195
196

Someone Quantified Which Subreddits Are the Most Toxic (motherboard.vice.com)

User_Name13 が 投稿

全 155 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順

[–]Snoopyflieshigh 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I would like to know how much a sub gets affected once it becomes default or popular. I know many of us have noticed the decline of some subs but a few have actually grown positively.

[–]sylban 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Becoming a default seems to be the killer for many subs that I personally think would be better otherwise. To me, it just invites in large numbers of reddit's lowest-common-denominator users, who then clog up the sub with their immature crap, encouraging some better contributors to bail. I think most regular users abandon most default subs after awhile for this reason.

Way back in LiveJournal days, they used to have a Community of the Day feature, and after I saw what happened to some of those, I contacted the admins and begged them to never list us in that.

[–]BenjaminBell 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would like to know how much a sub gets affected once it becomes default or popular. I know many of us have noticed the decline of some subs but a few have actually grown positively.

I really like this idea. Hmmm... now just to get the data...

[–]Goat_Porker 74 ポイント75 ポイント  (17子コメント)

Not sure how /r/sex made it on the most toxic list. Very few comments on there are bigoted or ad hominem. It's probably an issue with their automated identification of comments. I imagine they use a bag of words type system and popular words on the sub (fuck, pussy, etc) are auto classified as toxic without context.

Overall not impressed with the analysis and wouldn't put much weight on their results.

[–]BenjaminBell 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Hey there! I ran the study. There was no auto-classification involved. All comments were labeled by human annotators as Toxic or Supportive. We did use a bag-of-words type system to narrow down which comments were included in the study, but that had nothing to do with the labeling.

Here are some toxic comments that were found on /r/sex

[–]calf 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I read the article and I guess what I don't understand is this: you decided on an operational, linguistic notion called Toxicity (i.e., three people evaluating a corpus of online comments), which gives you a measure of which subreddits are Toxic, but where do you attempt to correlate—calibrate—what you've measured with actual instances of toxicity (or harder, the general level of toxicity in those subreddits), which is a feature of social relations/dynamics, as opposed to individual sentences taken out of their context only to serve as an approximation.

Suppose I wrote a program to detect images of cats, and I helped it along by picking some criteria for what I think passes for a cat. But somewhere I actually have to check that my program is actually detecting cat photos, right? And I can't do this validation step by claiming my machine is already doing it correctly.

[–]lurker093287h 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No pressure on answering this, but why was /r/SubredditDrama so toxic and bigoted, was it people saying stuff that was racist/etc or intolerance of opinions, and why was it so toxic specifically.

[–]Lodi0831 27 ポイント28 ポイント  (8子コメント)

I don't know. They'll downvote you to hell for not liking anal on that sub. Maybe that's just a poor generalization on my part though.

[–]BenjaminBell 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Hi there - author of the blog post here! This was the reason that was given for /r/sex being toxic in the original thread - and why it was included in the analysis

[–]Lodi0831 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Haha really?? That's crazy. Yeah I've just recently started noticing the love of anal on that sub. I mean, whatever floats your boat, but why downvote people for not liking it?

[–]meatpuppet79 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Reddit to varying extents per sub, functions on the premise of 'MY OPINION DEFINES ME AS A PERSON, IF YOU DISAGREE WITH MY OPINIONS YOU ARE CRITICIZING ME PERSONALLY!", hence the surplus of pouty downvotes if you go against the current. Also there's the dogpile effect... if a comment can be downvoted to beneath a particular threshold (dependent upon the toxicity of the sub being posted on), others will reflexively downvote the comment further as part of some weird group think/group dynamics.

[–]mage2k 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

While those folks definitely will sing the praises of puttin' it in the pooper I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually downvoted for saying they're not into it.

[–]Lodi0831 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I've seen it quite a few times. Could just be the threads I've come across though. Maybe it's not a 100% representation of the sub. Just an observation from a lurker.

[–]megagreg 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Really? I find it pretty toxic. Hey, /r/sex the dark ages called, they want their morals back.

There are supportive sex positive people there, but they're often swimming in a deluge of uptight puritans harping on about their narrow view of what's healthy or not.

[–][削除されました]  (2子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]anubus72 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    hey man you should read the article before saying things like this, they explained their entire methodology

    [–]nbx909 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I would actually argue that /r/sex could be a good measurement of error of the analysis.

    [–]CentralHarlem 44 ポイント45 ポイント  (11子コメント)

    Their dataset is comically small -- they started with just 1000 comments per subreddit, then winnowed it down to 100 for the final scoring.

    [–]SDSSJ102915172927 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (9子コメント)

    And a lot of comments in subs will be quotes, sarcasm, irony, jokes, or slurs in the context of discussions on slurs as apposed to using slurs as an insult. So it's just not accurate

    [–]BenjaminBell 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (8子コメント)

    Hi there - author of the blog post here! Insults needed to be directed at someone in particular in a malicious way to be considered Toxic. However, if racist slurs were used, regardless of the context, it would be considered Toxic. If a community is bigoted, if your language would make another group outside the discussion feel highly uncomfortable, that's Toxic, regardless of if they are treating one another badly.

    [–]SDSSJ102915172927 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I regularly discuss slurs and stuff like that in SRD, but I won't censor the slurs during these discussions. So will this contribute to bumping SRD up the list?

    [–]heisgone 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I invite you to compare your results to the result with Watson. I posted them below. They match your results in some ways.

    [–]indigomaster 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    So if I said 'the word "nigger" should never be used in any context outside of historical education.' This subreddit would be considered toxic?

    [–]anubus72 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    if you said this comment enough then yes probably

    [–]BenjaminBell 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    that wouldn't be considered toxic - it's a requirement that it must make the referenced group feel highly uncomfortable

    [–]indigomaster 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    How does an algorithm know that

    [–]BenjaminBell 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    We used human annotators to label all the comments, there was no computer making the decisions. 3 people rated every comment for Toxicity and Supportiveness.

    [–]indigomaster 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    that gives the opportunity for bias to arise

    [–]ARealRedWagon 39 ポイント40 ポイント  (16子コメント)

    Bell offered "GASP are they trying CENSOR your FREE SPEECH??? I weep for you /s," as an example.

    So sarcasm counts as toxic language?

    All that aside, /r/shitredditsays as most toxic and /r/TheRedPill as most bigoted - not too surprising.

    [–]Dirk-Killington 27 ポイント28 ポイント  (11子コメント)

    It becomes clearer when you read the sentence directly before it.

    "They decided to define an individual comment as toxic if it was either an ad hominem attack (as in non-constructive criticism) or if it was blatantly bigoted, or both. Bell offered "GASP are they trying CENSOR your FREE SPEECH??? I weep for you /s," as an example."

    [–]h76CH36 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (8子コメント)

    That sort of metric would really screw things against /r/tumblrinaction or other subreddits in which many comments are purposefully sarcastic.

    [–]UPBOAT_FORTRESS_2 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    I don't know if I agree. I'm sure there's a more concise meta-aware way to say this, but if everyone on /r/tumblrinaction is a mega-sarcastic asshole to parody Tumblr toxicity, then the sub can still be toxic even if no one actually gets butthurt.

    [–]h76CH36 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Just saying that the metric they used could easily give false positives for subs that are merely sarcastic. As for TiA, the vast majority of people who frequent it are on the same page to the extent where there's not a lot of legitimate drama to be found. What resembles a personal attack is almost always facetious.

    [–]MarshallBanana 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Just saying that the metric they used could easily give false positives for subs that are merely sarcastic.

    And the counterpoint is that that is not necessarily a false positive.

    [–]h76CH36 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    necessarily

    [–]MarshallBanana 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Yes, that is a word I typed.

    [–]BenjaminBell 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Hi there - author of the blog post here! Regular old sarcasm wouldn't get you Toxicity, in order to be labeled as Toxic, the commenter would need to be directing the sarcasm at another Redditor in a malicious way. The only way for a comment to be labeled as Toxic if it wasn't directed would be for it to show overt bigotry.

    [–]h76CH36 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It all just seems so subjective. As a scientist, I'm afraid that I don't trust your methodology.

    [–]multiusedrone 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Ironic/sarcastic toxicity tends to breed actual toxic behaviour over time. Especially with places like /r/TumblrInAction and /r/circlebroke. So I think it works very well with that in mind.

    [–]GeekAesthete 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    That seems fairly reasonable. It's not the sarcasm part, it's being a dick to the other commenters.

    [–]aponderingpanda 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Exactly. Which makes me wonder why they were so surprised srs was on top.

    [–]MarshallBanana 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    So sarcasm counts as toxic language?

    Yes, that seems fairly obvious.

    [–]graphictruth 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I suppose it would be... to you.

    /s, gdr LOL, etc.

    [–]JessHWV 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    if sarcasm counts as toxic language, it doesn't surprise me that r/SRS is considered the most toxic. it's a circlejerk; saying anything non-sarcastic can get you banned.

    [–]AceyJuan 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    “I was surprised that /r/ShitRedditSays was at the top. I didn’t expect it to be number one,” Ben Bell

    Hilarious from word one. Thanks for this post un13.

    [–]DubTeeDub 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (13子コメント)

    So /r/BlackPeopleTwitter is apparently more bigoted than /r/imgoingtohellforthis, /r/cringepics, /r/AdviceAnimals, /r/politics, f7u12, and /r/TrollXChromosomes.

    Not like we dont constantly remove racist comments and ban dozens of them everyday or anything.

    Also /r/libertarian was so unbigoted apparently that they got a negative score on the bigotry scale.

    Why are none of the awful chimpire subreddits listed as bigoted?

    This whole thing is absolutely ridiculous.

    [–]ASS_KRACKERS 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Hilariously ridiculous, actually. The guy used a fucking AskReddit thread as his source material. Of course the results are going to be stupid and nonsensical. I don't see how anyone could take this graph seriously.

    [–]anubus72 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    he compared what people in askreddit said to what his own process resulted in. What's wrong with that, and why does it invalidate the entire article?

    [–]B_Provisional 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Why are none of the awful chimpire subreddits listed as bigoted?

    Do they have enough subscribers to make it into the top 250 subs? The study only analyzed the most popular subreddits, not the entirety of reddit.

    [–]BenjaminBell 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Hi there! I'm actually the author of the original blog post and would love to answer your question. We only included the top 250 subreddits by number of subscribers, in addition to any subreddit with a score on the AskReddit thread of > 150, none of the chimpire subreddits met those criteria. Comments were scraped from the front page of the subreddit and labeled by human annotaters - so the racist comments that were removed wouldn't have counted, only the ones that were actually visible on the front page (without clicking "more comments")

    [–]antennanarivo 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Hi. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

    You can understand we might be upset when one of our main jobs as moderators in the subreddit is to combat racism. It means we have failed to some extent. That's why my fellow mods are reacting the way they are. On top of that, we are constantly combating accusations that the premise of our sub is deliberately racist.

    Is it possible for you to show us which comments were considered toxic? If not publicly, perhaps in a message to the moderators?

    [–]Perennial_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Interesting, the lack of reply after several days. What a ridiculous 'quantification' study.

    [–]antennanarivo 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Hmm, yeah, I don't want to draw too many conclusions, but it doesn't look that good. And of course, Gawker has jumped on it now to condemn us.

    [–]antennanarivo 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    But I find it difficult to believe that we are more toxic than /r/politics.

    [–]BenjaminBell 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Hey! I'll look into getting you those toxic comments but there really weren't many! If you look at the data, /r/TrueReddit is one of the least toxic subreddits with 9% Toxicity and 8% Supportiveness. Wayyy lower than /r/politics at 28% Toxicity and 5% Supportiveness.

    [–]antennanarivo 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Sorry, I was unclear. I'm a moderator of /r/BlackPeopleTwitter. That's the subreddit I'm referring to, not /r/TrueReddit.

    [–]JManRomania 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    polanball is all joeks

    no serious except REMOVE GIPSY FROM RUMANIA

    (In all seriousness, Polandball is all joke)

    [–]DubTeeDub 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    That's fair, I removed them from my post.

    [–]nope_nic_tesla 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    This is a terrible analysis. They should have used something like a sentiment analysis which is based on actual scientific research people have done on word usage, instead of what sounds like manual and subjective categorization of comments using a laughably low sample size for each subreddit.

    Also, it says they pared down 1000 randomly selected comments into 100 comments per subreddit after removing "neutral" comments. How did this selection take place, who chose which ones were neutral and what was the criteria for that? This exposes enormous sample selection bias which they don't really explain.

    This is an interesting idea but I would not read too much into these results, the methodology is just straight up bad.

    [–]autowikibot 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Sentiment analysis:

    Sentiment analysis (also known as opinion mining) refers to the use of natural language processing, text analysis and computational linguistics to identify and extract subjective information in source materials.

    Generally speaking, sentiment analysis aims to determine the attitude of a speaker or a writer with respect to some topic or the overall contextual polarity of a document. The attitude may be his or her judgment or evaluation (see appraisal theory), affective state (that is to say, the emotional state of the author when writing), or the intended emotional communication (that is to say, the emotional effect the author wishes to have on the reader).

    Interesting: Text mining | Hashtag | Market sentiment

    Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

    [–]BenjaminBell 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Hi there! Author of the original blog post here. Sorry you think our analysis was sub-par, let me see if I can answer some of your questions.

    First, in fact, we did use sentiment analysis - but only for the task of narrowing down the number of comments required for human annotation (so the narrowing from 1000 --> 100 was not random). The fact is, a task as complex as labeling comments as Toxic is far beyond what sentiment analysis can currently handle. At Idibon, we specialize in combining machine learning with human annotation and that's what we did in this case. Because we sentiment analysis to narrow down the comments to the ones most likely to be Toxic, it allowed us to use a smaller sample size.

    Second, we provided detailed explanations on Toxicity and Supportiveness along with examples for our human annotators - of which there were around 500 from around the globe. Who, as third party annotators with access only to the comments (not the subreddit, scores or anything) gave us unbiased labels.

    Hope that answers your questions!

    [–]shibbidybibbidy 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Not surprised to see who tops these lists. SRS no doubt is toxic and not supportive. Get motivated is very supporting, nice to see :3

    [–]JeddHampton 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I've been on get motivated plenty, and I can't remember anything but supportive comments from there.

    [–]IMAROBOTLOL 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    This caused the most delightful drama before being pulled from /r/technology

    [–]Omnibrad 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (47子コメント)

    Bigotry by subreddit. Bigotry is defined as "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself" though the article doesn't really say much about it.

    Top 5, all pretty close:
    1) TheRedPill
    2) opieandanthony
    3) atheism
    4) sex
    5) justneckbeardthings

    Then there's a bit of a jump to the next 4:
    6) ShitRedditSays
    7) TumblrInAction
    8) 4chan
    9) SubredditDrama

    Then another jump:
    10) BlackPeopleTwitter
    11) relationships
    12) JusticePorn
    13) ImGoingToHellForThis
    14) videos
    15) cringepics
    16) WTF

    And then another drop and a pretty smoothing out curve.

    [–]TheDarkFiddler 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    I think the only reason SRS isn't higher is because it'll ban you if you interrupt the circlejerk. /r/atheism can be bad, but it's not worse than SRS.

    [–]AdvocateForLucifer -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    One of the reasons SRS is so high in the first place is because it's a circlejerk. Probably less than 30% of the comments are actually serious.

    [–]Omnicronpersei9 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Yawn. Take a trip through their affiliated subs and you would realize how wrong you are.

    [–]h76CH36 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (9子コメント)

    I find it odd that /r/TumblrInAction made that list. This may be a sampling error as users there are almost always purposely sarcastic.

    [–]ThePerdmeister 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (6子コメント)

    You're surprised TiA ranks highly on a list grading "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself"? Really?

    [–]Phokus1983 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    If being intolerant towards otherkins and people who get PTSD from 'mean' comments is wrong, i don't want to be right.

    [–]ThePerdmeister -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    No one really cares about otherkin, but much of TiA is intolerant of pretty much any progressive perspectives on race, gender, sexuality, etc.

    With regards to the woman who got PTSD from so-called "mean" comments, I mean, this wasn't a matter of people just politely (or even impolitely) disagreeing with her; she was being harassed and receiving death/rape threats constantly (via e-mail, video, social media, telephone, etc.) for well over a year. I mean, I realize all the hardened Twitter/Reddit/4chan psychologists know that PTSD only affects manly men who're sent off to war or some such thing, but in an article referencing the case of Hensley titled "Can one get PTSD via Twitter?" an actual psychologist had this to say:

    "Bullying has long been known to have a severe impact on mental health, particularly if the bullying is repeated and prolonged... Research focusing specifically on cyberbullying has found very similar results to 'traditional' bullying, in terms of increased risk of depression, suicide, and anxiety. In youth, around a third of bullying victims display quite high rates of PTSD symptoms and rates are perhaps even higher in adults who are bullied.

    So, given what we know about PTSD, and given what we know about the effects of bullying (cyber and otherwise) on mental health, I think it’s relatively safe to say that 'Yes, you can ‘get’ PTSD from Twitter.' ... Twitter and other forms of social media are just a new tool to use to bully and harass others, but the underlying mechanisms and the results are the same as if these interactions were face to face."

    [–]Phokus1983 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    but much of TiA is intolerant of pretty much any progressive perspectives on race, gender, sexuality, etc.

    I don't think that's really true

    Bullying has long been known to have a severe impact on mental health, particularly if the bullying is repeated and prolonged... Research focusing specifically on cyberbullying has found very similar results to 'traditional' bullying, in terms of increased risk of depression, suicide, and anxiety. In youth, around a third of bullying victims display quite high rates of PTSD symptoms and rates are perhaps even higher in adults who are bullied.

    I agree that bullying can cause harm. I can agree that cyberbullying can sometimes cause harm if it's like people you know IRL/social peers and it's being done on facebook. But people who get 'bullied' by people they don't know on twitter are weak as fuck and deserve to be ridiculed.

    [–]ThePerdmeister -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I don't think that's really true

    It is.

    But people who get 'bullied' by people they don't know on twitter are weak as fuck and deserve to be ridiculed.

    Dude, she was being harassed constantly, and she frequently received death/rape threats. I mean, it's not even as if this harassment was exclusive to online spaces (which really aren't as compartmentalized from the "real world" as you seem to think), she was also being harassed over the phone (people even contacted her employers and family for Christ's sake). If she said she got PTSD from a couple online disagreements, I'd say that was absurd, but she was being constantly harassed for well over a year.

    What's more, this notion that "oh, she's weak as fuck, so we should pile on more abuse" is just absurd. Yes, let's further harass a woman who got PTSD from our constant harassment; that makes perfect sense.

    [–]h76CH36 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Depends on the metric being used. TiA is a circle jerk, yes, and it's insensitive to those who they community itself perceives as toxic. What I am saying is that from the metric the 'study' claims to have used, it would be easy to get a false positive from a community that was merely sarcastic.

    [–]00worms00 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I would have been shocked not to see TiA on one of the lists. If you can't see why you might be kind of a jerk. Sorry d00d.

    [–]h76CH36 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Jerk, or someone who finds tumblr culture to be ridiculous and enjoys laughing at their absurd excesses.

    [–]nophoney 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    1) TheRedPill

    Apparently it's true. There's no such thing as bad publicity.

    [–]independence21 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (31子コメント)

    This is a useless analysis without marking coontown being on the list.

    [–]GeekAesthete 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (26子コメント)

    To get the raw data, Bell used the Re​ddit API to scrape 1,000 comments from each of the top 250 subreddits, as well as the most popular subreddits mentioned in the original /r/AskReddit post

    He's going for numbers, as the smaller a subreddit is, the less influential, regardless of how awful its content might be. I suspect most of the overtly racist subreddits don't fall into the top 250. Stuff like /r/BlackPeopleTwitter and /r/ImGoingToHellForThis veil their awfulness behind irony ("I'm not really racist, I'm just making a joke"), which allows for more interaction with the larger reddit userbase. /r/Coontown, on the other hand, doesn't hide their awfulness (and so, in a way, they're actually less toxic to reddit at large).

    [–]00worms00 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (20子コメント)

    r/BlackPeopleTwitter is generally a very lighthearted and positive sub. Especially before it became as popular as it is now. The people who are there as an excuse to be racist are downvoted.

    Seeing how r/coontown is the reddit embassy for stormfront brigades, IDK how you can say they don't hurt the site. They can effect any sub through brigading.

    [–]the_dinks 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    you the real mvp

    [–]daylight 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Stuff like /r/BlackPeopleTwitter and /r/ImGoingToHellForThis veil their awfulness behind irony

    The difference is /r/BlackPeopleTwitter is largely black on black casual racism while /r/ImGoingToHellForThis is filled with ex-/r/niggers subscribers.

    [–]00worms00 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    And probably half the BPT jokes are just generally funny things with a black inflection.

    [–]DubTeeDub -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Dont forget current /r/coontown subscribers.

    [–]the_dinks 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    /r/BlackPeopleTwitter is about celebrating a certain style of humor. We're not making fun of anyone.

    [–]DubTeeDub 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    There is no way you can compare /r/BlackPeopleTwitter and /r/ImGoingToHellForThis or any of the chimpire subreddits.

    [–]AceyJuan 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    What you don't know is that SRS aggressively bans people who disagree. The fact that they're still on the list having banned everyone who disagrees is a testament to their incredible intolerance.

    [–]superphuntyme 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    It's interesting that /r/asoiaf is on there. I wonder if it's more of a result of the topic of discussion and how they debate over there. They do manage to say "tinfoil" in every other sentence.

    [–]candygram4mongo 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    They apparently define bigotry as "intolerance of others opinions", so it's presumably not a matter of "black ppl suk amirite", but rather "No, Varys is not a fucking merman".

    [–]DrStrangewood 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Oh, my sweet summer child...

    [–]d-atribe 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    There's been a lot more aggression in that sub since the show started up. Also some strange divisions where people take sides against each other in support of their favorite Tinfoil Jesus and his latest L + R = Jon Snow is the creator theory.

    [–]Megatron_McLargeHuge 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    That was definitely true for a different version of this analysis that had ASOIAF and MMA subs at the top for most negative because of all the discussions of violence.

    [–]ILikeBumblebees 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    When did "toxic" become a synonym for "unwelcoming"? Isn't this use of language just a little bit hyperbolic?

    [–]Abysssion 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (20子コメント)

    I'd give the worst subs to /r/childfree /r/fatpeoplehate /r/Coontown

    [–]tehbored 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    /r/fatpeoplehate is fucking ridiculous. I mean, I can understand /r/fatlogic, but fatpeoplehate is just being mean for the sake of being mean.

    [–]AceyJuan 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    You know what's crazy? /r/fatpeoplehate is full of fat people hating themselves.

    That might sound a little crazy to you, like gay Republicans who chamption anti-gay legislation. But you can see the same thing in most of the feminist subs, where white men hate on white men.

    The more extreme the hate, the more likely it's people hating themselves. I'm not sure why black people and Jews never started self-hate groups. Maybe they got enough external hate already.

    [–]Comaburr 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I HIGHLY doubt that... every time a topic from that sub makes it to the front page, it's full of hundreds of comments from people all over Reddit. There's no possible way the majority of people on that sub are self loathing obese people; that would take an irrational amount of obese masochists. If I was obese and frequented that sub on a daily basis, I'd have killed myself a long time ago. It's the very definition of toxic.

    [–]AceyJuan -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    People hating themselves. Sounds crazy, doesn't it? Well, it is crazy. But it happens all the time.

    [–]B_Provisional 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Are those subs in the top 250? Because that's all they analyzed.

    [–]TheDrBrian 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    What's wrong with childfree?

    [–]sirbruce 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    The problem is their own data shows their formula is wrong.

    Whether or not something is toxic is subjective because language is what we say it is. In other words, something is toxic because we say it is toxic. Now, why do we say it is toxic? Presumably there are attributes of toxicity that correspond with the label, and a good formula could weigh those attributes and predict, in advance, whether or not something would be labeled toxic.

    But here, the survey of what people say is toxic does not correspond well at all with what their formula says is toxic. And if you claim, "Well, you're wrong; such-n-such forum is not toxic per this formula" you're not really helping, because you've clearly invented a different definition of toxic from THEIR definition, and good luck substituting yours as what the word toxic should "really" mean. Even if you succeed, you've changed nothing; they still attribute some sort of like-toxic-ness to these subreddits that your formula can't measure.

    [–]nope_nic_tesla 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Honestly this entire thing is embarrassingly bad from a methodology perspective.

    [–]Maarek 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    "I was surprised that /r/ShitRedditSays was at the top. I didn’t expect it to be number one,” said Ben Bell, who has lived on Jupiter for the last 3 years.

    [–]BenjaminBell 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Hahaha fair enough - I expected it to be up there, but not #1

    [–]heisgone 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I ran a Watson user analysis on some subs some time ago. It give different attributes like anger and cooperation and other traits. I picked subs that would give a wild range of results and some of those are in the list of this article. My results:

    http://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/2r10jc/i_ran_ibm_watson_user_modeling_on_a_few_subreddit/

    [–]AceyJuan 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Too much data to casually understand. If you pulled out some notable samples it would help.

    [–]meatpuppet79 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    I'm surprised not at all about SRS taking the prize for most toxic... the snark and bile and malignant, self referential self righteousness there is almost unbearable.

    [–]sylban -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    What seems to be common across the leaders is devotion to mockery, and especially group support of mockery. Just like grade school, yes? These are apparently people who never really grew up, and have a need for the social support of their negative behaviour that they enjoyed when they were (in some cases much) younger. Many (hopefully most) others do not feel that need, having grown past it.

    I recall that years ago on LiveJournal there were a couple of communities (LJ equivalent of subs) that were devoted to mockery, and they were similar. A surprising amount of infighting. Apparently, the mentality to mock does not stop at the seemingly inclusive borders of the defined community. Mockers gonna mock, and any target available is as good as any other.

    [–]meatpuppet79 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Mockery is at the core of SRS, no doubt. It's almost as though they really think that by having this 'just kidding' type smirk, all their regrettable behavior and language, and their honestly poisonous opinions ('stop liking what we don't like!' 'stop being what we don't agree with!') is somehow ok and justified. /r/GamerGhazi is cut from almost identical cloth.

    [–]mtwestbr 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Needs more charts and data. Interesting topic, but spends too much time on the methods and not enough on the results. Of course it is going to be subjective analysis based on what the author determines as toxic so actually even methodology needs to be fleshed out a bit more IMO.

    [–]GeekAesthete 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    spends too much time on the methods

    even methodology needs to be fleshed out a bit more IMO

    Ummm...

    [–]BenjaminBell 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Hi all!

    Thank you all so much for your sincere interest! Due to the overwhelming response to our study, the Idibon data science team will be doing an AMA today at 4 PT from Reddit HQ - where we’ll be taking questions on the study and machine learning/natural language processing generally. Come join us!

    Thank you! Ben

    [–]nf5 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I expected to see /r/planetside on the list.

    [–]Not_Ayn_Rand -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Please don't tell me /r/woahdude has gotten much worse since the last time I was a pothead.

    [–]The_Yar -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The top ones are subs where people quote the worst comments from other subs. So, yeah, duh.

    [–]aquapendulum2 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Some expected results: r/TheRedPill and r/ShitRedditSays

    The subs that got picked were from the top 250 of Reddit as well as the top-voted subs in the original r/AskReddit post so it's not the entire Reddit that got assessed. However, I have to wonder where r/KotakuInaction would rank.

    [–]Beetso -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    /r/fatpeoplehate isn't number one? This data is flawed!