johnny9fingers (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
johnny9fingers) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2019-08-23 03:40 pm
johnny9fingers) wrote in talkpolitics2019-08-23 03:40 pm
Entry tags:
Scientists do the damnedest things...
What if I were to suggest that the most important study of the far-right worldwide had been made by a physics professor?
Well, in today's Grauniad we have a rather interesting article:
www.theguardian.com/science/2019/aug/22/online-hate-extremism-physics-science
Wherein we find that Neil Johnson has examined the structures of the politics of hate and tried to apply appropriate methodologies and metaphors to describe his findings. I think this whole analysis/analogy bears greater examination, because, from where I stand, it looks rather apt and fit for purpose. Some quotes:
"Most people think of physics as smashing things up into smaller and smaller pieces, but there’s actually a whole wealth of physics which goes in the other direction and looks at what happens when you put things together. If I put molecules of water together, well, suddenly, I get a liquid and ice forms and icebergs form and the Titanic sinks. There’s all sorts of consequences of what happens when you put together objects, good and bad.
I study networks in biological systems, economic systems. This is the most complicated network I’ve ever studied – tenfold more complicated – because it mixes geography, continents, languages, cultures and online platforms. Trying to police it within one platform is a little bit like saying if you take care of the weeds in your own garden, you can eliminate the problem from the neighborhood."
Asked the question:You talk about hate in terms of chemical bonds and “gelation theory. How did you develop that framework? he responded:
These are not analogies. We looked at the behavior of the data, of the numbers, and saw that it is similar [to chemical bonding] not just because the numbers change in a certain way, but actually microscopically, in terms of interactions.
If you have milk in the fridge, gradually, one day that milk suddenly curdles. That is because microscopically, you’re getting this aggregation of objects into communities. And the math of that works perfectly well for the aggregation of people into communities. Now, the typical reaction is: “Oh, but I’m an individual, I don’t behave like a molecule of milk.” Yeah, but collectively we do, because we’re constrained by the others. So there’s only a certain number of things that we can actually do, and we tend to do them again and again and again.
So it’s not an analogy. People say [online hate] is like cancer, it’s like a virus, it’s like this, it’s like that – no. It’s exactly like gelation, which is another way of saying the formation of bubbles.
How did you create your map?
We started with a seed of clusters that were already banned on Facebook, such as the KKK. We looked at what other clusters they connect to that also connect back to them and kept going through this chain.
We found there’s a closed network of about 1,000 clusters, worldwide, online, across all platforms, propagating global hate of all flavors. Now, if there’s about 1,000 people in each of those (it’s actually between 10 and maybe up to 100,000, so let’s just say 1,000 on average) you’ve got 1,000 clusters of 1,000 people – that’s a million people. And that’s our very, very crude first estimate of the number of people online involved with this.
What I find interesting and heartening from his conclusions is that fighting with online trolls is actually worthwhile, but you can't do it by yourself.
Now obviously I need to solicit more opinions about this, and find proper criticisms of the analogies and analysis; but what I would imagine to be interesting to the intelligence agencies is the fact that Johnson has mapped the entire far-right network, in four dimensions from the look of it, and the information is now out there.
What do you chaps think about this analysis and modelling of far-right information networks? I mean outside of the normal tu quoque of socialists/communists/reds-under-the-beds; because I'm none of those things. (Everyone knows I'm an impoverished closet Aristo of the ancien régime.)
Well, in today's Grauniad we have a rather interesting article:
www.theguardian.com/science/2019/aug/22/online-hate-extremism-physics-science
Wherein we find that Neil Johnson has examined the structures of the politics of hate and tried to apply appropriate methodologies and metaphors to describe his findings. I think this whole analysis/analogy bears greater examination, because, from where I stand, it looks rather apt and fit for purpose. Some quotes:
"Most people think of physics as smashing things up into smaller and smaller pieces, but there’s actually a whole wealth of physics which goes in the other direction and looks at what happens when you put things together. If I put molecules of water together, well, suddenly, I get a liquid and ice forms and icebergs form and the Titanic sinks. There’s all sorts of consequences of what happens when you put together objects, good and bad.
I study networks in biological systems, economic systems. This is the most complicated network I’ve ever studied – tenfold more complicated – because it mixes geography, continents, languages, cultures and online platforms. Trying to police it within one platform is a little bit like saying if you take care of the weeds in your own garden, you can eliminate the problem from the neighborhood."
Asked the question:You talk about hate in terms of chemical bonds and “gelation theory. How did you develop that framework? he responded:
These are not analogies. We looked at the behavior of the data, of the numbers, and saw that it is similar [to chemical bonding] not just because the numbers change in a certain way, but actually microscopically, in terms of interactions.
If you have milk in the fridge, gradually, one day that milk suddenly curdles. That is because microscopically, you’re getting this aggregation of objects into communities. And the math of that works perfectly well for the aggregation of people into communities. Now, the typical reaction is: “Oh, but I’m an individual, I don’t behave like a molecule of milk.” Yeah, but collectively we do, because we’re constrained by the others. So there’s only a certain number of things that we can actually do, and we tend to do them again and again and again.
So it’s not an analogy. People say [online hate] is like cancer, it’s like a virus, it’s like this, it’s like that – no. It’s exactly like gelation, which is another way of saying the formation of bubbles.
How did you create your map?
We started with a seed of clusters that were already banned on Facebook, such as the KKK. We looked at what other clusters they connect to that also connect back to them and kept going through this chain.
We found there’s a closed network of about 1,000 clusters, worldwide, online, across all platforms, propagating global hate of all flavors. Now, if there’s about 1,000 people in each of those (it’s actually between 10 and maybe up to 100,000, so let’s just say 1,000 on average) you’ve got 1,000 clusters of 1,000 people – that’s a million people. And that’s our very, very crude first estimate of the number of people online involved with this.
What I find interesting and heartening from his conclusions is that fighting with online trolls is actually worthwhile, but you can't do it by yourself.
Now obviously I need to solicit more opinions about this, and find proper criticisms of the analogies and analysis; but what I would imagine to be interesting to the intelligence agencies is the fact that Johnson has mapped the entire far-right network, in four dimensions from the look of it, and the information is now out there.
What do you chaps think about this analysis and modelling of far-right information networks? I mean outside of the normal tu quoque of socialists/communists/reds-under-the-beds; because I'm none of those things. (Everyone knows I'm an impoverished closet Aristo of the ancien régime.)
no subject
no subject
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1494-7.epdf?referrer_access_token=VhyOZhBrtycN4mM0QXgnYdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MQgtv_nEdNYque0bE1mnSyD8av4W6WR_CrWAr7d7lNVupqR6wxIhEdex17NDFMGDT3846rl5dLaa5Sgu6YM0mQswP_-GDddGcpBVvPqELCI6w9Teu2ak9eWflPrjJvUGxuVLDDe5tSuDTLaTlyr1waVy4i3fJKipCC_LaFIf6Zp0i2yGtBRpJ0oywXIjOWPGy5DQBRVVyQwo5n5RPvlUXr_QB0gnDCIT0UAIQuoSFJAg%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com
no subject
no subject
I reckon they've rather put themselves in the crosshairs. That sort of research may be best done from somewhere in a less militarised culture.
no subject
no subject
If you're a parent and you find your kids stash, you have to decide - is your scolding and anti-stash rhetoric worth giving up the valuable knowledge of where your kids stash is?
no subject
no subject
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49439539
It appears social media is being monitored a bit better now. Or maybe even folk in the NRA don't want any more multiple shootings. Or maybe they have better tracking-bots on these people.