The comments displayed for both groups were of equal length, contained various perspectives, and both praised the technology and discussed the potential risks. Readers in the study group were asked how they felt about the technology before and after reading the comments.

The participants exposed to the civil discussion reported having the same beliefs about the technology after reading the comments. The participants exposed to the hostile comments reported far more polarized feelings afterwards than they had reported initially. After reading the “troll” comments, the participants reported feeling significantly more negative about the technology and its potential risks than they had previously reported prior to reading the comments.

The findings positively support the theory that Internet trolling can effectively change the perspective of others reading the material presented.

After the study was published, Popular Science removed comments from articles on the Popular Science website stating,

A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to “debate” on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.

Even a fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader’s perception of a story.

Several months ago, Coin Fire was tipped off about a group of “internet trolls” who were being paid to disrupt conversations across the Internet about a wide variety of topics, including bitcoin. Executive Editor Mike Johnson and various members of the Coin Fire staff were highly skeptical of this initial contact.