politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Im half expecting you to call for Biden to re-run again.
Your trolling says more about you than it does me. I advocated to swap the candidate for literally months because Biden was an absolute TRAINWRECK of a candidate. There was about a 0% chance of Biden winning this election, and if I recall correctly, you defended keeping him as the candidate, in-spite of the incredibly obvious fact that he was losing the election in a dramatic fashion. You defended him to the point of calling any one asking to remove him a trolls, bots, and Russian assets.
So you weren't interested in improving the Democrats chances of winning. You were just behaving like an abusive troll. And I called that Biden wouldn't be the candidate litterally 8 months out. I was right, and literally almost everyone in this forum was wrong.
And for a few weeks, we had a good thing going with Kamala. But she's shifted to campaigning with neocon's and being "pro-buisness", and accordingly, her polling is dropping off a cliff.
She needs to shift back to how she campaigned/ policies she had before and up until the convention. IF she doesn't, she will lose this election.
But you aren't here for nuance. You just want to pretend that you are on the right side of anything.
And just as before, you aren't interested in figuring out what it would take Kamala to win. You are just here to abuse.
No.
What will I find if I look?
You’ll just say I deleted comments, the truth doesn’t matter much to some people.
You can just tell people now what you already know. Like its all out here in the open. You can't really lie in the fediverse.
I think you misunderstood my comment.
Anyways, I’ll wait.
Have fun!
[I had to switch to a larger compute instance]
@SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
Ok, results are in. Firstly, just some preliminary stuff on your posting behavior. I only pulled your last 6k comments, which goes back to February. You caught me at a good time, because I had been working on parts of this for a while for some network analyses I'm working on looking at the relationship between moderation bias and community sentiment, so I had some of these tools just laying around.
It looks like you really got posting in around April, and hit your stride over summer. You've slowed down a bit since. Also, you tend post most frequently at about 19:00 GMT or 3PM EST/ 12 PST, and then again around midnight GMT, or about 8PM EST/ 5PM PST.
For this work, I'll be using some models from this paper: https://huggingface.co/papers/2409.02078, "Political DEBATE: Efficient Zero-shot and Few-shot Classifiers for Political Text". This tool allows me to set up hypotheses like the following.
multilabel entailment labels
The multilabel option determines if more than one hypothesis can be true for the document. If false, the most likely label is returned. If true, a dictionary of labels and their estimated probability is returned.
Below is the result of the hypothesis 'The author of this reply {} Biden.', with the two options: {h0: 'is talking about', h1: 'is not talking about'], where we accept h0 at >0.5
It appears that your posts mention Biden at a relatively uniform rate. Please note that we're in percent of posts, not count (as with the previous two figures), since your post frequency has changed over time. It seems like for any given week, 5-15% of your posts typically mention Biden.
So for the below analysis, I tested the hypothesis "The author of this reply {} Biden.", with h0 being "is supportive of" and h1 being "is in opposition to". I only performed this analysis that had a very high probability of being about Biden.
So, "generally" supportive, but not crazy. You started less supportive of Biden than you are now, but like I said, I only grabbed the previous 6k comments of yours. Generally you seem to be about 50/50 on Biden. Which is against my previous assumption, I thought you were more supportive of Biden (closer to 80-90%).
The next experiment I ran was the test (on all of your comments, not just the ones mentioning Biden) was the hypothesis "The author of this reply {} Biden.", with h0 being "is being abusive, or trolling." and h1 being "is being honest and genuine.". I ran this test on all comments.
Honestly, @SatansMaggotyCumFart@SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world , I think you can up your game. You've got ample headroom to live up to your legacy.
HOWEVER.. If we look at the same results for posts which are explicitly about Biden... we can see that you are trolling and abusive at a rate much higher than your background rate.
So there is your answer. Not as bad as I thought, but not great. Definitely an abusive troll when it comes to political discussions.
Some limitations about this approach. I want to expand it to include the context that a given comments sits in. Its fine for a cursory analysis like this to just use single comments, but context is key. I think we'll get much clearer signal/ noise with more context. Also, these conversations happen in a threaded manner. I need to develop a way of accounting for that. I'll probably pull some methods that I've used for network analysis for that component. But I got the major issues out of the way, and I can run these kinds of analysis for anyone on the fediverse. So for a preliminary step, its at least on its way to being sufficient to identify bad faith/ troll accounts.
By what basis do you consider a comment abusive or trolling?
Don’t forget this is what you’re trying to prove, and you make a bunch of charts that don’t really prove anything instead.
Its part of how the hypothesis is set up. You can read the paper I cited here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.02078
So specifically for that question the hypothesis “The author of this reply {} Biden.”, with h0 being “is being abusive, or trolling.” and h1 being “is being honest and genuine.”
And on your second point, since I've still got the data up, we can address that specifically. We'll address the following hypotheses. 'The author of this reply {}': 'is accusing someone of being a russian asset.', 'is accusing some one of trolling.', 'is accusing someone of being a bot.', 'is accusing someone of engaging in bad faith', 'is having a normal conversation'.
Only if you lack reading comprehension.
No, you’re pretty much stating you created a tool to detect trolling better than any tech company has and you’re using it on me.
Or you’re just drawing random graphs.
You’re trying to say 50% of my comments are accusing people of arguing in bad faith?
I think I’d test the model if I were you.
Sorry I should have been more clear. That was for the "high confidence that the conversation is around Biden" cohort of comments. So within a subset of about 5% of your overall number of comments., so maybe 2.5 - 5% of comments in total you are making one of these kinds of accusations, or about 1:20 or 1:40. I ran a frequency analysis, and at several points you just spam the same comment over and over again, so that might be skewing things. I'm not sure that should be filtered out, because it is trolling.
And yes, I think more testing is required, but most importantly, I think I need to get more of a context window around comments. I want to do this using the whole comment chain or thread. That gets more complicated because now you have 'identities' (speaker A, speaker B, C.. etc), which is where the graphical approach is going to show its benefits. Again, work for another time. At least at a first pass, a few minutes of work adjacent to some other work I'm doing level of effort, its more than sufficient to make my point.
Ok.
I’d be selling it to Google, Facebook or Reddit for many millions but keep using your amazing moderation tool on me buddy.
I’m curious what would happen if you use it on UniversalMonk?
But I almost guarantee there’s a reason why you can’t or won’t.
I'm putting dinner together but I'd be happy to run UM if you would like me to. In exchange would you read the paper so you can understand how the sentiment analysis works? Its important for hypothesis testing. You need to set up good hypotheses for this to be effective.I'm going to down load their comment database now. You work on coming up with some hypotheses.
@satansmaggotycumfart@SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
I'm downloading the data and will save it to disk, but am about to sit down to dinner. I'll save the output and either drop the hypotheses you want to test here or dm me, but I may not respond tonight.
Oh, that’s the reason you won’t, right?
Because I’m not a computer scientist so I can’t understand the sentiment analysis and come up with appropriate hypotheses?
You were able to for me so why aren’t you able to again?
The fuck are you talking about. I literally said I was doing it in my response.
Bruh this is why you come up as a troll in so much of your comments.
Maybe work on your reading comprehension.
I’m glad you proved my point that you are unwilling or unable to perform the same analysis that you claimed you did on me.
I'm literally setting up for that right now, and for the third time you are accusing of not doing exactly what I'm trying to do for you. It takes a while to download all the comments. I'll let you know when I have them.
That’s the part you might be having troubles with.
I’ve tried telling you that a couple times now.
Did you open the paper and read it? The hypothesis are very simple.
They need to be set up with two parts, the first a predicate, then the second part is a couple options..
So for example a hypothesis can be set up in two parts as follows:
Part A:
"The author of this comment { } about a border wall"
Part B:
["thinks negatively" | "thinks positively" "is neutral"]
The options are intended to fill in the gap in the curly braces.
The model will give a probabilistic ranking of the three options, so you need to think carefully about how you set up your hypothesis.
Like I said drop them here or dm me and I can run them once I've scrapped UMs comments.