Linguistic data analysis of 3 billion Reddit comments produces a taxonomy of trolls

Originally published at:


I’d ask what you call someone that uses ALL of those…

But ‘Asshole’ covers it pretty well.


Thank goodness for this study, without which I was just fine.



It would be interesting to find out when anti-globalism switched from being left wing to right wing, or perhaps more accurately when it switched from being internationalist to being nationalist.


How can one effectively deal with a hostile collection of people without understanding as much about the membership as possible? If different subgroups have different agendas, that’s important to know. (And unlike how the police and intelligence services use spying to gather information, this science only uses publicly-available data.)


When you say anti-globalism, do you mean nationalistic protectionism/coded anti-semitism, or being against globalized capitalism? Because both have always existed, and are completely different things.


It sounds impressive, but keep reading and the article then refers to “a Reddit community with over 450,000 subscribers” and a coalescing that happened “over the last year and a half”. It seems like a sort of data set that could easily be skewed by the activities of a few thousand (maybe even a few hundred?) unusually prolific posters.


I’m wondering when the usage changed from the latter to the former. If I was feeling masochistic enough I could go and old copies of the Daily Mail from 10-20 years ago where you could find protectionist columnists and letter writers ranting against the anti-globalist left. They would have never considered also calling themselves anti-globalist at that time.

I have also seen recent status quo/centre-right articles which try to present globalism as the opposite of nationalism.


This exactly. I want to understand why groups i don’t like believe as they do since if you don’t understand where they are coming from you cannot help them see that either their thinking is wrong or that the reasons they cling to how they feel are based on false fears.

This is part of why I am all for groups like the KKK and Nazi’s being given the same right to march as anyone else. That said the instant someone starts throwing punches the hammer needs to come down on them. HARD. Until that point they are the best demonstration on why you should avoid these ideologies. Shoving Them in a corner and finger wagging at a child DO NOT EVER LOOK AT THESE THINGS makes them appealing through rebellion. Letting them parade in public shows them for the buffoons they are and allows discussion with people that may feel similar but are conflicted about those feelings.

1 Like

There’s anti-(((globalist))) and there is anti-globalism, and some of the anti-globalism side have always been cool with the other.


Well, it’s too simplified a word that is used for both, so it’s an irrelevant statement.

Allowing them access to the commons allows them to place their argument (genocide) on the same playing field as not genocide, giving it undue weight. Prohibiting hate speech is preemptive self defense, it’s not a difficult concept.


Hmm, yes, the ol’ “Socialists are secret anti-semites” argument. A classic.

You missed the part about ‘the instant they raise hand to anyone bring the hammer down.’ Peaceful assembly should be enshrined and protected at all cost. Even though their ideas are hate filled, hateful, and is inherently morally repulsive the alternative is driving them underground away in hidden corners where it can fester out of sight and given allure by fact it is rebellious to do this thing that causes others to get suckered in. Put it on public display to be discussed, made fun of, and under a microscope. Let it die where we can see the body to make sure it will never rise again.

1 Like

It was giving context to my question.

Some more context.

I have noticed that the far right has recuperated a lot of ideas from the left in the last ten years or so (it’s easier to see in hindsight), and applied microsoft style “embrace, extend, and extinguish” to them so they are tainted by bigotry and oppression.

I would like to find out when that recuperation started so I can find out who started it, look at the history of it happening and possibly come up with tactics to fight against it the next time it happens.


Promoting genocide is not peaceful assembly.

McCarthyism, probably. As for when it happens again:

This thread, right now.

We tried the 'let’s burn it out and make them unable to rise again during the reconstruction era when it theoretically could have been murdered in it’s infancy. All it did was flee underground and wait for conditions that would allow those that belonged to these groups to not only take office but ensure that their thought process was the norm… up until you had incidents coming out where other klansmen politicos started literally CHEWING on women they were raping.

I would wholeheartedly put these different white nationalist groups on a terror list though. One of those ‘if you have affiliations with this group you are ineligible for public office’ things since you are correct. The assembly itself is peaceful, but what they are advocating is a race war/purge of everything not-themselves.

Some socialists are antisemites, and there is an appeal to anti-semites in the message. That’s not a crazy thing to say at all, and thanks to all of the places people go to bear their antisemitism proudly it’s easy to find.

I specifically drew a distinction between the gorups and said there is some crossover, but antisemitism is one of the bridges between anti-globalism and anti-Jewish cabals. Most people call it out and keep it from entering their message, but others care a lot less.


To blame me for things I have been reading in comment sections of progressive media for decades is a strange stance to take.

1 Like

Seeing the word “pandering” show up in the troll glossary just confirms my increasing unease with the term. I’ve started noticing how it convenient it is for someone who is too lazy or stupid to pick apart the opponent’s argument. “Yeah whatever man, you may have researched your facts and presented them in a logical manner… but that’s just pandering to that thing I don’t like”.

I’ve definitely used the word myself in the past, but it’s time to stop methinks.

1 Like