Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Network Scientists Discover the 'Dark Corners' of the Internet

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the academia-discovers-4chan dept.

The Internet 99

KentuckyFC writes "Network theorists have always simulated the spread of information through the internet using the same models epidemiologists use to study the spread of disease. Now Chinese scientists say this isn't quite right--it's easy to infect everybody you meet with a disease but it's much harder to inform all your contacts of a particular piece of information. So they've redone the conventional network simulations assuming that people only ever transmit messages to a certain fraction of their friends. And their results throw up a surprise. In these models, there are always individuals or clusters of individuals who are unreachable. These people never receive the information and make up a kind of underclass who eke out an information-poor existence in a few dark corners of the network. That has implications for organizations aiming to spread ideas who will have to think more carefully about how to reach people in these dark corners. That includes marketers and advertisers hoping to sell products and services but also agencies hoping to spread different kinds of messages such as safety-related information. It also raises the interesting prospect of individuals seeking out the dark corners of the internet, perhaps to preserve their privacy or perhaps for more nefarious reasons."

cancel ×

99 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

In other news... (4, Funny)

Megane (129182) | about a year ago | (#45240335)

Network scientists don't get around much.

Re:In other news... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45240567)

Also, scientists apparently don't understand how the internet works.

A server can be a dark corner if (a) not many clients know about it, (b) not many clients have access to it (* this includes advertising clients).

A user/client can "live in a dark corner" if he/she (a) doesn't use the internet, or (b) only visits servers that would be classified as dark corners. A user can also choose to visit dark corners to conduct "private" business. Note: Private business does NOT mean nefarious. It just means the scientists aren't invited, so get lost. I have a private server; I just use it for email and backups. If you try to find a way to advertise on my private server, I'll consider that an act of aggression.

I'm all for educating the users that are too stupid to find their way out of the dark corners, but FFS leave people alone if they want to be left alone.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45241657)

You seem to have no idea what this is about, as it is not about the internet at all and would only be relevant in an indirect, applied manor. Network science is more abstract and work like this is more akin to graph theory, and what you've said is pretty much irrelevant. You can stop over-reacting and stop being scared of scientists that "don't understand how the internet works" might find a way to access your private server via the same system you claim they don't unerstand. Maybe try looking into the subject [wikipedia.org] first.

Re:In other news... (1)

meerling (1487879) | about a year ago | (#45242683)

Don't forget that not all information is equal, nor is it likely to be sought out by the same individuals. I thought that kind of stuff was first term communication basics. And of course, the internet really is just a giant communications network.
Oh well, not all 'eggheads' can be AAA X-large, some of them are month old quail. :p

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45243763)

Ah yes, Lesser Spotted Slashdot Expert, who knows more about a given topic than people who study it professionally - because they just don't get it.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45244067)

Then the title shouldn't be "The Dark Corners of the Internet"

Speaking Of Other News! FUCKIN TRUTH EAT IT LIBS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45240731)

Blacks are inferior as a group.

Look at the way [waff.com] all of the blacks just go apeshit so to speak [myfoxatlanta.com] over a bunch of fucking sneakers of all things [wdrb.com] !

Then ask yourself why white people don't riot over the latest Apple gadget even though they gather in large crowds waiting for them. I mean an objective person might think whites are more civilized!

Oh does anyone remember when the blacks rioted like crazy [scotsman.com] after Hurricane Katrina? Isn't it JUST A LITTLE STRANGE the way white people in Colorado banded together and helped each other [usatoday.com] when they were hit with a natural disaster instead of rioting and looting [usatoday.com] like the blacks did? I mean an objective person might think whites are more civilized! [blogspot.com]

Oh and blacks are responsible for nearly all the murders in Marion County [blogspot.com] ! That is what you would expect from a violent tribal uncivilized race.

Interesting when a black man admits blacks are to blame [vdare.com] for the hellhole that is (86% black) Jackson Mississippi? Quote: "Look at recent history, like in South Africa, when apartheid was abolished,” Lambus said in a recent interview with The Associated Press. “Blacks went on a crime spree.""

It goes on and on. Probably no point in posting this since people who are objective already understand the destruction and violence and cost blacks bring anytime they are abundant. It is not just USA. All over the world black-governed nations are hellholes. But objective people knew this. It is the people indoctrinated to believe that acknowledging FACTS is somehow "racist" who just can't admit it. None are so blind as those who will not see.

Re:Speaking Of Other News! FUCKIN TRUTH EAT IT LIB (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45245691)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who_concert_disaster. White people. 11 dead, 26 injured. Over a rock show.

Preserve Privacy/Nefarious Reasons (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#45240369)

According to the feds, that's just two ways of saying the same thing.

Re:Preserve Privacy/Nefarious Reasons (1)

RedHackTea (2779623) | about a year ago | (#45240779)

The People Eliminating Nefariousness 15 club will resolve this. Join me, my brother!

what? (4, Funny)

xevioso (598654) | about a year ago | (#45240395)

I don't really understand what they mean. Are they implying that there are entire pygmy tribes somewhere that spend their entire day on IRC? That somewhere there's a bunch of Tunisian goat-herders that only get their news through Usenet?

If this is the case, who cares, and why?

Re:what? (3, Funny)

Nutria (679911) | about a year ago | (#45240481)

Are they implying that there are entire pygmy tribes somewhere that spend their entire day on IRC?

Kinda.

if this is the case, who cares, and why?

Didn't even read the whole summary?

Re:what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45240555)

Because small fringe groups tend to have extremely focused views, views that sometimes catch on to the mainstream for good or ill

For example: right now there is a small group of genderqueer video gamers screaming bloody murder about Ace Attorney 5, I fully expect that in a few days it will be all over video game sites, tumblr, twitter, forums etc as the latest form of gender stereotype/oppression blah blah blah

Right? Wrong? It doesn't matter, it's angry and loud and coming from a tight knit group of people who have their own set of morals (and in some cases logic) and that opinion will spread across social media like a rash, a company like CAPCOM isn't prepared to fight that PR nightmare, but it's already boiling over in dark corners their marketing department can't even imagine.

Re:what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45240693)

So the solution is to kill ingenuity, creativity, innovation and individuality?

Stupid.

Re:what? (2)

sexconker (1179573) | about a year ago | (#45241163)

Because small fringe groups tend to have extremely focused views, views that sometimes catch on to the mainstream for good or ill

For example: right now there is a small group of genderqueer video gamers screaming bloody murder about Ace Attorney 5, I fully expect that in a few days it will be all over video game sites, tumblr, twitter, forums etc as the latest form of gender stereotype/oppression blah blah blah

Right? Wrong? It doesn't matter, it's angry and loud and coming from a tight knit group of people who have their own set of morals (and in some cases logic) and that opinion will spread across social media like a rash, a company like CAPCOM isn't prepared to fight that PR nightmare, but it's already boiling over in dark corners their marketing department can't even imagine.

What in the hells could they have against AA5?
I'm pretty sick of these groups intentionally trying to start shit over various slights they perceive in the video game industry (these ALWAYS turn out to be nothing, less than nothing, and outright made up).

Re: what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45243227)

this type of thing being blown out of proportion is just a consequence of there being too many people who want to be noticed. its catnip for career bloggers to wax poetic on these invented controversies, and theyre quite effective at getting people who should know better to read all about it. i want to watch this potential drama unfold, even though im aware it wont be all that interesting.

Re:what? (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year ago | (#45243993)

Japanese culture is different than western culture, especially in regards to how women are portrayed by the media.
News at 11.

Re:what? (1)

Caesar Tjalbo (1010523) | about a year ago | (#45245979)

For example: right now there is a small group of genderqueer video gamers screaming bloody murder about Ace Attorney 5,

You could have left that in its dark corner.

Re:what? (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#45240977)

I don't really understand what they mean. Are they implying that there are entire pygmy tribes somewhere that spend their entire day on IRC? That somewhere there's a bunch of Tunisian goat-herders that only get their news through Usenet?

If this is the case, who cares, and why?

Well, it *does* seem like there's a whole tribe that have just now discovered every email forward since 1989. And they're all in my friends list.

Re:what? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45241045)

They're saying that some people are running ad-blockers and that's totally unacceptable.

Re:what? (1)

Jeng (926980) | about a year ago | (#45241109)

What they are saying is that the way that assumptions were made in regards to older ways of studying this information, your examples could have existed. That with the new way of looking at the problem is a lot more reality based.

At least that is what I got out of the article.

Re:what? (2)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year ago | (#45241641)

Join #clickclickwhistle on effnet

Re:what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45242333)

chinese scientists discovered the great firewall. they call china a "dark corner".

(something's messed up with slashdot login)
  -- Richlv

Re:what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45243051)

he situation is worse in Tunisia. Both goat herders and political leader get their news from facebook wall posts.

Re:what? (1)

nashv (1479253) | about a year ago | (#45243911)

Don't worry too much about what they are saying. They did a formal study of the obvious. The TL:DR is :

If a transmitting node has finite range and finite time of operation, depending on the size of the network, there will always be nodes that never receive the message because 1. they are out of range 2. They is one other node that can transmit information to them , and it died before it could transmit.

Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45240401)

Really just by posting something on the internet, you can't actually get everybody on the internet to know about?! Somebody had to research this? Suddenly I love my job that much more.

Re:Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45240519)

Their friends never told them about it. Sure, they could have Googled the information, but nobody told them about Google either.

It doesn't reach us (4, Funny)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year ago | (#45240457)

Because we have our own asocial networks.

Re:It doesn't reach us (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#45241443)

GetOutOfMySpace.com

Re:It doesn't reach us (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45241531)

This would explain why I got zero matches on Jdate.

Network Heterogeneity Correlation Question (1)

deathcloset (626704) | about a year ago | (#45240471)

FTA: "...spreading efficiency is highly correlated with the network heterogeneity..."

Basically obvious, but is this a negative or positive correlation? For example, disease spread has a positive correlation with decreased heterogeneity. Does their model follow or depart from this? Probably follows, but inquiring mind wants to know!

Re:Network Heterogeneity Correlation Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45240633)

They make it sound like they based all of their findings around the Internet being Facebook, where all information that isn't posted directly to your contacts will never be found by those contacts. They use the model where only those people who speak face to face can pass on a disease.

But what about the washroom seats and door handles, the bus and train seats and poles and exit buttons, or even pets and bugs and just randomly floating through the air? Diseases can easily get to people who have no direct contact with the infected, so advertisers don't really have to worry because they are a disease, and they will be given plenty of opportunity to infect the people in the dark corners of the Internet.

this explains people who still believe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45240497)

... mainstream media propaganda.

even today there are people out there who have a knowledge deficit and still believe the propaganda of the mainstream media - because they simply live in these 'dark corners' and are never exposed to the information they are unaware of - and if you're not aware of it how can you search for it?

kinda odd (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45240503)

that it's a CHINESE researcher in CHINA that is studying the 'dark' (as in unreachable, not horribly bad, illegal, etc) corners of the internet.... when his own homeland is basically one big dark corner comprised of a billion people. yes, the chinese 'intranet' gets information, but it is the information the chinese government wants you to know.. not what's really 'real'

Re:kinda odd (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#45240759)

1.3 billion. The .3 is important, because it's the same amount of people as the entire USA...

Ok, i'll bite. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45240511)

How is staying "information poor" going to help your nefarious purpose?

"Jafar! We need to build a bomb. Now, what I want you to do is go n the internet and find..."
"Yeah, yeah, I don't need the internet. I got this. Don't worry."
"Wait! Why are you smoking while working on th-"
*BOOM*

If only Jafar had not been information poor, he'd have known that smoking while working with low grade explosive chemicals was unwise.

But seriously, how is a lack of information going to benefit someone plotting criminal deeds? How is it a benefit to them at all? this is scaremongering, its FUD and it needs to stop.

Malcolm Gladwell (2)

paj1234 (234750) | about a year ago | (#45240547)

Perhaps Malcolm Gladwell had better update his book, "The Tipping Point". It's about how fads, crazes and fashions take off. In the book, he doesn't mention people who remain impervious to such things. They are indeed an interesting group.

Re:Malcolm Gladwell (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45240741)

We're called "trendsetters", and yes, our ability to form our own unique opinion make us able to convince the whole planet of our ideas.
Often because we're fundamentally "right", in the ways evolution is "right".
It just takes time to penetrate.

Nothing will ever be perfect in the world.
The hidden assumptions and premises in this study has another world: authoritarian hell

Captcha: demise

Re:Malcolm Gladwell (1)

citizenr (871508) | about a year ago | (#45242431)

We're called "trendsetters", and yes, our ability to form our own unique opinion make us able to convince the whole planet of our ideas.

No, you are called basement dwellers.
People that sign up for FB, but never get contacted by anyone.

Old news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45240597)

I learned that ages ago. I didn't get a single ILOVEYOU email when everybody else at the university received countless. Obviously I'm a dark corner.

why oh why (1)

Jacek Poplawski (223457) | about a year ago | (#45240675)

Why people never read the article and instead comment title/description? This article is not about warez and pron but about network theory.

Re:why oh why (1)

paj1234 (234750) | about a year ago | (#45240701)

'Scuse me, I did read the article!

Re:why oh why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45240955)

Why people never read the article and instead comment title/description? This article is not about warez and pron but about network theory.

Warez and pron are keywords to activate trolls and trolls are never restricted by lack of knowledge.

4Chan (2)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year ago | (#45240709)

I thought they were talking about 4Chan. Imagine my surprise they weren't.

Re:4Chan (1)

memnock (466995) | about a year ago | (#45241099)

No, they meant /. That's all I ever read and considering the drek that ends up here, it means I might as well live in a cave.

Re:4Chan (1)

myowntrueself (607117) | about a year ago | (#45242621)

No, they meant /. That's all I ever read and considering the drek that ends up here, it means I might as well live in a cave.

I assumed /. was supposed to be /./ and was at the end, you know /b/ etc ends with a full stop, or, /./

So slashdot is secretly part of 4chan.

Re:4Chan (1)

Megane (129182) | about a year ago | (#45242929)

Also, the Brits have 3chan. [b3ta.com]

Re:4Chan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45244101)

Also, the Brits have 3chan. [b3ta.com]

And the Japanese have 2chan. [2ch.net]

Not internet (4, Informative)

Dan East (318230) | about a year ago | (#45240721)

First of all, by "internet" they mean social networks like Facebook and Twitter and the interpersonal communication between people. Second, they have created a simulation, but it's not clear how it actually correlates to the real world. The key thing is they have the concept of "exhausting" sources, so once a person has communicated something, they won't receive or communicate that information again. Obviously that's not the case in the real world, because some people are more interested in certain pieces of information and will continue propagating them much longer than others, potentially seeding enough to compensate for the "exhaustion" of other average users.

Further, social networks all have a backlog where previous posts can be viewed (particularly true with FB), thus a person still "transmits" a given piece of information indefinitely as other people view their wall going back far in time. Thus it is always possible for a "dark corner" of the "internet" to always catch up by seeing a piece of information in that way instead of only real-time.

Re:Not internet (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year ago | (#45240803)

Congratulations, you've discovered the problem with reading non-physics headlines from Arxiv: an unbelievably vast mishmash of nonsensical assumptions that prohibit publication in any peer-reviewed journal. Solution: avoid doing it at all costs.

Re:Not internet (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year ago | (#45241263)

First of all, by "internet" they mean social networks like Facebook and Twitter and the interpersonal communication between people. Second, they have created a simulation, but it's not clear how it actually correlates to the real world. The key thing is they have the concept of "exhausting" sources, so once a person has communicated something, they won't receive or communicate that information again. Obviously that's not the case in the real world, because some people are more interested in certain pieces of information and will continue propagating them much longer than others, potentially seeding enough to compensate for the "exhaustion" of other average users.

Further, social networks all have a backlog where previous posts can be viewed (particularly true with FB), thus a person still "transmits" a given piece of information indefinitely as other people view their wall going back far in time. Thus it is always possible for a "dark corner" of the "internet" to always catch up by seeing a piece of information in that way instead of only real-time.

I like your theory better than theirs... use Bittorrent as a model for social networks. This will reflect reality much better, including "information decay" and "not getting the whole story" as well as information poisoning and all the rest.

I like it!

Re:Not internet (1)

http (589131) | about a year ago | (#45241737)

Further, social networks all have a backlog where previous posts can be viewed (particularly true with FB), thus a person still "transmits" a given piece of information indefinitely as other people view their wall going back far in time. Thus it is always possible for a "dark corner" of the "internet" to always catch up by seeing a piece of information in that way instead of only real-time.

You're so funny. Just try going back a week on facebook. I'll wait while you restart your browser a few times, waiting for the thrashing to stop. Oh, just pull the plug, it'll be faster.

Endless scrolling - the penultimate "fuck you" to a web page viewer. Tumblr does it too,* making a walk down memory lane potentially depend upon how much RAM you have.

* some users disable it, but it is the default that most go with.

Re:Not internet (2)

HtR (240250) | about a year ago | (#45241987)

So, because I haven't logged into my Facebook account for 4 years, TFA says I'm "uninformed" and part of the "information-poor underclass"?

Funny - I was actually avoiding Facebook and Twitter because I prefer information, as opposed to, you know, gossip, cat pictures, and what my acquaintances are having for lunch.

Now I know better. Thanks, Network Scientists!

Re:Not internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45258041)

This research brings 2 things to mind. 1) The law of large numbers, and 2) A* algorithms. First, given a large enough set of numbers (we'll say "receipt of message" for an individual is a "hit"), there will be some that get hundreds/thousands of "hits". Those on either side of the 3-sigma (or 4 sigma) boundary will get fewer and fewer "hits". Second, given any weighted graph, you can find the shortest distance between two points. While this is not directly related to how we intend to spread information "hey, can you tell A to tell B to tell C about Y?", it is related in that we internally have our own "weights" for how likely particular friends/family/colleagues will respond to a particular story or anecdote. Suffice it to say, some people are probably going to have such a high perceived threshold (i.e. assholes) that others may not share with them at all, or the weight to that node is much higher than any other adjacent node. Even though A* can, and sometimes does, use the heaviest weighted edges in finding the shortest path, the first few attempts to find the path will exhaust all other options before going to the heaviest edge.

The Internet as a universe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45240727)

Ponder it for a bit.

Someone should probably explain this to them (2)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#45240745)

WWW != internet. It is merely a sub-set.

Re:Someone should probably explain this to them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45243583)

Nobody cares.

Rural Backwaters (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about a year ago | (#45240773)

I suppose this would be similar to rural backwaters. Those middle of nowhere places where people labeled hicks, red necks, libertarians, tea baggers, and the like live cut off from the realities of the other 95% of the world surrounding them. Places where education is more about athletics than academics and knowledge is substituted with opinion.

Re:Rural Backwaters (3, Insightful)

SeaFox (739806) | about a year ago | (#45241121)

Places where education is more about athletics than academics and knowledge is substituted with opinion.

So... the vast majority of the United States?

Re:Rural Backwaters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45243385)

No, just New York, NY, Washington, DC, San Francisco, CA, Atlanta, GA, Los Angeles, CA, Chicago, IL, Newark, NJ, or any other large city - the rest of the country is fine.

Right (2)

RedHackTea (2779623) | about a year ago | (#45240797)

Some people don't want to be marketed or advertised at, so they avoid these gateways. Maybe you should be a kind asshole and not find a way to these "dark corners."

Re:Right (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45242181)

It does kinda sound like a frustrated telemarketer, annoyed as he places call after call only to discover people are ignoring calls from numbers they do not recognize.

Yeah, well (1)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | about a year ago | (#45240897)

It appears that my aggressive spam filter is now a "dark corner of the Internet."

So Facebook et al are dark corners? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#45240917)

The places where you're being bullshitted and force fed shit until you don't even WANT to look for information anymore?

Did someone get grant money to come up with this "DUH, you don't say..." conclusion?

Political Echo Chamber Effect (1)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | about a year ago | (#45240999)

In these models, there are always individuals or clusters of individuals who are unreachable. These people never receive the information and make up a kind of underclass who eke out an information-poor existence in a few dark corners of the network.

Like the cluster of sites on each extreme of the political spectrum that become completely detatched from reality because they only ever get information from each other.

Re:Political Echo Chamber Effect (1)

Megane (129182) | about a year ago | (#45242947)

So places like DailyKos and Infowars? Except of course those two don't get stuff from each other.

Re:Political Echo Chamber Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45243405)

You mean like the Obama White House and the USA?

Nefariousness (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about a year ago | (#45241051)

Is a national passtime in the US.

Wrong (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | about a year ago | (#45241053)

"These people never receive the information and make up a kind of underclass who eke out an information-poor existence in a few dark corners of the network. "

Assuming they are not uncomfortable or in need, they are not an underclass. In fact, they may be an uberclass.

I know some super-rich people (a few, not many) and all of them don't really bother with the internet. One of them told me, "Look, I pay people to deal with that bullshit." That struck me as interesting. Many people today *must* be informed and online. It's the only way to keep up. But if you're worth a Billion Dollars (or even hundreds of millions), you basically don't have to give flying fuck about that. You can jet down to the Bahamas for the winter, and then scoot north for the summer. You can work on your golf game. One friend spends a lot of time making bad paintings. He knows they suck, but he simply enjoys making them. And he can afford to make them and show them to his friends, and not even bother exhibiting - a waste of time. He's never on the internet and doesn't really care.

That's what real wealth brings - freedom FROM the internet.

Re:Wrong (2)

Krishnoid (984597) | about a year ago | (#45241451)

"Utility is when you have one telephone, luxury is when you have two, opulence is when you have three—and paradise is when you have none."

Doug Larson

Re:Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45244033)

More likely they aren't on the internet because that would challenge their world view. If they were to post on a forum on the internet nobody knows they have a billion dollars some would be willing to call bullshit on their opinions and that would throw them into a rage. In real life, they are surrounded by yes men who know they are going to get shit canned if they dare question anything. The mega rich will continue to simply watch Fox News. It will comfort them and affirm their majesty as masters of the universe and keep them in their little bubble of reality.

Re:Wrong (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | about a year ago | (#45245935)

Not quite. You're assuming they CARE enough to bother.... They watch Fox, MSNBC, NPR, whatevs. They've got all the money they need, they really don't care that much. They don't need to be super up to date on things because they don't need to be super up to date on things.

4chan, craigslist (0)

TheDarkener (198348) | about a year ago | (#45241055)

You know you were thinking of it while you read the title.

Re:4chan, craigslist (1)

themushroom (197365) | about a year ago | (#45241065)

Too bad I used all my mod points up... you are exactly correct.

Re:4chan, craigslist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45259853)

These days, there are parts of Reddit that are much worse than 4chan and I would much rather be stuck in the first level of hell that is posting on topical 4chan boards than the seventh level of hell that is some of the worse Reddit boards.

In case you were wondering, though, Lucifer's ass is /b/, so there's still that.

There is actually unreachable areas (to IP) (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45241119)

The paper is all about social networks, and has way too many wrong or uninteresting assumptions to be of any real use as is.

However, there are really unreachable areas of the Internet, because of too long routing paths. These areas change depending on where you are (network-wise), for obvious reasons...

Not to mention the dark internet, areas that are walled-off or partitioned (don't confuse them with the darknet overlay networks).

Clarification (2)

briancox2 (2417470) | about a year ago | (#45241267)

"It also raises the interesting prospect of individuals seeking out the dark corners of the internet, perhaps to preserve their privacy or perhaps for more nefarious reasons."

Nefarious reasons is always a subcategory of 'to preserve their privacy'. But more and more it is a small subsection as interest in privacy grows.

IRC users (1)

juventasone (517959) | about a year ago | (#45241637)

...make up a kind of underclass who eke out an information-poor existence in a few dark corners of the network.

...preserve their privacy or perhaps for more nefarious reasons.

...have scripts to kick out adbots.

Re:IRC users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45241743)

Try black text on a white background. It's harder on the eyes but it does get you out of the dark.

Ask any veteran (1)

Deadstick (535032) | about a year ago | (#45241709)

...there's always ten percent who don't get the word.

"That includes marketers and advertisers" (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about a year ago | (#45241821)

Good, as i like my little dark corner of the world where those leeches don't exist.

Oh NOW you guys tell me this... (1)

CODiNE (27417) | about a year ago | (#45241885)

I'm always the last to hear about anything. :-/

But seriously, I often find that people assume I'm better connected than I actually am. I'm the tech guy, so people figure I already heard about stuff before they did anyways. While that is true it's only in a specific subset of information. .. Things posted about on Slashdot.

So by all means please do repeat stories of things that broke last week because if it's not here I have no idea.

ObamaNet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45242073)

"Don't worry, with my new internet, all those uninformed webcrawlers will get network coverage, meanwhile you do not have to give up your internets or your ISP doctor."

Dark? (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#45242329)

Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Dark Corners, this science fad has got to end!

Re:Dark? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45243205)

Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Dark Corners, this science fad has got to end!

Not to forget, Zero Dark 30. Your right. When it gets trendy, everyone will jump onto the fan wagon. Dark will become the new Green.

Get off the Dark Corner of My Lawn! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45243189)

Last April I was enjoying a quiet weekend working in my yard and house. That Tuesday I realized that I had 12 messages on my phone from friends and relatives hoping I was OK.

OK from what? The Boston Marathon Bombings.

You know, if the world can't come up with something more compelling than terrorists and Justin Beiber and being tentacle-raped by the NSA, fuck it - my phone is off the hook. I don't need it. Go screw yourselves with a Dremel tool.

What took them so long? (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year ago | (#45243373)

The dark corner is well known. It's called 4chan.

Unseen seen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45243641)

How did they find those Dark Corners without reaching them? One knows how to reach the non-reached. For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad. (Luke 8.1)

otherkin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45243961)

They are talking about the otherkin community.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otherkin [wikipedia.org]

Got all information I need and want, thanks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45244343)

So the message is that the Internet as a whole has some potential to resist the disease of advertisers, government, and privacy advocates. (Or anyone who wants to force their "information" universally.)
And the problem is?

They're in the dark? (1)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | about a year ago | (#45244503)

Simple fix: clue 'em to Slashdot.

Nefarious reasons??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45244709)

Am I the only one slightly disturbed by the ".. protected their privacy or ... more nefarious reasons" line? Since when has "privacy" been a "nefarious" behavior?

Looks like a round of Planarity gone awry (1)

the-real-morpheus (3410491) | about a year ago | (#45245277)

The scenario created by these researchers does not take into account information that is received yet purposefully ignored, information lost and rediscovered, or how information can be received more than once, in multiple formats and/or revisions, as well as their flawed case where a node can only transmit once. There is nothing real world about this study and the few correct points the article makes is merely common sense that any average person could have concluded by a few moments of simple thought on the topic. This research is flawed by its own sterilized environment and merely reaches an elementary assumption at best. They could conceive a more accurate understanding of the dissemination of data by simply going to the public library and studying the history of religious text and how any particularly well known piece of 'data' has spread over time, yet still has not been dispensed completely to all potential 'nodes' in its original form. And finally, the term 'dark corners of the internet' is ridiculous, especially considering all of their charts indicate that they assume the internet and everything "inside of it" is round. Looks to me like someone is just milking some grant money on this one until maybe they get lucky and stumble upon some idea that is actually concrete.

Sign me up! (1)

MXB2001 (3023413) | about a year ago | (#45245325)

Those dark corners sound like they may not have been infected by advertising, youtube, facebook and twitter! The good internet! As it was in 1991. Ah those were good times. The internet now is barely worth bothering with.

Hard to take seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45245399)

... when they didn't even run latex twice to get the references right in the PDF on arxiv

On behalf of all us lurkers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45246077)

Leave us alone!

Eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45246235)

It also raises the interesting prospect of individuals seeking out the dark corners of the internet, perhaps to preserve their privacy or perhaps for more nefarious reasons.

By the definition given of "dark corners" (i.e. formed of people who are not well-connected) then a well-connected person moving into a dark corner will just light it up.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?