Jump to content
McFoy

'Star Wars: The Last Jedi' Negative Buzz Amplified by Russian Trolls, Study Finds

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, BlodVargarna said:

Whataboutism is a very Russian device. Well done comrade Trollski. 

So why Johnson uses this device blaming Russian trolls in film's failure instead himself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On topic.
Star Wars franchise has huge fanbase in Russia. There are few people who know nothing about Star Wars. For example, original trilogy ran at cinemas in USSR - rare case for US films.
Many people in Russia dislike Last Jedi (though not me, but it is almost bad manner to talk amongst SW-fans that you liked Last Jedi :)).
Also there are numerous web resources (2ch and others imageboards) where teenage trolls chatting. So it is not uncommon for troll flashmobbing some celebrities. Especially, so hated and funny reacting as Johnson. His past statement about Russian trolls provoked even more schoolboy trolling flashmobs (many of them not Russians maybe - just pretend to be Russians to troll Johnson).
As to Johnson: he tries to lift his own problems on Russian trolls, using modern trend US paranoia about some Putin-inspired cyber-attacks. 

Edited by bernh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, redxavier said:

He doesn't.... ?

Oh, ok. He just supports researching, I was wrong.

Johnson tweeted a link to the study himself, writing that what Bay outlined “is consistent with my experience online.”

And his past statement was about Russian trolls demanding to save Hux before film went to cinemas (what no doubt provoked new attacks).

Edited by bernh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, bernh said:

On topic.
Star Wars franchise has huge fanbase in Russia. There are few people who know nothing about Star Wars. For example, original trilogy ran at cinemas in USSR - rare case for US films.
Many people in Russia dislike Last Jedi (though not me, but it is almost bad manner to talk amongst SW-fans that you liked Last Jedi :)).
Also there are numerous web resources (2ch and others imageboards) where teenage trolls chatting. So it is not uncommon for troll flashmobbing some celebrities. Especially, so hated and funny reacting as Johnson. His past statement about Russian trolls provoked even more schoolboy trolling flashmobs (many of them not Russians maybe - just pretend to be Russians to troll Johnson).
As to Johnson: he tries to lift his own problems on Russian trolls, using modern trend US paranoia about some Putin-inspired cyber-attacks. 

This isn't about saying everyone negative from russia is a troll. The study has a very clear definition of what consitutes a 'russian troll':

  1. The account periodically changes it handle and wipes all content from before the wipe
  2. It posts in English, German, or Russian and switches between those languages randomly between its wipes
  3. It becomes more active around certain events (i.e. US election, TLJ launch), sometimes being dormant in between, this also often coincides with wipes
  4. It posts inflammatory polarizing content, like antivax propaganda
  5. It retweets other of these accounts a lot and has a higher than usual retweet rate
  6. It is likely to favour the mobile version of twitter, presumably to be able to use the autocomplete features smartphones offer to help with language

The paper is very opinionated in its premise and discussion, but its methodology and results are clearly seperated from that and well defined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2018 at 10:02 PM, Ambaryerno said:

My only concern is that now anyone who expresses their dislike of TLJ because it's simply not a good movie are going to get jumped on and lumped together with the trolls.

I wouldn’t worry about that.  From my experience it’s easier to tell based on the content of their remarks.  If someone presents a reasonable argument, or well written opinion then feel free to judge them on the merits of their argument.  

 

But when someone has nothing more than 1-liners and extremely hate filled nonsense you should rest easier to dismiss them outright without wasting any thoughts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Crabbok said:

If someone presents a reasonable argument, or well written opinion then feel free to judge them on the merits of their argument.  

But when someone has nothing more than 1-liners and extremely hate filled nonsense you should rest easier to dismiss them outright without wasting any thoughts.  

This is just great life advice generally tbh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

1. Political agenda
These are accounts that are not solely Star Wars-related but most likely belong to real human beings, rather than bots or sock puppeteers (see below), and from which several/frequent tweets have been sent that can be characterized as overtly political. The tweets on these accounts would typically only occasionally or even rarely be about Star Wars, but also consisted of comments on current affairs or personal matters – the latter being one of the indicators that the owner of the account is not using the account as a sock puppet or exclusively for trolling activity. For example, these accounts would also often include selfies or family photos containing objects or persons that were consistent over time.
For accounts with high tweeting/retweeting activity, search terms such as “Trump” and “SJW” (see below) were employed to discover tweets that might indicate a political stance, e.g. for or against the current U.S. President.

So, he sets aside as "politically motivated", anyone who has tweets that use any sort of political language or commentary, and rarely about Star Wars, in addition to having some personal tweets with no hard definition or criterial, just the author's personal opinion. Seems like saying "SJW" or "#MAGA" once or twice gets your opinion tossed aside into the "political activist" column and you aren't a "real" Star Wars fan. :P

Being that those were the majority of the 50.9% "trolls, bots, or political tweets" (61 of them), me thinks his methodology needs serious work and this is junk science.

Edited by kris40k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SJW and MAGA are both politically charged terms. That makes sense.

Also, that distinction, as stated, was used for accounts with high tweeting and retweeting activity. What accounts for "high" is perhaps debatable but this should be accounts that were tweeting or retweeting at a rate that was higher than a typical twitter user by some margin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, CaptainIxidor said:

SJW and MAGA are both politically charged terms. That makes sense.

Also, that distinction, as stated, was used for accounts with high tweeting and retweeting activity. What accounts for "high" is perhaps debatable but this should be accounts that were tweeting or retweeting at a rate that was higher than a typical twitter user by some margin.

Unfortunately, he doesn't state any concrete objective methodology, and pulls out singular examples from people's Twitter histories.

Effectively, as far as he states in the paper, if you ever said anything right-leaning in a tweet, you get tossed in the "political activist" column and are not a real fan that is actually dissatisfied with the movie. You are just someone with an agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, kris40k said:

So, he sets aside as "politically motivated", anyone who has tweets that use any sort of political language or commentary, and rarely about Star Wars, in addition to having some personal tweets with no hard definition or criterial, just the author's personal opinion. Seems like saying "SJW" or "#MAGA" once or twice gets your opinion tossed aside into the "political activist" column and you aren't a "real" Star Wars fan. :P

Being that those were the majority of the 50.9% "trolls, bots, or political tweets" (61 of them), me thinks his methodology needs serious work and this is junk science.

If you’re hourly spouting terms like SJW and MAGA non-ironically then I think he’s right to put you in that bucket.

 

As usual if you have a concern about a published, peer-reviewed study(especially one you arrived at by just skimming an abstract or less) the best way to refute it is to repeat it and publish your own. Otherwise you’re a Roger.

5368186-3x2-460x307.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, TasteTheRainbow said:

If you’re hourly spouting terms like SJW and MAGA non-ironically then I think he’s right to put you in that bucket.

 

As usual if you have a concern about a published, peer-reviewed study(especially one you arrived at by just skimming an abstract or less) the best way to refute it is to repeat it and publish your own. Otherwise you’re a Roger.

 

I read the paper.

The author's methodology is lacking:

Quote

For the account analysis, I divided the negatively-tweeting accounts into three categories, coding them as Political agenda, Troll/Sock Puppets/bots and Real fantagonists. This was done by visiting each of the negative twitter accounts and reading through tweets sent during the study period. In cases where the account was highly active and contained large amounts of tweets or retweets, I would conduct searches for specific terms on the accounts to find tweets that could help place the account in one of the following three categories. The specific criteria for each category are specified below.
1. Political agenda... (see my prev quote)

He just reads through tweets, looks over the accounts, and then makes a subjective decision. The author does not list any hard criteria, such as ratio of political to personal tweets, how many Star Wars tweets is "enough" etc., making the decision completely biased by the author.

Before you comment more on it, or try to defend it, you may want to do the same so you know what hill you are trying to die on.

This paper aint worth it.

As far as "published", its on ResearchGate, which is effectively the same as publishing it on Facebook.

 

Edited by kris40k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kris40k said:

As far as "published", its on ResearchGate, which is effectively the same as publishing it on Facebook.

A facebook post with 82000 reads and 0 comments, from a researcher who got his PhD at UCLA. Also listed as preprint for October, so we‘ll see eventually where it‘s published.

But peer reviewed does not necessarily mean published in a journal, even though they should act as some form of quality control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

A facebook post with 82000 reads and 0 comments, from a researcher who got his PhD at UCLA. Also listed as preprint for October, so we‘ll see eventually where it‘s published.

But peer reviewed does not necessarily mean published in a journal, even though they should act as some form of quality control.

A Facebook post with 82000 reads by academics and other educated professionals with knowledge and interest specific to the topic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

A facebook post with 82000 reads and 0 comments, from a researcher who got his PhD at UCLA. Also listed as preprint for October, so we‘ll see eventually where it‘s published.

But peer reviewed does not necessarily mean published in a journal, even though they should act as some form of quality control.

 

1 hour ago, BlodVargarna said:

A Facebook post with 82000 reads by academics and other educated professionals with knowledge and interest specific to the topic. 

Comparing to his other work listed at ResearchGate it seems that the media boost from the multiple articles linking to it have severely helped his popularity, and it more likely the plebs like us. See under Research here https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Morten_Bay3

His next highest papers are a few with 250'ish reads. He's not a famous author. Its people coming from links to stuff like redstate.com and polygon.com

Also do a google search for "Weaponizing the haters: The Last Jedi and the strategic politicization of pop culture through social media manipulation"

You can see where the hits are coming from.

As far as the peer review, I'm still looking around to verify that. Since it hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal, I think people here may be jumping the gun with that, as I can't seem to find any statement to that fact.

Actually, as its a preprint, it is not a peer-reviewed study. Like GreenDragoon states, it may show up somewhere soon with review. But that's not now.

So again, guys, don't pick this hill to die on.

Edited by kris40k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kris40k said:

Actually, as its a preprint, it is not a peer-reviewed study. Like GreenDragoon states, it may show up somewhere soon with review.

My point was that it doesn‘t have to be in a journal to be peer reviewed. I have to admit that I don‘t know the process for soft sciences, but for biology, ‚peer reviewed‘ happens in three stages:

First are the comments at internal meetings and external conferences. Second, the reviewing process of a journal where three other scientists dig in and make recommendations to a journal on whether to accept it and what data/experiments are missing. This part is what you are referring to, and at least in my field it’s important because a journal has leverage to force new experiments/data. And last are the comments after publication when everyone can read it. These are usually most critical.

My point is now that a lack of step two does not immediately mean a lack of peer review, not entirely. It could be different for softer sciences, but there are not many experiments he can repeat...

 

Edit: That being said, I wouldn't trust a single paper like this (not published in a journal) if it was never presented at a conference, and if it was proposing something entirely new. In this case my acceptance is increased (and biased) because it makes a ton of sense to me that Russia would also use a controversial topic to do what they already are doing anyway. Still, that paper is a start, not an end.

Edited by GreenDragoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

My point was that it doesn‘t have to be in a journal to be peer reviewed. I have to admit that I don‘t know the process for soft sciences, but for biology, ‚peer reviewed‘ happens in three stages:

<snip>

Sure, there is the possibility that it has been peer reviewed, but my point was that the evidence points that it has not:

Pre-print on ResearchGate has a meaning, in general, it means that it is a draft and before review:

Quote

In general, a preprint is an author's own original or draft version of their paper before any peer review has taken place and before they publish it - sometimes in a peer-reviewed journal. 

When you publish on ResearchGate, the site allows you to indicate whether or not your paper has been peer-reviewed. In this case, as far as I can tell, the author has not indicated it has been. Its why I was wondering where the folks on this thread were getting their "how dare you try to stand up to peer-reviewed science!!!" stances.

This aint that.

And as far as the Russia bots/trolls bit, that one part of the paper that I didn't have a huge problem with Dr. Bay's (congrats to him, since he was a candidate when he wrote this paper) methodology. Its just the paper does not do a good job of defending itself when going into how he categorized people as "political activists" as opposed to "actual Star Wars fans."

Maybe we'll see a another draft that has been reviewed later. I just don't want to see people holding this up like its some holy grail of infallible* science. Not yet.

*Of course, science is never infallible, should always be questioned and gets stronger when it can be defended. Questioning it is a good thing.

Edited by kris40k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2018 at 4:11 PM, CaptainIxidor said:

This is about a foreign power or individual citizens living in a foreign nation trying to sway public opinion in the US. It is tied to the push to sway public opinion around the elections,

Yeah, they've pretty much killed any chance of Rose Tico getting elected in the midterms.

On 10/4/2018 at 6:48 PM, GreenDragoon said:

I get that you want more of the same old feeling but in a new story. That TLJ is demanding much more insight and attention than previous Episodes. But to many this movie was great as a movie (not just as Star Wars) and has the potential to drive the core of Star Wars to greatness.

I can understand that, and honestly, I did enjoy the movie and agree that many haters' arguments are flawed.  On the other hand, I also find that many defenders do have a tendency to gloss over its weaknesses.

I guess what I'm saying is that we don't have to choose between, "It had flaws," and, "It was good."  It's possible to be both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

I guess what I'm saying is that we don't have to choose between, "It had flaws," and, "It was good."  It's possible to be both.

I completely agree. There are parts I dislike, even if I see why they made sense, or that I simply dislike for the aesthetics/execution. Space Leia looked ridiculous to me, even if I have no problem with her using the force. Any other force user doing the same with the same visuals would look as bad to me.

But the good criticisms are very rare. Hyperspace asteroids and moma jokes are much more frequent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 11:48 PM, GreenDragoon said:

...That TLJ is demanding much more insight and attention than previous Episodes. But to many this movie was great as a movie (not just as Star Wars) and has the potential to drive the core of Star Wars to greatness...

Bunk.  Garbage.  Pure, unadulterated claptrap.  Far from "demanding insight and attention", the only thing The Last Jedi demands is that you switch your brain into the off position and just watch the pretty pictures.  If you do any more than that, if you engage your faculties for one second or make the slightest attempt to follow what passes for a story you're going to end up swearing at the screen.

Claiming  that The Last Jedi is some kind of pseudo-intellectual masterpiece (or even competent, for that matter) is the very height of pretentiousness; it's like trying to argue that Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen is the pinnacle of cinematography to Roger Freakin' Ebert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...