“Being a butt while on the internet”: Perceptions of what is and isn't internet trolling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The term “internet trolling” has come to encompass a wide range of behaviours, ranging from abusive speech and hacking to sarcastic humour and friendly teasing. While some of these behaviours are clearly antisocial and, in extreme cases, criminal, others are harmless and may even have potential prosocial functions. This study is an attempt to disambiguate some of the competing and contrary interpretations of internet trolling by examining the perspectives of avid internet users for whom trolling is a familiar part of their online lives. Through data collected from in‐depth, semi‐structured interviews, a multifaceted picture of trolling emerges that is at odds with previous media characterizations of internet trolls as merely hateful bullies. On the contrary, most participants in this study did not consider trolling to be a serious problem and many did not consider harmful interactions to be trolling at all. This paper describes some of the defining characteristics of internet trolling in order to differentiate the harmful behaviours from the harmless. This work aims to contribute to the growing body of literature on internet trolling in the hopes of informing regulatory policy and educational initiatives concerning internet use and safety.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".