But they all agree on one thing:

“Fuck. Spez.”

Reddit Lemmy

FIFY

This should be illegal. As a person who was once false flagged manually by network attribution. Of course the anti troll flagging network was itself socially destroyed by time and is frequently cause of scandals while nobody cares for me.

Add certain language patterns and political stances and you have an excellent oppressive tool.

The behavior the study is referring to, is actually result of reddit’s algorithms and human psychology. Often the contrarian view of whatever the post is about will automatically float to the top, no matter the topic, opinionated, factual or debunking, nature.

Playing Devil’s Advocate. has been around way before the internet.

Yes some people love to argue. I get it, I think arguing with others is fun. It’s not so great online tho. It’s empty and soul-less.

I have a reddit coworker, he just disagrees and follows up with “fucking retard” while being blatantly wrong…i hope they fire the guy soon.

Unmanageable human being, impossible to learn anything to keep him from killing himself (my job is technically life threatening, if you’re too stupid to listen)

He also mamaged to call in sick for 2 weeks in his first 4 weeks of employment, i was surprised when they kept him on after that.

I mean if you’re on r/star wars or a political subreddit, then yeah lol.

This is one of those stupid articles that are like “water is wet says a new study” and far more people than it should be say “holy fuck it’s wet when I wash things. It must mean I wash things with water. Omgomgomgomg!!”

No shit users are trolls on reddit.

This post feels like bait

I disagree.

Some people while cleaning a table just love to scratch it a bit. Why not leave that fossilized fat stain alone.

Same vibes. There’s no use in agreeing. You are just adding to a clueless crowd.

Disagreeing helps everyone.

Sounds like that antiyank guy. Always looking for the latest drama.

Probably a lot of russian trolls as well

Thanks AI… Using tremendous amounts of energy and technology to tell us something that anyone paying attention would have already known

Devils advocate is very much in my nature but not so much when things are being done so obviously badly. Its great when discussions are more philisophical in nature.

I’ve been online since 1995. And back in those days, about the worst argument people had was Star Wars vs Star Trek. That’s because the general online population at that time valued fact-based discussion and proper sources. Not like today, where someone’s feelings seem to trump actual fact.

If I post 1+1=2 with proper sources, some idiot is bound to come along to argue that 1+1=tomato soup, that the moon is made of aged brie and that 5G on phones is turning frogs gay. It’s exhausting.

There’s simply too many blithering idiots online who reject facts. And unfortunately instead of blocking them, people engage. Thus giving them incentive to keep doing it.