9 ms·

This is one of those studies that presents evidence confirming what many people already know. The majority of the bad content comes from a small number of very

by Apreche 10mo ago

This is one of those studies that presents evidence confirming what many people already know. The majority of the bad content comes from a small number of very toxic and very active users (and bots). This creates the illusion that a large number of people overall are toxic, and only those who are in deep already recognize the truth. It is also why moderation is so effective. You only have to ban a small number of bad actors to create a rather nice online space. And of course, this is why for-profit platforms are loathe to properly moderate. A social network that bans the trolls would be like a casino banning the whales or a bar banning the alcoholics.

didgetmaster 10mo ago
It is very much like crime in general. The vast majority of crimes committed each year are by a tiny minority of people. Criminals often have a rap sheet as long as your arm; while a huge percentage of the population has never had a run-in with the law except for a few traffic or parking tickets. While crime is definitely a major problem, especially in big cities; it only takes a few news stories to convince some people that almost everyone is out to get them.
SchemaLoad 10mo ago
One of the best things platforms started doing is showing the account country of origin. Telegram started doing this this year using the users phone number country code when they cold DM you. When I see a random DM from my country, I respond. When I see it's from Nigeria, Russia, USA, etc I ignore it. It's almost 100% effective at highlighting scammers and bots. IMO all social media should show a little flag next to usernames showing where the comment is coming from.
- BoiledCabbage 10mo ago
  Yes, but as soon as scammers find their current methods ineffective they will swap to VPN and find a way to get "in country" phone numbers. There is a fundamental problem with large scale anonymous (non-verified) online interaction. Particularly in a system where engagement is valued. Even verified isn't much better if it's large scale and you push for engagement. There are always outliers in the world. In their community they are well know as outliers and most communities don't have anyone that extreme. Online every outlier is now your neighbor. And to others that "normalizes" outlier behaviors. It pushes everyone to the poles. Either encouraged by more extreme versions of people like them, or repelled by more extreme versions of people they oppose. And that's before you get to the intentional propaganda.
  - SchemaLoad 10mo ago
    In country phone numbers are quite hard to get since they have to be activated with ID. Sure scammers could start using stolen IDs, but that's already a barrier to entry. And you are limited to how many phone numbers you can register this way. Presumably with further tie ins to government services, one would be able to view all the phone numbers registered in their name to spot fraud and deactivate the numbers they don't own.
cosmic_cheese 10mo ago
Furthermore, this does well to illustrate how that handful of trolls is eroding away the mutual trust that makes modern civilization function. People get start to get the impression that everybody is awful and act accordingly. If allowed to continue to spiral, the consequences will be dire.
RiverCrochet 10mo ago
Any site with UGC should include posting frequency next to the name of posters, each time they appear on pages. If a post is someone's 500th for that day it provides a lot of valuable context.
- cosmic_cheese 10mo ago
  Ratio of posts:replies, average message length, and average message energy (negative, combative, inflammatory, etc) provide decent signal and would be nice to see too. Most trolls fall into distinct patterns across those.
- chiefalchemist 10mo ago
  I’m of the belief that HN would benefit from showing a user’s up-votes and down-votes, and perhaps even the post that happened within. Also limit down votes per day, or at least make karma points pay for them. There is definitely an “uneven and subjective” distribution of down-votes and it would be healthy to add some transparency.
  - RiverCrochet 10mo ago
    > I’m of the belief that HN would benefit from showing a user’s up-votes and down-votes Posting history of any account is already visible. That's already a lot of transparency. Having individual account vote histories visible won't add any benefit, but will increase ad hominem attacks within discussions, and will also increase hive-mind type voting. Hacker News is just a discussion forum. This isn't real life. The focus should be on the discussion more than the people-there's not much in the way of profiles. It's weird to ask more of a discussion forum than a government election process which actually does matter. > Also limit down votes per day Posts can already only be downvoted for a limited duration. You also can't downvote until you have 500 points. If you require spending points downvoting, it simply further incentivizes point harvesting or spending all day on HN so you can have more power, which only drives non-genuine activity. I think personally once you reach 1000 points a star should be displayed instead of the score.
    - 10mo ago
thaumasiotes 10mo ago
> And of course, this is why for-profit platforms are loathe to properly moderate. A social network that bans the trolls would be like a casino banning the whales or a bar banning the alcoholics. How so? It's not like Facebook charges you to post there.
- nemomarx 10mo ago
  Other users engaging with them drives views, I think is the idea. Without trolls to dunk on or general posts to get mad about, why go on Twitter?
kelseyfrog 10mo ago
I've always wondered who these people are, like demographically. We hold (or I do at least) certain stereotypes of what type of person they must be, but I'm sure I'm wrong and it'd be lovely to know how wrong I am.
- basilgohar 10mo ago
  Paid from lower income countries or Israel's section 8200.
  - kelseyfrog 10mo ago
    Interesting idea. Any numbers to back it up?
quantified 10mo ago
It doesn't take a lot of pee to spoil the soup.
themafia 10mo ago
> this is why for-profit platforms are loathe to properly moderate They measure the wrong things. Instead of measuring intangibles like project outcomes or user sentiment they measure engagement by time spent on site. It's the Howard Stern show problem on a "hyper scale." > A social network Given your points we should probably just properly call them "anti-social networks."
biophysboy 10mo ago
It also explains why large platforms can be so toxic. If there were a sport with 1000 players, you would need 100 referees, not 1. At scale, all you can really do is implement algorithmic solutions, which are much coarser and can be seriously frustrating for good-faith creators (e.g. YouTube demonetization) Arbitrators are good! They can be unfair or get things wrong, but they are absolutely essential. It boggles my mind how we decided we needed to re-learn human governance from scratch when it comes to the internet. Obviously the rules will be different, but arbitrators are practically universal in human institutions.
- nradov 10mo ago
  The stakes are much lower on social media. If a referee makes a bad call then I might lose the game so it's worth paying for sufficient and competent officials. But when I see offensive content on social media I just block it and move on with no harm done. As a user the value of increased governance is virtually zero.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 10mo ago
    > But when I see offensive content on social media I just block it and move on with no harm done. You may be in a minority here. Most people when they see harmful content react to it. And that reaction is perceived as engagement which further perpetuates and strengthen the signal.
    - nradov 10mo ago
      Content isn't harmful.
      - biophysboy 10mo ago
        CSAM is harmful
lanfeust6 10mo ago
Algorithms and perverse incentives are currently boosting that signal, however. Take this story for instance from the Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2025/12/american-anti-semitism-youth/685261/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2025/12/american-anti-semi... "Last week, the Yale Youth Poll released its fall survey, which found that “younger voters are more likely to hold antisemitic views than older voters.” When asked to choose whether Jews have had a positive, neutral, or negative impact on the United States, just 8 percent of respondents said “negative.” But among 18-to-22-year-olds, that number was 18 percent. Twenty-seven percent of 18-to-22-year-olds strongly or somewhat agreed that “Jews in the United States have too much power,” compared with 16 percent overall and just 11 percent of those over 65." It's easy to get exposed to extreme content on instagram, X, YT and elsewhere. Incendiary content leads to more engagement. The algorithms ain't alright.
SilverElfin 10mo ago
One danger is that the volume of toxic people does actually create large numbers of actually toxic people. For example when mainstream influencers or politicians endorse racist views even indirectly, it can shift give others permission to start saying the same things. Then that causes the other side to go further to an extreme on their side. And so on.

by Apreche 10mo ago

didgetmaster 10mo ago

It is very much like crime in general. The vast majority of crimes committed each year are by a tiny minority of people. Criminals often have a rap sheet as long as your arm; while a huge percentage of the population has never had a run-in with the law except for a few traffic or parking tickets. While crime is definitely a major problem, especially in big cities; it only takes a few news stories to convince some people that almost everyone is out to get them.

SchemaLoad 10mo ago

One of the best things platforms started doing is showing the account country of origin. Telegram started doing this this year using the users phone number country code when they cold DM you. When I see a random DM from my country, I respond. When I see it's from Nigeria, Russia, USA, etc I ignore it. It's almost 100% effective at highlighting scammers and bots. IMO all social media should show a little flag next to usernames showing where the comment is coming from.

BoiledCabbage 10mo ago
Yes, but as soon as scammers find their current methods ineffective they will swap to VPN and find a way to get "in country" phone numbers. There is a fundamental problem with large scale anonymous (non-verified) online interaction. Particularly in a system where engagement is valued. Even verified isn't much better if it's large scale and you push for engagement. There are always outliers in the world. In their community they are well know as outliers and most communities don't have anyone that extreme. Online every outlier is now your neighbor. And to others that "normalizes" outlier behaviors. It pushes everyone to the poles. Either encouraged by more extreme versions of people like them, or repelled by more extreme versions of people they oppose. And that's before you get to the intentional propaganda.
- SchemaLoad 10mo ago
  In country phone numbers are quite hard to get since they have to be activated with ID. Sure scammers could start using stolen IDs, but that's already a barrier to entry. And you are limited to how many phone numbers you can register this way. Presumably with further tie ins to government services, one would be able to view all the phone numbers registered in their name to spot fraud and deactivate the numbers they don't own.

cosmic_cheese 10mo ago

Furthermore, this does well to illustrate how that handful of trolls is eroding away the mutual trust that makes modern civilization function. People get start to get the impression that everybody is awful and act accordingly. If allowed to continue to spiral, the consequences will be dire.

RiverCrochet 10mo ago

Any site with UGC should include posting frequency next to the name of posters, each time they appear on pages. If a post is someone's 500th for that day it provides a lot of valuable context.

cosmic_cheese 10mo ago
Ratio of posts:replies, average message length, and average message energy (negative, combative, inflammatory, etc) provide decent signal and would be nice to see too. Most trolls fall into distinct patterns across those.
chiefalchemist 10mo ago
I’m of the belief that HN would benefit from showing a user’s up-votes and down-votes, and perhaps even the post that happened within. Also limit down votes per day, or at least make karma points pay for them. There is definitely an “uneven and subjective” distribution of down-votes and it would be healthy to add some transparency.
- RiverCrochet 10mo ago
  > I’m of the belief that HN would benefit from showing a user’s up-votes and down-votes Posting history of any account is already visible. That's already a lot of transparency. Having individual account vote histories visible won't add any benefit, but will increase ad hominem attacks within discussions, and will also increase hive-mind type voting. Hacker News is just a discussion forum. This isn't real life. The focus should be on the discussion more than the people-there's not much in the way of profiles. It's weird to ask more of a discussion forum than a government election process which actually does matter. > Also limit down votes per day Posts can already only be downvoted for a limited duration. You also can't downvote until you have 500 points. If you require spending points downvoting, it simply further incentivizes point harvesting or spending all day on HN so you can have more power, which only drives non-genuine activity. I think personally once you reach 1000 points a star should be displayed instead of the score.
  - 10mo ago

thaumasiotes 10mo ago

> And of course, this is why for-profit platforms are loathe to properly moderate. A social network that bans the trolls would be like a casino banning the whales or a bar banning the alcoholics. How so? It's not like Facebook charges you to post there.

nemomarx 10mo ago
Other users engaging with them drives views, I think is the idea. Without trolls to dunk on or general posts to get mad about, why go on Twitter?

kelseyfrog 10mo ago

I've always wondered who these people are, like demographically. We hold (or I do at least) certain stereotypes of what type of person they must be, but I'm sure I'm wrong and it'd be lovely to know how wrong I am.

basilgohar 10mo ago
Paid from lower income countries or Israel's section 8200.
- kelseyfrog 10mo ago
  Interesting idea. Any numbers to back it up?

quantified 10mo ago

It doesn't take a lot of pee to spoil the soup.

themafia 10mo ago

> this is why for-profit platforms are loathe to properly moderate They measure the wrong things. Instead of measuring intangibles like project outcomes or user sentiment they measure engagement by time spent on site. It's the Howard Stern show problem on a "hyper scale." > A social network Given your points we should probably just properly call them "anti-social networks."

biophysboy 10mo ago

It also explains why large platforms can be so toxic. If there were a sport with 1000 players, you would need 100 referees, not 1. At scale, all you can really do is implement algorithmic solutions, which are much coarser and can be seriously frustrating for good-faith creators (e.g. YouTube demonetization) Arbitrators are good! They can be unfair or get things wrong, but they are absolutely essential. It boggles my mind how we decided we needed to re-learn human governance from scratch when it comes to the internet. Obviously the rules will be different, but arbitrators are practically universal in human institutions.

nradov 10mo ago
The stakes are much lower on social media. If a referee makes a bad call then I might lose the game so it's worth paying for sufficient and competent officials. But when I see offensive content on social media I just block it and move on with no harm done. As a user the value of increased governance is virtually zero.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 10mo ago
  > But when I see offensive content on social media I just block it and move on with no harm done. You may be in a minority here. Most people when they see harmful content react to it. And that reaction is perceived as engagement which further perpetuates and strengthen the signal.
  - nradov 10mo ago
    Content isn't harmful.
    - biophysboy 10mo ago
      CSAM is harmful

lanfeust6 10mo ago

Algorithms and perverse incentives are currently boosting that signal, however. Take this story for instance from the Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2025/12/american-anti-semitism-youth/685261/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2025/12/american-anti-semi... "Last week, the Yale Youth Poll released its fall survey, which found that “younger voters are more likely to hold antisemitic views than older voters.” When asked to choose whether Jews have had a positive, neutral, or negative impact on the United States, just 8 percent of respondents said “negative.” But among 18-to-22-year-olds, that number was 18 percent. Twenty-seven percent of 18-to-22-year-olds strongly or somewhat agreed that “Jews in the United States have too much power,” compared with 16 percent overall and just 11 percent of those over 65." It's easy to get exposed to extreme content on instagram, X, YT and elsewhere. Incendiary content leads to more engagement. The algorithms ain't alright.

SilverElfin 10mo ago

One danger is that the volume of toxic people does actually create large numbers of actually toxic people. For example when mainstream influencers or politicians endorse racist views even indirectly, it can shift give others permission to start saying the same things. Then that causes the other side to go further to an extreme on their side. And so on.