Downvoted for medium article.
I shouldn’t have to make an account to view news.
Am I blind? I don’t even see where it names the study. It just says Pew, who publishes many studies. Does medium expect me to search for their sources?
If it’s on Medium it’s almost certainly repackaged news anyway.
Tbh happy I deleted reddit
(in voice of tts laughing god)
well, who would of fucking thought?
Oof… This makes the dystopian, highly censored, antithetical Star Trek subreddit make more sense…
That’s all? woulda guessed higher
Is all bad online behavior “trolling” now? Isn’t “shill” a better word for someone who is paid to surreptitiously promote something?
Is all bad online behavior “trolling” now?
People like throwing buzzwords regardless of their meaning.
Back in my day trolling meant something. It meant you cared enough to actually form a real argument that withstands scrutiny, just to setup for the rug pull. The better your polemic, the more engagement as people debated if you were for real or not.
Shitposting controversial hot takes or dog whistle memes is mid af, do better
polemic
po·lem·ic /pəˈlemik/ noun a speech or piece of writing expressing a strongly critical attack on or controversial opinion about someone or something. “his polemic against the cultural relativism of the Sixties”
mid
You can just add “troll” to the pile of words twisted into meaning “people I don’t like”.
From my understanding trolling meant exactly what it says it is: Trolling. I think people for some reason get this mixed up with trolls - as in the fantasy type monster. But I think it actually has to do with the fishing termtrolling where you cast out your line, and see if you can get somebody to take the bait. Once they take the bait, you take em for a ride.
From my understanding trolling meant exactly what it says it is: Trolling. I think people for some reason get this mixed up with trolls - as in the fantasy type monster. But I think it actually has to do with the fishing termtrolling where you cast out your line, and see if you can get somebody to take the bait. Once they take the bait, you take em for a ride.
When the word is used on the Internet it’s meant in the fantasy monster way. Specifically it comes from the story of the troll underneath the bridge, interfering with people trying to cross the bridge.
Actually, that’s also where the name of the mythical creature comes from. They’d set up bridges that offer convenient shortcuts as bait for humans
No, all bad online behavior now is “bots.”
At least that’s how people in the comments on lemmy and Reddit label them.
Shut up, bot!
Edit: Shitty typo
He’d probably need a strong sphincter muscle to manage that.
Lol, how did I miss that
No, all bad online behavior now is “bots.”
At least that’s how people in the comments on lemmy and Reddit label them.
I, and others, have distinguish between shills and bots.
Usually people use shilling as an alternative to astroturfing by paid human beings, while bots are just AI/programming posting.
deleted by creator
It seems to correlate with the rise in general awareness of LLMs like ChatGPT. It seems like just the threat/possibility of ChatGPT being used has already distorted discourse online.
I always saw it as someone who only repeats talking points verbatim is essentially a robot. If I can’t tell if you are a human posting, or an automated response is there a meaningful difference?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Shill is a banned word on reddit still right?
There’s no way it’s a banned word. /r/neoliberal has a “neoliberal shill of the year” award where they vote for their favorite economist based on social media posts, books released that year, etc.
There was a time when you’d get hit with a [Removed by Reddit] for calling people shills but that was a while back I guess
No idea!
it is not “now”. It is exactly as it was being used in 2020, when the article was written, by the mass media. They were calling “troll” everyone they were disagreeing with.
I was really surprised recently when I was searching for some help with a mod for a videogame and a result popped up on my duckduckgo search page for a thread on reddit about it, so I clicked it and BAM: “error, this subreddit has not been reviewed, so it is not possible to view it. Either use the app or go to home page” … wtf? I mean, this basically destroys the entire site right? I was 100% unable to view whatever content had been posted in that subreddit. So I just closed it and went somewhere else. I don’t see how reddit can even continue to exist if they don’t allow people to view the site. How did this happen?
There’s a theory that certain emails scams are so obvious and easy to spot because that acts as a self-selection mechanism. A person who sees the obvious scam and immediately recognizes it as such was probably never going to fall for it. The ones that respond in spite of all the signs tend to be easier or more lucrative targets.
I could see forcing people to download an app just to see the content as operating on a similar (but not 100% analogous) principle. The type of person who willingly installs the app to see the content (without knowing if it was worthwhile/relevant beforehand) may be exactly the type of person that they prefer to join their site. Perhaps they are easier targets for marketing, less likely to understand /complain about the ramifications of changes to the site that are user adverse, care less about privacy, etc and that makes them more lucrative?
I mean I guess that could be right, but in the end this scenario also spells doom for the company. There is no way that reddit continues to stay relevant as a meaningful place in the future. It’ll be relegated to the garbage dump where yahoo and digg and tumblr somehow still exist in zombie fashion. Sad.
No way it’s only 15%
Exactly. And on major subreddits it would be much higher. Worldnews at the moment just feels like IDF posting pro-genocide content, commenting, upvoting and agreeing with each other.
Reddit goes in the bin. 🚮
The thing with r/worldnews isn’t only bots, it’s also that the mods are trigger-happy when banning people for making unabashed criticisms of Israel and zionism. Keep that attitude for long enough and you’ll end up with an echo chamber anywhere.
I’m glad I left, happy I found Lemmy
Same bestie.
I miss the old web before it was just a small bunch of major websites.
Lemmy is good now because it has that old community feel. Hopefully that can be maintained in the future by defederating from corporate and toxic instances.
Yes, the wild west of the internet days. Occasionally you can come across some gems still, but it’s not the same lol.
“New Study”
“Two significant studies, the Pew Research Center study conducted in 2018 and the Computers in Human Behavior study published in 2020”
So you’re saying it’s almost certainly a significantly larger percentage now.
Sounds about right.
I’m just saying that the article is not coherent. If we are at the end of 2023 and it talks about a new article, it doesn’t make sense that it then mentions two articles, one from 2018 and another from 2020.
You also have to see the irony in an article that forces new user signup to read it in its entirety. The internet is just gross now. Almost everything is corporate garbage or some site or individual trying to establish a “user base” or “followers” etc. I’m mostly just tired of it all. We’ve had radio, tv and now the internet. I’m personally just hoping to be around for the next thing to come along so I can enjoy it before the same cycle hits it and fucking ruins it.
I could tell that and I agree … not really “new”…
It’s not like one of the six biggest power janitors of Reddit has been caught multiple times wrongfully deleting posts, using bot armies to manipulate votes and accepting money from marketing agencies for “consultancy” in social media guerilla marketing.
It’s almost like the company doesn’t give a fuck what their unpaid help does to the userbase or content because they still gets investments regardless.
Fuck spez, fuck GallowBoob, fuck awkwardtheturtle and fuck Sam Altman.
What’s Sam Altman’s connection to Reddit?
He was an angel investor and also onboarded a bunch of celebrity investors.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they are trying to whitewash this, since it became a minor point of contention a few months ago
Was also interim CEO for 8 days, to give you an idea of how involved he was. I’ll update with more info and sources later if I have time, otherwise Wayback Machine is your friend
It’s amazing how quickly the admins came down on some subs after the trench titty drama broke. He was basically reddit’s MrBabyMan. And he’s probably not the only one.
Trench ritty drama? Dare I even
Google thatDuckDuckGo that…
How is Sam Altman related to Reddit?
From the article…
The study’s demographic analysis further highlighted the targeted nature of corporate trolling. Younger users, particularly those aged 18–29, were significantly more likely to be contacted by corporate trolls, with 17% of them reporting such experiences, compared to only 7% of users aged 65 and over. This age-based discrepancy underscores the strategic approach of corporate trolls in engaging with a demographic that is often more susceptible to their influence.
Wow. Corporations are tagging younger generations as dumb shits. That is not cool.
Wow. Corporations are tagging younger generations as dumb shits.
I mean, I wouldn’t use that language, but yeah of course. They don’t have firm beliefs yet, in most cases, and their worldviews are more likely to be shaped by memes, whereas the older generations adopt the memes that appeal to their worldview.
If you want to shape people, you want to ideally target young adults.
I mean, I wouldn’t use that language, but yeah of course. They don’t have firm beliefs yet, in most cases, and their worldviews are more likely to be shaped by memes, whereas the older generations adopt the memes that appeal to their worldview.
I don’t think it’s just about how memes are processed. I think they really consider them less aware, less intelligent, than older generations.
And I was pointing that out is a ‘rallying cry’ to the younger generations, that this is the level respect they’re getting, and that they should do something about it, hence the stronger language.
less aware, less intelligent, than older generations.
This is true, but not generationally. Rather, the younger someone is, the less they generally know, and the more.opinions can be shaped.
There’s a reason all radical movements throughout history have been driven by the young, and it isn’t because the young thought up the ideas. Younger people generally have a different view on new information, especially information that points to problems they perceive, than older people.
If you’re trying to have a social media presence you are de facto targeting a younger audience
This is true, but not generationally. Rather, the younger someone is, the less they generally know, and the more.opinions can be shaped.
You’re not wrong, but you’re also wrong. :p
What I mean is that normally, youth is less “wise” than elders, because of how long they’ve been alive. The more mileage you put into Life the more you figure out. Its one of the great ironies of the human species that just as we finally start to get wise enough to figure out WTF is really going on, we drop dead. And even worse, trying to pass off some of that wisdom to the previous generation usually falls on deaf ears, because its seen as ‘old person yells at clouds to get off of their lawn’ by the younger generation.
Having said that, I’m still going to disagree with you in that the original comment is specificially (IMO) targeting the newest generations as specific entities onto themselves, and not just more youthful; the first post-new Internet generation, as being less informed/aware.
If you’re trying to have a social media presence you are de facto targeting a younger audience
One does not beget the other though, its just a coincidence. The ‘de facto’ is targeting the dummer/spends more crowd, not a specific age crowd. If older generations were ‘dumb’ and spent more, they would be the ones targeted.
. If older generations were ‘dumb’ and spent more, they would be the ones targeted.
You can see this playing out now in the grifting ecosystem built around Trump and the “alternative news” crowd. Again, this targets people with set opinions, seeking to double down on them.
The claim here is that companies are specifically aiming to shape opinions rather than exploit existing ones.
I think this is a meaningful difference
Inexperience leads to easier marks. Someone who is otherwise markedly intelligent will fall for the silliest things on impulse.
I’m surprised it’s that low.
That number has got to be higher than 15%. Everywhere.
Not like here on Lemmy. I assure you, I am 100% humon.
Yes hi I am Real Man hey do you like to go skateboards?
Hello fellow human. I am making smalltalk like humans do sometimes.
Splendid. We are conversing in a manner that is disarming to bystanders.
Get a room.
Yes, that does seem to be a logical step in human interactions.
Damnit who gave the Ferengi access to the internet?
I would’ve thought that number would be higher. Surprised at only 15%!
Key words: “at least”
