论文标题
“虚拟爷爷,你知道什么吗?”:识别和描述野外的Ad Hominem谬误用法
"Dummy Grandpa, do you know anything?": Identifying and Characterizing Ad hominem Fallacy Usage in the Wild
论文作者
论文摘要
今天,参加在线论坛上的讨论非常普遍,这些讨论开始对在线用户的整体意见产生强大的影响。自然地,扭曲论点的流程会对天真使用者的思想产生很大的影响,从长远来看,这种思想可能会产生社会政治后果,例如,赢得选举或传播针对性的错误信息。因此,这些平台可能非常容易受到恶意玩家的影响,他们可能会单独行动,也可能是繁殖谬论的争论,以动机来影响公众舆论。 AD HOMINEM论点是此类谬论中最有效的形式之一。尽管是一个简单的谬论,但有效地在离线世界中摇摆公开辩论是足够有效的,并且可以用作诽谤拒绝反对声音的先驱。 在这项工作中,我们迈出了第一步,以阐明野外Ad Hominem谬论的使用。首先,我们建立了一个具有高精度的强大的AD HOMINEM探测器(F1超过83%,对先前的工作显示出显着改善),即使对于注释的实例占很小的数据集也是如此。然后,我们在从在线辩论论坛中收集的265k参数(创建者)中使用了检测器。我们的众包调查验证了我们对创建ebate数据的野外预测(94%与手动注释相匹配)。我们的分析表明,令人惊讶的31.23%的创建ebate内容包含AD HOMINEM谬论,并且一群高度活跃的用户会发布更多的AD AD HOMINEM,以抑制相反的观点。然后,我们的时间分析表明,自2016年美国总统大选以来,AD HOMINEM论点的使用量显着增加,不仅是政治等主题,而且对于科学和法律。最后,我们讨论了我们的工作的重要含义,以检测和防御AD HOMINEM谬论。
Today, participating in discussions on online forums is extremely commonplace and these discussions have started rendering a strong influence on the overall opinion of online users. Naturally, twisting the flow of the argument can have a strong impact on the minds of naive users, which in the long run might have socio-political ramifications, for example, winning an election or spreading targeted misinformation. Thus, these platforms are potentially highly vulnerable to malicious players who might act individually or as a cohort to breed fallacious arguments with a motive to sway public opinion. Ad hominem arguments are one of the most effective forms of such fallacies. Although a simple fallacy, it is effective enough to sway public debates in offline world and can be used as a precursor to shutting down the voice of opposition by slander. In this work, we take a first step in shedding light on the usage of ad hominem fallacies in the wild. First, we build a powerful ad hominem detector with high accuracy (F1 more than 83%, showing a significant improvement over prior work), even for datasets for which annotated instances constitute a very small fraction. We then used our detector on 265k arguments collected from the online debate forum - CreateDebate. Our crowdsourced surveys validate our in-the-wild predictions on CreateDebate data (94% match with manual annotation). Our analysis revealed that a surprising 31.23% of CreateDebate content contains ad hominem fallacy, and a cohort of highly active users post significantly more ad hominem to suppress opposing views. Then, our temporal analysis revealed that ad hominem argument usage increased significantly since the 2016 US Presidential election, not only for topics like Politics, but also for Science and Law. We conclude by discussing important implications of our work to detect and defend against ad hominem fallacies.