menu
FINDINGS & ANALYSIS
Differential TF-IDF Results
The corpus at large is dominated by procedural, bureaucratic language: pay, lease, insurance, car, company— reflecting professional, institutional legal problems. Meanwhile, the top 50 highest-scoring posts tell a different story: community and family (hoa, home, dad, cat), communication (video, phone, email), and subreddit interaction (edit, update, comments) dominate instead.
What does an update post represent? It’s narrative catharsis — a story or incident reaching some kind of conclusion, giving the r/legaladvice audience closure. Update posts, whether standalone or appended to a previous post, make up only 12% of the entire corpus. A category this small dominating the top sample makes it even more significant.
Original TF-IDF Output
This divergence is what I call “Popcorn Justice”. In a subreddit that explicitly forbids “off-topic ranting”, the community nonetheless rewards narrative indulgence through its upvotes. Roland Barthes' theory of myth as a second-order semiological system is useful here: at the level of denotation, r/legaladvice signifies "a place to get simple legal advice." But a second-order myth is layered on top of that denotation — the subreddit's self-image as a credible, serious, useful advice forum — and it is this myth the moderators protect when they delete off-topic content. Myths work, Barthes argues, by making an ideological construction feel like common sense, so pervasive it goes unspoken (Barthes 150). The moderators cannot say "we exist for dramatic entertainment," because that admission would collapse the myth of seriousness. So narrative satisfaction is allowed to exist on the platform only when it's dressed up as legal process — permitted to flourish in Update posts specifically because their comments are turned off, so no discussion can disrupt the community rules. Readers end up reading in a strange twilight zone: upvoting entertaining posts inside a community that denies that those posts are entertainment at all.
My close reading of the topic model results shows the downstream effect of this strict supervision. The best-fitting employment post reads, tonally, like a report — a straightforward sequence of events and specific stakes, with minimal emotional language. The top three best-fitting interpersonal posts, by contrast, all open with insecurity: "I know I was dumb," "Please don't mock me," "Please try not to be hard on me."
The connection between these two findings isn't hard to draw. Community members appear to have absorbed which kinds of posts and comments get deleted, and inferred that emotional register is unwelcome. As a result, even when they're seeking genuine advice for a real, emotionally charged experience, they preface it with a pre-apology — as if their post needs extra justification just to be taken seriously.
This same insecurity shows up in the word embeddings t-SNE visualisation, which captured a clear split: users drop subjective, moral language when discussing procedural situations, and vice versa. In practice, the community treats these two registers — procedural and emotional — as mutually exclusive.
Which is pretty problematic. Like the topic model, drawing such a clean line forces human problems into discrete buckets, when in reality they rarely sit so neatly. Derrida levels a similar critique against pinning text into single, fixed categories, arguing instead that meaning is fluid, shaped by a shifting chain of references. The clearest example in my corpus is the highest-scored post in r/legaladvice's history: OP's neighbour's son leaves his phone in OP's yard, the phone gets run over by the lawnmower, and the situation ultimately resolves with the son doing yardwork for OP in exchange for a replacement phone. This situation slips between property damage, house maintenance, and interpersonal relations all at once; the topic model has to force it into a single "bucket," but the text itself resists that enclosure.
t-SNE word embedding visualisation
That aligns better with how real legal processes work, where life advice and legal advice intertwine more often than not. As John-Paul Boyd, a family lawyer with Aaron Gordon Daykin Nordlinger in Vancouver, says, “Of necessity, you’ll probably end up playing “armchair psychologist” a fair amount.” On a most technical level, ABA (American Bar Association) Model Rule 2.1 explicitly permits —and in the comments, encourages— lawyers to go beyond pure legal analysis and address “moral, economic, social and political factors” relevant to a client’s situation. Both professionally and relationally, lawyers are expected to be more than legal technicians.
The only points of contention are really about (1) conflicts of interest, where a lawyer's personal views colour their nonlegal advice, and (2) expertise — lawyers are not therapists or financial advisors, and are unqualified to give official mental health or business recommendations. Analyses of Rule 2.1 generally recommend that “in nonlegal areas in which they have no expertise, attorneys should make sure that the clients understand they are not an expert in those areas” (Gantt). In short, when lawyers are called on to give nonlegal advice — a matter of when, not if — they're encouraged to do so, provided they're clear about the limits of their expertise. They aren't expected to turn a client away just because the advice needed isn't strictly legal — which is exactly what the moderators of r/legaladvice do.
There's something almost funny about this, metatextually. Members with emotionally charged, subjective legal problems pre-emptively apologise, anticipating that their post lacks legitimacy. Is r/legaladvice's insistence on "not being a popcorn sub" itself a symptom of the same anxiety — the moderators policing the community's legitimacy because they're aware of how fragile it actually is? After all, as mentioned, nothing is stopping Reddit users from making something up or spreading misinformation. They’re not a legitimate legal committee either — perhaps that’s why the establishment and enforcement of rules is so appealing.
To be clear, I don’t entirely blame the moderators for wanting to keep the comment section clean. The moderators seem to have in their minds this image of the perfect r/legaladvice user, who goes on this subreddit looking for an answer to a problem. In that sense, they’re justified, because users get very pure comment sections with mostly advice, no fluff.
However, not only do I doubt this is entirely the case based on the score count data and dominance of update posts. I think a substantial amount of the people on r/legaladvice are there to read emotionally resonant stories, narratives that make them feel good because it made them feel something, whether that’s vindication or outrage or satisfaction
I do explicitly take issue with the fact that people are feeling the cost. Posters shouldn't have to lampshade their own unworthiness before asking for help. I suspect the moderators feel this tension too. One of the subreddit's top 15 posts, which I close-read for this project, tells the story of a woman whose husband was arrested for strangling her. The top comments offer medical advice and self-care guidance — not legal advice at all — and none of it is deleted. Setting aside how ghoulish it would be to strip a traumatised woman of comfort and support, this raises a question: what is the actual line? Why did this post's comments survive, while a stranger asking what to do about a suspected murder was accused of "fishing for updates" and locked?
I don't think I can know — not from this dataset. Whatever content actually crossed that line is gone; deletion has completely erased that evidence.
