Just a moment...
www.researchgate.net

:yes-hahaha-yes-l:

:sicko-hexbear:

Otherwise gee fucking idiots I guess you realy needed a whole research department to figure things out like

•Alt-Right supergroup activity remains near its all-time high. This activity has been high since the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago in August (Fig. 1).

•The forums with the greatest use of Violent/Aggressive discourse in November were in Health Misinformation, scoring higher than Incels/Femcels and the Extreme Right (Fig. 7).

•Reference to sex crimes was up 13% in December and was up 32% since August (Fig. 11).

:the-democrat: reading this : “Great, its all according to the plan. Carry on mrMcdoofus, keep us informed, this is very useful information, it will come in handy when we decide to do absolutely nothing for the next 2 years.”

  • space_comrade [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    2·
    2 years ago

    The forums with the greatest use of Violent/Aggressive discourse in November were in Health Misinformation, scoring higher than Incels/Femcels and the Extreme Right (Fig. 7).

    Kinda surprised by this tbh. I know antivax weirdos and such were not the most pleasant of people but worse than the nazis?

    • wifom [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
      1·
      2 years ago

      Research like this (word associations with groups of web posts) is bunk pseudoscience. You can draw any conclusion you want if you play around long enough with the parameters. And god knows what keywords they used to find “violent/aggressive discourse”

      • very_poggers_gay [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        1·
        2 years ago

        Probably not even doing word associations, sounds like it was just pure word count lol

        they used Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC) to screen for words indicating “violence” or “aggression”, and then (by the sounds of it) they just counted the proportion of posts from each forum that had at least violent or aggressive word.

        Here’s my violent or aggressive word to add to the count: punch

        :you-think-this-is-funny:

      • space_comrade [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        1·
        2 years ago

        You’re probably right, I really doubt these things go through rigorous peer review and have the methodology seriously analyzed.

        Another user pointed out that the results are also largely a function of how well moderated the communities are, which is probably not a lot in antivax-like communities.

    • chickentendrils [any, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
      1·
      2 years ago

      I keep tabs on the anti-vax forums, it’s actually not that hard to peel people off from hating pharma/Gates/et al. for stupid reasons, to the correct reasons. It’s way harder to get the racism out of them. But anyway, honestly it seems a lot more likely to me that they’re in the stats for the same or similar reasons to why this site is. “Landlords kill” versus “another vaccine death” and whatnot, the way these stats appear to have been compiled would both count as violent.