3 ms·

I'm not sure what's especially revealing about this story. A lot of the content we already knew, except now there's more evidence of it. The marginalrevolution

I'm not sure what's especially revealing about this story. A lot of the content we already knew, except now there's more evidence of it. The marginalrevolution author wrongly suggests that "it has long been assumed that propaganda posts would support the government with praise or criticize critics of the government" and says it's surprising this paper found it wasn't. This is no surprise, others have concluded this before this has been known probably a decade. Kudos for the authors to write this paper though, it takes courage to do this. For most people skimming the comment section, this interview here with a paid Chinese "online commentator" is far more revealing than submitted article is: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/10/china%E2%80%99s-paid-trolls-meet-50-cent-party http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/10/china%... The commentator estimates 10-20% of posts on Chinese media are by "online commentators" like him, and he also talks about the methods he uses to guide and manipulate the discussion.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
Gary King is a pretty prominent political scientist. It's unlikely that this is unoriginal work. Yes, that's an appeal to authority, but I think the methods used are what's novel. And don't discount just having some evidence! Here's the article: http://gking.harvard.edu/50c http://gking.harvard.edu/50c edit: it's also in the apsr, which is one of the poli sci journals. There are a lot less people doing this kind of analysis in an academic setting than one might expect.
wuschel 10y ago
Thank you for the link. The comments of the thought influencer do remind me the distorted discussions in the Economist's comment section I followed a couple of years ago. The topics that were heavily spammed were usually revolving about Chinese politics or economics.

aaron-lebo 10y ago

Gary King is a pretty prominent political scientist. It's unlikely that this is unoriginal work. Yes, that's an appeal to authority, but I think the methods used are what's novel. And don't discount just having some evidence! Here's the article: http://gking.harvard.edu/50c http://gking.harvard.edu/50c edit: it's also in the apsr, which is one of the poli sci journals. There are a lot less people doing this kind of analysis in an academic setting than one might expect.

wuschel 10y ago

Thank you for the link. The comments of the thought influencer do remind me the distorted discussions in the Economist's comment section I followed a couple of years ago. The topics that were heavily spammed were usually revolving about Chinese politics or economics.