group (or any group that advocates violence) is a good way to get on the police or FBI's radar, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it can not be. Trump is not (yet) a government official, so his efforts to fight other people's speech are not against the First Amendment.
Thank you for providing this good example of an authoritarian calling for and implicitly approving of police persecuting other people's speech. Like I said, the real danger is from t
Re: (Score:1)
Trump is not (yet) a government official, so his efforts to fight other people's speech are not against the First Amendment.
But, he is using government officials (the judges) in his fight. So yes, his efforts are in violation the First Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is enabled by the government though, via a dodgy legal system that allows someone rich to bankrupt people they don't like even if they don't win, and where expensive lawyers often do win because they are better resourced.
Rich people should not be able to use their wealth to silence others via a branch of the government.
Re: (Score:2)
We all are. This is not about Trump. Anybody — poor, well off, and super rich alike — can and do [wordpress.com] sue for defamation. These are all civil suits and have nothing to do with the First Amendment. Your misconception is common — fustakrakich above [slashdot.org] has posted the same stupidity, for example — but a misconception it is [firstamendmentcenter.org]:
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not saying that people shouldn't be able to sue for libel, I'm saying that a legal system where the mere threat of suing is chilling due to the high cost of litigation, and where the person with the most money usually wins is bad for everyone.
At least try to understand the argument you are rebutting before going full brexit on us.
Re: (Score:2)
And I am saying, you argument has nothing to do with the First Amendment issues involved in government trying to limit some speech as "hateful" or otherwise incorrect. And, of course, Trump is completely off-topic too.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't arguing that. I'm well aware of the limitations of the 1st Amendment. I was merely stating that the government is not blameless or uninvolved.
Re: (Score:2)
The use of gov mil assets directly seems to be a new idea too.
The removal of US gov limits on spreading domestic propaganda [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith–Mundt_Act]
Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media (18 March 2011)
https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
""online persona management service" that will allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Arab Spring ring a bell ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems there's quite a few repressive regimes that want internet off switches and are looking to control the content of their nets.
Just off the top of my head, Saudi Arabia and China both take it very seriously.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I appreciate your point, but let me ask, how do you know free flow of information and the ability to organize wouldn't have done them in ?
They actually had a much better consumer economy for awhile under Lenin's "New Economic Program"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, not really. Soviet Union didn't fall to a popular uprising, after all. What did it in was the inability to change, grow and adapt caused by a system hell-bent on maintaining the status quo at all costs. Censorship was a means to enforce that by essentially lobotomizing the public and thus wasting their creative potential, but the same can be achieved in other ways - f
Re: (Score:2)
Stupidity tax (Score:1)
What Could Go Wrong? (Score:2)
How do you differentiate from American citizens here speaking of legitimate problems with our government--from foreign agents?
In the new world, everyone is a suspected terrorist, and governments become paranoid and attack their own people.
Re:They already invested in Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Much as you say, but I note that HRC has invested heavily in something called correct the record [thedailybeast.com].
Looking at their about page [correctrecord.org], we find this helpful description:
Correct The Record is a strategic research and rapid response team designed to defend Hillary Clinton from baseless attacks.
The news article (first link, above) has some interesting sections, such as:
Citing “lessons learned from online engagement with ‘Bernie Bros,’” a pro-Hillary Clinton Super PAC is pledging to spend $1 million to “push back against” users on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and Instagram.
Correct the Record’s “Barrier Breakers” project boasts in a press release that it has already “addressed more than 5,000 people that have personally attacked Hillary Clinton on Twitter.” The PAC released this on Thursday.
Some Bernie Sanders-supporting users on Reddit already started to notice the changes on Thursday afternoon.
“This explains why my inbox turned to cancer on Tuesday,” wrote user OKarizee. “Been a member of reddit for almost 4 years and never experienced anything like it. In fact, in all my years on the internet I’ve never experienced anything like it.”
Correct the Record, which has received $5 million this campaign season and has spent almost $4.5 million of it, according to OpenSecrets.org, outlined its strategy against “swarms of anonymous attackers” in a press release.
“While Hillary Clinton fights to break down barriers and bring America together, the Barrier Breakers 2016 digital task force will serve as a resource for supporters looking for positive content and push-back to share with their online progressive communities, as well as thanking prominent supporters and committed superdelegates on social media,” the statement read.
Due to FEC loopholes, the Sunlight Foundation’s Libby Watson found this year that Correct the Record can openly coordinate with Clinton’s campaign, despite rules that typically disallow political campaigns from working directly with PACs.
I suppose it's OK, because HRC only wants to "break down barriers and bring America together", because of course the ends justify any means. Right?
I wonder if any of these commisars^w um... partisans^w um... truth seekers have come to Slashdot?
(Also relevant This XKCD [xkcd.com] comic.)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Honestly, Hillary has been the subject of attacks against her character since before we had Obama as a President. In fact, that's how we got Obama as a President, as back then "America isn't ready for a woman President" (and yet after Hillary was out of the race, it was time to bolster failing ratings by offering up Sarah Palin!).
If nobody wants to charge her, it's because there isn't a charge. Any District Attorney would charge her if there was the basis of even half-a-case because it would be enough new
Re: (Score:3)
You're doing a fine job, whipslash. You've got my vote and if you ever fix the goddamn subscribe button, I'll gladly donate to Slashdot again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You got proof that is happening? Please elaborate... We should know if it really is.
Re: (Score:1)
Please provide a URL of a "banned" comment. You will need to save a copy of the comment locally to keep a record.
Re: (Score:1)
:-) I find your response, 'intriguing', and somewhat amusing. Since I saved it here, I'll let you know if becomes shadow banned in the future.
The comment you save will contain the URL. If you reload that URL from the internet, and it doesn't show up than you have your evidence. You do know how to use Ctrl-S, right?
If you don't want to save the page, just copy the URL from the address bar. You do know how to use Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V, right? If not, you can right click and left click 'copy' from the menu that po
Re: (Score:3)
Frankly, if what AC is talking about really happened, APK would never be able to post again. I can only see this as a positive development for the future of Slashdot.
Re: (Score:1)
I found another thread about it that the lameness filter kicks in with certain code words [slashdot.org]. It's not just shadow banning, it's a complete blockage. In that example it's obvious APK spam (Personally I find him funny when he gets on a roll. He went after me a couple of times, but simple mockery and ridicule in return usually keeps it short, otherwise just ignore him, it's not difficult. Whatever you do, don't take him seriously), but it still sets a bad precedent since, like the response to the link said, so m
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, good to see you too... It was a long time ago. It's no longer important enough for me to bother looking it up. Do it yourself if you're so inclined. Otherwise, feel free to start over and drone on about it all you want. I've always been fascinated by the persona. And I would never expect someone like you to take me seriously. So, roll on, my friend. Since your entire gag will probably bang into the lameness filter, you probably need to come up with some new material. I'm dyin' to hear it. Make it good.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, and...? Anything else?
Re: (Score:1)
ho ho ho... What's ya spammin' today?
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like I have attracted the kraken yet again (from sibling replies to yours).
I have noticed certain all caps words trigger it, I even have trouble if I all cap "dns", which is a word that should be all capped.
Re: (Score:1)
:-) Most excellent! You are hilarious! You reaffirm everything ever said about you. Please continue. I love this shit! Gimme more!
APK's on topic in his hosts posts for stopping threats/speeding you up online. That's no spam.
Of course it's spam. That's why you are being filtered. And you are permitted to refer to yourself in the first person. What are you scared of? You have no need to hide from me.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, looks like we fished him in for some fun. *catch and release* This stuff is great.. Much better to be part of the show than to just sit and watch. If you or anybody else are bothered by him, I'm more than happy to take all the hits. I hope the admins don't mind this little circus. One thing nice about the lameness filter is that it keeps him from getting stale and too repetitive. Make him work for his money, I say. As for the rest of us, alternative spelling can keep it out of the way for the most par
Re: (Score:1)
Are you really the funky spammer known as 'apk', or just a cheap imitation? I kinda suspect the latter. How long has this gag been running now? Has to be damn near twenty years. Pretty impressive.
Re: (Score:1)
:-) Is that all you got? C'mon, man, you can do better. Don't be so boring
Re: (Score:1)
Still got you hooked in... You can't stop responding.
Re: (Score:1)
You just can't stop, eh? I like that. 'Catch and release'. But you so repetitive. Can't you say anything else besides *I'm rubber, you're glue*?
Looking forward to your next spam. Please try to do better. You wouldn't want me to lose interest, would you?
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried reporting this to the Slashdot Ombudsman?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They already invested in Slashdot (Score:2, Interesting)
Why isn't the source code for Slashdot open source again? That would settle this once and for all. It used to be open, and it makes sense for a site that posts a lot about open source. Hosting it on SourceForge would be a good gesture to start restoring trust in a name that was dragged through the mud for a long time.
Re: They already invested in Slashdot (Score:1)
As others have said: release the full current source code, or we don't believe you. Sunlight is a good disinfectant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They already invested in Slashdot (Score:1)
So what you're saying is, you're lying?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Now I gotta ask, is there a reason that the code is not open source? Or does management simply state, *because we say so*?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: If there's one thing I've learned... (Score:1)
Actually one of the things that is happening a lot is that people are impersonating a revolting, disgusting parody of the opposing party they disagree with, and crapflooding comment areas. Example: in a pro-Trump discussion forum- people come in and make racist or homophobic comments that are actually just trolls. Or trolls come into an environmental forum and act all monkeywrenchlike, advocating destructive acts.
It's popular now to try to make the people you oppose seem unhinged by impersonating an unhing
Re: (Score:2)
To wedge them between the Uranium rods should they get too hot, it just might avoid another Chernobyl.