Discourse Act Classification in Asynchronous Online Forum Discussions

In the past two decades, an increasing amount of discussions are held via online platforms such as Facebook or Reddit. The most common form of disruption of these discussions are trolls. Traditional trolls try to digress the discussion into a nonconstructive argument. One strategy to achieve this is to give asymmetric responses, responses that don’t follow the conventional patterns. In this thesis we propose a modern machine learning NLP method called ULMFiT to automatically detect the discourse acts of online forum posts in order to detect these conversational patterns. ULMFiT finetunes the language model before training its classifier in order to create a more accurate language representation of the domain language. This task of discourse act recognition is unique since it attempts to classify the pragmatic role of each post within a conversation compared to the functional role which is related to tasks such as question-answer retrieval, sentiment analysis, or sarcasm detection. Furthermore, most discourse act recognition research has been focused on synchronous conversations where all parties can directly interact with each other while this thesis looks at asynchronous online conversations. Trained on a dataset of Reddit discussions, the proposed model achieves a matthew’s correlation coefficient of 0.605 and an F1-score of 0.69 to predict the discourse acts. Other experiments also show that this model is effective at question-answer classification as well as showing that language model fine-tuning has a positive effect on both classification performance along with the required size of the training data. These results could be beneficial for current trolling detection systems

“You’re trolling because…” – A Corpus-based Study of Perceived Trolling and Motive Attribution in the Comment Threads of Three British Political Blogs

This paper investigates the linguistically marked motives that participants attribute to those they call trolls in 991 comment threads of three British political blogs. The study is concerned with how these motives affect the discursive construction of trolling and trolls. Another goal of the paper is to examine whether the mainly emotional motives ascribed to trolls in the academic literature correspond with those that the participants attribute to the alleged trolls in the analysed threads. The paper identifies five broad motives ascribed to trolls: emotional/mental health-related/social reasons, financial gain, political beliefs, being employed by a political body, and unspecified political affiliation. It also points out that depending on these motives, trolling and trolls are constructed in various ways. Finally, the study argues that participants attribute motives to trolls not only to explain their behaviour but also to insult them

Anyone Can Become a Troll: Causes of Trolling Behavior in Online Discussions

In online communities, antisocial behavior such as trolling disrupts constructive discussion. While prior work suggests that trolling behavior is confined to a vocal and antisocial minority, we demonstrate that ordinary people can engage in such behavior as well. We propose two primary trigger mechanisms: the individual's mood, and the surrounding context of a discussion (e.g., exposure to prior trolling behavior). Through an experiment simulating an online discussion, we find that both negative mood and seeing troll posts by others significantly increases the probability of a user trolling, and together double this probability. To support and extend these results, we study how these same mechanisms play out in the wild via a data-driven, longitudinal analysis of a large online news discussion community. This analysis reveals temporal mood effects, and explores long range patterns of repeated exposure to trolling. A predictive model of trolling behavior shows that mood and discussion context together can explain trolling behavior better than an individual's history of trolling. These results combine to suggest that ordinary people can, under the right circumstances, behave like trolls.Comment: Best Paper Award at CSCW 201

Finding Social Media Trolls: Dynamic Keyword Selection Methods for Rapidly-Evolving Online Debates

Online harassment is a significant social problem. Prevention of online harassment requires rapid detection of harassing, offensive, and negative social media posts. In this paper, we propose the use of word embedding models to identify offensive and harassing social media messages in two aspects: detecting fast-changing topics for more effective data collection and representing word semantics in different domains. We demonstrate with preliminary results that using the GloVe (Global Vectors for Word Representation) model facilitates the discovery of new and relevant keywords to use for data collection and trolling detection. Our paper concludes with a discussion of a research agenda to further develop and test word embedding models for identification of social media harassment and trolling.Comment: AI for Social Good workshop at NeurIPS (2019

Data science methods for the analysis of controversial social dedia discussions

Social media communities like Reddit and Twitter allow users to express their views on topics of their interest, and to engage with other users who may share or oppose these views. This can lead to productive discussions towards a consensus, or to contended debates, where disagreements frequently arise. Prior work on such settings has primarily focused on identifying notable instances of antisocial behavior such as hate-speech and “trolling”, which represent possible threats to the health of a community. These, however, are exceptionally severe phenomena, and do not encompass controversies stemming from user debates, differences of opinions, and off-topic content, all of which can naturally come up in a discussion without going so far as to compromise its development. This dissertation proposes a framework for the systematic analysis of social media discussions that take place in the presence of controversial themes, disagreements, and mixed opinions from participating users. For this, we develop a feature-based model to describe key elements of a discussion, such as its salient topics, the level of activity from users, the sentiments it expresses, and the user feedback it receives. Initially, we build our feature model to characterize adversarial discussions surrounding political campaigns on Twitter, with a focus on the factual and sentimental nature of their topics and the role played by different users involved. We then extend our approach to Reddit discussions, leveraging community feedback signals to define a new notion of controversy and to highlight conversational archetypes that arise from frequent and interesting interaction patterns. We use our feature model to build logistic regression classifiers that can predict future instances of controversy in Reddit communities centered on politics, world news, sports, and personal relationships. Finally, our model also provides the basis for a comparison of different communities in the health domain, where topics and activity vary considerably despite their shared overall focus. In each of these cases, our framework provides insight into how user behavior can shape a community’s individual definition of controversy and its overall identity.Social-Media Communities wie Reddit und Twitter ermöglichen es Nutzern, ihre Ansichten zu eigenen Themen zu äußern und mit anderen Nutzern in Kontakt zu treten, die diese Ansichten teilen oder ablehnen. Dies kann zu produktiven Diskussionen mit einer Konsensbildung führen oder zu strittigen Auseinandersetzungen über auftretende Meinungsverschiedenheiten. Frühere Arbeiten zu diesem Komplex konzentrierten sich in erster Linie darauf, besondere Fälle von asozialem Verhalten wie Hassrede und "Trolling" zu identifizieren, da diese eine Gefahr für die Gesprächskultur und den Wert einer Community darstellen. Die sind jedoch außergewöhnlich schwerwiegende Phänomene, die keinesfalls bei jeder Kontroverse auftreten die sich aus einfachen Diskussionen, Meinungsverschiedenheiten und themenfremden Inhalten ergeben. All diese Reibungspunkte können auch ganz natürlich in einer Diskussion auftauchen, ohne dass diese gleich den ganzen Gesprächsverlauf gefährden. Diese Dissertation stellt ein Framework für die systematische Analyse von Social-Media Diskussionen vor, die vornehmlich von kontroversen Themen, strittigen Standpunkten und Meinungsverschiedenheiten der teilnehmenden Nutzer geprägt sind. Dazu entwickeln wir ein Feature-Modell, um Schlüsselelemente einer Diskussion zu beschreiben. Dazu zählen der Aktivitätsgrad der Benutzer, die Wichtigkeit der einzelnen Aspekte, die Stimmung, die sie ausdrückt, und das Benutzerfeedback. Zunächst bauen wir unser Feature-Modell so auf, um bei Diskussionen gegensätzlicher politischer Kampagnen auf Twitter die oben genannten Schlüsselelemente zu bestimmen. Der Schwerpunkt liegt dabei auf den sachlichen und emotionalen Aspekten der Themen im Bezug auf die Rollen verschiedener Nutzer. Anschließend erweitern wir unseren Ansatz auf Reddit-Diskussionen und nutzen das Community-Feedback, um einen neuen Begriff der Kontroverse zu definieren und Konversationsarchetypen hervorzuheben, die sich aus Interaktionsmustern ergeben. Wir nutzen unser Feature-Modell, um ein Logistischer Regression Verfahren zu entwickeln, das zukünftige Kontroversen in Reddit-Communities in den Themenbereichen Politik, Weltnachrichten, Sport und persönliche Beziehungen vorhersagen kann. Schlussendlich bietet unser Modell auch die Grundlage für eine Vergleichbarkeit verschiedener Communities im Gesundheitsbereich, auch wenn dort die Themen und die Nutzeraktivität, trotz des gemeinsamen Gesamtfokus, erheblich variieren. In jedem der genannten Themenbereiche gibt unser Framework Erkenntnisgewinne, wie das Verhalten der Nutzer die spezifisch Definition von Kontroversen der Community prägt

Discussion quality diffuses in the digital public square

Studies of online social influence have demonstrated that friends have important effects on many types of behavior in a wide variety of settings. However, we know much less about how influence works among relative strangers in digital public squares, despite important conversations happening in such spaces. We present the results of a study on large public Facebook pages where we randomly used two different methods--most recent and social feedback--to order comments on posts. We find that the social feedback condition results in higher quality viewed comments and response comments. After measuring the average quality of comments written by users before the study, we find that social feedback has a positive effect on response quality for both low and high quality commenters. We draw on a theoretical framework of social norms to explain this empirical result. In order to examine the influence mechanism further, we measure the similarity between comments viewed and written during the study, finding that similarity increases for the highest quality contributors under the social feedback condition. This suggests that, in addition to norms, some individuals may respond with increased relevance to high-quality comments.Comment: 10 pages, 6 figures, 2 table