theres also Bots/ai arguing against other bots to sow dissent.
This is one of those stupid articles that are like “water is wet says a new study” and far more people than it should be say “holy fuck it’s wet when I wash things. It must mean I wash things with water. Omgomgomgomg!!”
No shit users are trolls on reddit.
It’s called a dialectic.
This post feels like bait
Thanks AI… Using tremendous amounts of energy and technology to tell us something that anyone paying attention would have already known
It’s called being contrarian, and it’s not just Reddit users. I have several family members like this.
Wow this guy really loves to disagree
No he doesn’t!
HAVE YOU EVEN READ OP?
Thats not true
No it’s not!
I disagree
no they dont
That’s not an argument, that’s a contradiction!
This is abuse, arguments are down the hall.
No it’s not!
BUT
source?
no… no!!! that’s impossible!!!
Bizarre to have a headline claiming five “types” were identified, but then only describe the behavior of a single type. What are the other four?
There’s way more than five. (bugger - the images seem to be gone from that old site)
Disagreement is a way to promote dialog.
No it isnt
Sources?
/s
on what planet do you exist on where everybody is 200% aligned lol
north korea?
I agree
Wrong.
Survivor bias aside, I’m not sure the UI doesn’t make this drive-by trolling worse. The reddit UI (hi Lemmy) is threaded but disjoint, and the excellent response to one tree of responses isn’t useful to or seen in another tree – and those trees will develop in parallel in almost every discussion.
I worry that quips and cheap takes stand out because they’re fast and block actual discussion more, so have that mock ‘finalising’ effect. Ending a discussion thread is not concluding it .
… and we all have that cousin whom no one invites anywhere because he’ll argue the shit out of something like a jackal worrying a carcass, until people just give up and let him wander smugly off to his little corner in contrarian triumph.
*whomst
In breaking news; The sky is blue.
More at 4.
I came here for a good argument!
“This is Abuse.”
That skit has only gotten more and more relevant with the rise (and fall) of the internet.
I have a reddit coworker, he just disagrees and follows up with “fucking retard” while being blatantly wrong…i hope they fire the guy soon.
Unmanageable human being, impossible to learn anything to keep him from killing himself (my job is technically life threatening, if you’re too stupid to listen)
He also mamaged to call in sick for 2 weeks in his first 4 weeks of employment, i was surprised when they kept him on after that.
i was surprised when they kept him on after that.
Clearly did not learn anything from The Office Space. that’s management material and your future boss
I fear for it, honestly.
Luckily i’m already planning to leave. I haven’t found a good job within reach yet, it’ll come haha.
I disagree.
I think you’re wrong.
Well ackshually…
I disagree
OBJECTION!
OVERRULED!
Then we agree to disagree
“Then you are banned.” – Redditor Jannie
It’s not something you can agree or not, it’s a fact!
Disagreeing isnt trolling. On reddit you see so much stuff that is so plain and agreeable its not worth adding agreeable comment #2000. So it only becomes worth commenting if you see a post where you actually have a disagreement with the majority.
Read the article. It’s not about normal run of the mill disagreement. It’s about:
…an entire class of Reddit users whose primary purpose seems to be to disagree with others. These users specifically seek out opportunities to post contradictory comments, especially in response to disagreement, and then move on without waiting for replies.
whose primary purpose seems to be to disagree
What’s survivor bias again?
I mean, aside from the thing everyone is saying, to which you’re replying ‘read the article’, that is.
i think you have no idea what survivor bias is because it has nothing to do with anything here.
Oh, disagreeing with the post, huh? Looks like we found the AI troll, get 'em everyone!
Absolutely. Someone will always disagree and that‘s a good thing, actually. Bubbles are just as if not more problematic than the disagreeing „troll“. Sometimes there are reasons to play devil‘s advocate and sometimes you just bring up concerns that you‘d like to be eliminated.
I remember when I was part of a tiny minority bringing up concerns over Elon Musk and let me tell you the pushback and ridicule I received IRL was even worse than discourse online at the time. It took a long time until someone came up to me and actually admitted that I was right about Musk the entire time. I just failed to bring my point across earlier because they were better at debating but I like to think I sped up their process of becoming disillusioned about tech billionaires a little bit.
There‘s also a case where I got temporarily banned from a community I was very active in and labelled as a „right wing troll“ when almost every comment I made on Lemmy pointed to the opposite. A moderator probably had a bad day, read a comment they disagreed with and let the hammer fall down before even doing as little as to check my post history. Not much harm done I guess but man we should learn to embrace other opinions a little more.
If you actually think about things and form your own opinions you’ll usually be treated as “the other side” by everyone who signs and follows any pre-made set of opinions.
If you hate AI but thinks there is some specific situation in which it doesn’t 100% suck, you’ll be treated as a troll in anti-AI communities. If you’re MAGA but disagrees with anything Trump says, you’ll be called a leftist in conservative circles. If you’re a fierce active defender of LGBTQ+ rights but thinks it’s OK for a white American to dress up as a Mexican character for Halloween, you’ll be ostracized in many left wing groups.
Disagreeing is often treated as trolling by those you disagree with, depending on the subject. Mostly because those disagreements are often bad faith talking points from some groups of people.
Forming a counter argument is time consuming and requires you to think about the topic.
Calling someone names and labeling them a “troll” is much easier.
Repeating bad faith talking points isnt trolling. To me its a perspective issue. What I think is bad faith talking points might be reality to another person.
The person who identifies disagreement as trolling needs to grow up.
Back in my day, trolls would say something that pisses off both sides of the argument and makes people more aggressive towards each other.
Trolling is a art
My favourite thing back in the day was to engage with the trolls and try to get them all riled up.
It really used to be a art.
Yep. The skin appears thin at points.
Hey, stop trolling!
But this isn’t about people seeking worthwhile debates
These users specifically seek out opportunities to post contradictory comments, especially in response to disagreement, and then move on without waiting for replies.
Ah okay but you won’t respond to this.
You can post a comment disagreeing and not reply. Not every comment has to be seeking out “worthwhile debates”
still missing the point. we’re not talking about a couple comments here or there.
the article is about people who showed a clear pattern of doing it way more than others.
This is a great point, not sure what kind of bias it is, but you’d literally see thousands of people agreeing (the upvotes) and then 10 people circling around in a knife fight. Did we need science to tell us Reddit is full of trolls? Trolls existed on Reddit before LLMs became popular.
