Hack Beat Scrap

sbenthall's scrap blog

Apr 22

Apr 20

Kingdom - If You Buck


Apr 15

TtW_Conf 2013 participants 2-hop egocentric network based on recent Twitter data. This time just a screenshot from Gephi rather than exporting. The edges are less pretty but the labels are more clear.

This time, only using mentions that are included in @replies, including replied-to users. Capturing conversational networks specifically rather than blending conversational and referential networks. Intuitively and based on ethnographic observation (e.g. using Twitter a lot) this seems to capture better the true ‘social network’.

This time I’ve size the labels based on weighted combined (in- and out-) degree. So, these are the most chatty people in the network, relative to the participants own egocentric world. After laying out the graph with Gephi’s Force Atlas 2 algorithm with ‘Dissuade hubs’ to disentangle the graph a bit, I’ve filtered out users with low weighted degree for legibility.

The first figure includes the edges in the graph. Hopefully this communicates the intuition for how force directed layout works. For readability, in the second figure I’ve removed the edges and colored the labels based on detected “module”, or closely connected cluster within the graph. The result is a two dimension representation of the social arrangement of this scene’s most Twitter-talkative people.

I’ll write this up more properly when I have worked this out with the 2014 participants lists. I’m thinking Medium would be a good way to communicate this sort of work.

Yes, I know it’s creepy. Big data!


hautepop:

Tiqqun, Introduction to Civil War, p. 158
Semiotext(e), Los Angeles 2010

hautepop:

Tiqqun, Introduction to Civil War, p. 158
Semiotext(e), Los Angeles 2010


Apr 14
Theorizing the Web ‘13 participants, two hop egocentric network based on Twitter mentions (not retweets), colored by component. Label size is a function of PageRank. Made with poll.emic and Gephi

No idea Cosmo was so central. It makes sense. Not familiar with most of these clusters—need to try more data cleaning.

Theorizing the Web ‘13 participants, two hop egocentric network based on Twitter mentions (not retweets), colored by component. Label size is a function of PageRank. Made with poll.emic and Gephi

No idea Cosmo was so central. It makes sense. Not familiar with most of these clusters—need to try more data cleaning.


Apr 12

continuants:

AHHHHH TOO COOL


fetish (n.) 1610s, fatisso, from Portuguese feitiço ”charm, sorcery,” from Latin facticius ”made by art,” from facere ”to make” (see factitious). 

Latin facticius in Spanish has become hechizo ”magic, witchcraft, sorcery.” Probably introduced by Portuguese sailors and traders as a name for charms and talismans worshipped by the inhabitants of the Guinea coast of Africa. Popularized in anthropology by C. de Brosses’ ”Le Culte des Dieux Fétiches” (1760), which influenced the word’s spelling in English (Frenchfétiche, also from the Portuguese word). Figurative sense of “something irrationally revered” is American English, 1837.

Any material image of a religious idea is an idol; a material object in which force is supposed to be concentrated is a Fetish; a material object, or a class of material objects, plants, or animals, which is regarded by man with superstitious respect, and between whom and man there is supposed to exist an invisible but effective force, is a Totem. [J. Fitzgerald Lee, “The Greater Exodus,” London, 1903]

For sexual sense, see fetishism

Fetish ~ http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fetish (via vajramrita)



Apr 11

The Troll

Excerpted from Golder, 2003

4.7 The Troll

Jennie Jackson and Aula recognized the prescribe d behavior for dealing with a Troll. Rusty Martin observed that others might mistakenly think he is a Troll. Who is this ubiquitously recognized, yet reviled figure? The Troll is a master of “identity deception” (Donath 1998). He makes others believe h e is someone he is not. A Troll attempts to pass as a valid member of the social community and begins to subtly provoke other members by writing messages that outwardly appear as honest attempts to start conversation but are really designed to “waste a gr oup’s time by provoking a futile argument” (Herring et al. 2002). Herring et al. further posit that a Troll’s formula for success is to make a show of willingness to engage in legitimate discussion while “refusing to acknowledge” or “willfully misinterpreting another’s point” in order to perpetuate conversation.

The term ‘troll’ comes from a fishing activity, in which the fisherman puts out bait and waits for fish to bite. Likewise, the electronic Troll is a person who posts messages that are designed to “get a bite” – that is, stir someone to a predictably angry response. While “troll” is a verb in its original sense, it has been nominalized s a description for the person engaging in the act online, whereas fishing communities prefer “troller.” Herring et al. (2002) use “troller” to describe the online variety, but this form appears to be unattested in public use, except once in the alt.troll FAQ from 1997. Part of this may be due to the other sense of the noun “troll,” a mean, ugly character living under a bridge, which is often spuriously suggested as an etymology for the term.

For the Troll, communicative competence is a key trait. He must be adept at understanding and using the styles of speech a community deems acceptable, so as to not appear as an outsider. The Troll is dangerous precisely because his identity as a Troll and therefore his true motive is not known until it is too late. Donath (1998) considers the Troll’s actions to be part of a “game” he is constructing and forcing the others to play against their will and without their knowledge. His conversation begins innocently enough; this is how the trap is set. For many Trolls, this trap is for Newbies especially. If the Flamer attacks like a bomber, seeking to harm everyone, the Troll does so like a sniper, seeking the especially vulnerable Newbies. Because they are less familiar with the community’s standards and practices, Newbies are more likely to fall for a less than perfect performance by a would be Troll. Goffman (1959) notes that, “a single note off-key can disrupt an entire performance.” For this reason, more experienced participants in the group are likely to “out” the Troll by noticing the “off-key notes” and posting a response to the Troll’s, directly accusing him of being a Troll. The more competence one has in the register of the community, the easier one will be able to identify a Troll’s deviant behavior. It is advantageous for a Troll to appear to be like any other new participant in the community. If a Troll is considered to be just another Newbie, then his lack of competence may be written off as inexperience instead of insincerity. While this can work to the advantage of a Troll, it can be to the detriment of a Newbie; on occasion, posts from previously unknown participants will be met with accusations of being a Troll


Page 1 of 60