NYT on trolls
Mattathias Schwartz of GOOD Magazine has a much-linked-to feature in tomorrow's New York Times magazine about trollius dickwadius internetius maximus, a subhuman web-based species better known as the common internet troll.
The piece is a really good read, but here's my one minor beef with it: "disemvowelling" is mentioned, without a hat tip to the person first known to have used it as a moderation technique: BB's own mod Teresa Nielsen Hayden (boo ya), whom I understand to be its inventor. She began using the technique in 2002 to moderate the worst-behaved commenters on her own blog. Snip from the NYT article's mention of this technique, which we now use on BB:
If we can’t prosecute the trolling out of online anonymity, might there be some way to mitigate it with technology? One solution that has proved effective is “disemvoweling” — having message-board administrators remove the vowels from trollish comments, which gives trolls the visibility they crave while muddying their message.
I'd insert a comment here about how the NYT editors' failure to namecheck TNH's genius is akin to something Hitler might do, then maybe I'd insert a url in that that sneakily hijacks the browser for a full-screen technicolor goatse kitten-porn gotcha extravaganza -- but then TNH herself would disemvowel me, and I'd join the ranks of the article's subjects, and all would be moot.
So anyway, here is my favorite part of the piece, spoken by arch-douche and "Craigslist griefer" Jason Fortuny:
All that having been said, there are only two ways to deal with a troll:1. Don't reply. Don't privately address him. Don't acknowledge his comments. Don't even make a passing reference in another blog post. Just pretend the troll doesn't exist. This gets rid of 90% of the trolls out there instantly. Then, if you're smart, shut up and quit blogging for a few days and logically re-evaluate the post that set the troll off. Chances are, there is a glaring flaw in your post that makes you look like an idiot or a nutjob, and that's why you got trolled. Don't post again until you're ready to amend it or defend it with better logic.
2. With the other 10% of trolls, you have to play the game. For every insult you receive from a troll, play along and join in the joke. If someone tells you're fat (because you probably are), don't get offended and rant. Just reply with a photo of a whale and say, "You mad skippy I'm fat! I would say this photo is me, but that wouldn't be fair. The whale isn't that big." If you can successfully take yourself and the insults less seriously, you will win the good graces of the troll and he'll either go away, or he'll chill out, knock off the insults, and you'll have made a new online friend. And trust me, it's good to have a troll for a friend.
Of course, now that I've revealed this, no troll is going to let up because you've all been warned and can no longer claim ignorance as an excuse. So, your only recourse is to just not be stupid and/or batnuts crazy on the Internets. If you can do that, everything will be just fine. However, just so I can be absolutely clear about this: if you escalate a war of words with a troll, you WILL lose. We know all the tricks. We have access to all the resources. We know all the laws. We're all friends with each other. We have done this thousands of times.
The Trolls Among Us (NYT. Thanks, Andrea James)
The people that he interviews are somewhat beyond trolls. They're sociopaths - people so addicted to causing suffering in those whom they perceive as inferior that they have to live in safe houses and carry weapons because their lives are in danger from their victims. The article is not for the faint of stomach lining.
Personally, I don't care much for "disemvowelling", and would prefer that the internet would stop using it. Occasionally, I'll try to read some "trolls" comment just to see what they say, but disemvowelling makes it a headache to read. In other words, it's a headache for all your other readers. I'm not a big fan of removing comments, so my suggestion is to collapse the comment (by default) or turn the text the same color as the background (although, you end up with an apparent big blank space in the comments section). If people want to see it, they can uncollapse the comment or select the text (which will reveal the comment even when the text and background are the same color). Of course, I realize that my disapproval of disemvowelling might just get me disemvowelled.
@#1 Antinous:
Agreed. I think there's a pretty huge gap between the sorts of folks who might pop up on a BB thread to say "Steampunk is gay" or " U R DUM" and the sort of person who terrorizes the parents of a teenager who shot himself. "Troll" really does encompass a wide range of antisocial behavior, from that which is rude to that which is (or should be) criminal.
@#2 BC2, those are not bad ideas, either. Disemvowelling works pretty well for us for now, at least better than other tools we have available. But I don't think any of us believe that this is the only conceivable technical/tactical solution. We might shift to another approach down the road.
so does Beater and Biter
Agree with @1 that the article seems to target folks who, in a pre-online society, would have been largely prevented from carrying out their attacks through notable social opprobrium, or, failing that, restraining orders, jail time, and physical violence.
By posting this comment, I am now likely to be set upon.
As with any kind of cyber-bullying, the best defense is to ignore the offense and ultimately it will go away [or at least, because you skimmed the inflammatory posts, you're blood pressure wont rise]
The major factor that causes this type of user is an environment filled with potential human powder-kegs that only amplify the disruption caused by these users. Most internet users are more than willing to waste their time and energy defending a silly point or yelling in all caps instead of just moving on with their lives. And since it only takes half a mind and two seconds to post a potential lit-match of a comment, the torrent of trolling will never stop. If you want to stop the griefers and trolls, cut off their supply of satisfaction.
~KI
@#4 Xeni
I think the most appropriate & conceivable method to be wary of trolls, is self censorship. You have no access to this feature, ie. censorship option on/off, without an account. Guest are hit in the eye will a bucket load of disemvowelling bukaki.
Re:#6
Yeah- calling someone foul names from the safety of a troll's lair is safer than doing so in a meatspace bar. As IRL insults can and do get one hurt or worse. I am somewhere between bored to slightly amused by most trolling. Disemvowelling them still is a "stroking" of sorts. As sadly is collapse or any other intervention.
I propose a tactic of "Fnording"
The first authorized person/admin can and should tag a commenter as Fnord! Which renders them invisible. By consensus rather than alteration of anything else.
if someone attacks you, you have a moral and ethical right to defend yourself. It can even be argued you have a duty to the attacker to stop their behaviour since it damages them as well. If they cannot be reasoned with, it is proper to restrain or isolate them. Maximum forbearance should always apply, but that also is subject to the available time and resources. The tribe must survive. If this means the odd individual must be subordinated to this, it is a function of nature and the physical universe rather than human choice. Ideally, all will be saved. Practically, the most extreme cases will not.
@#10 Takuan, I think you're right, and the tribe really must survive. We should just start killing trolls instead of removing vowels. Cool, thanks!
Xeni,
Teresa Nielsen Hayden DID NOT invent disemvowelling, this was already common practice on the boards back in 1995. If shes going around the net claiming she invented it, then shes just as bad as a troll.
can I have their organs?
http://www.daiun-ji.org/images/gallery_fudo2.jpg
N ffns, bt f y r th typ f prsn wh gts thr pnts n sch tght knt vr trlls tht y kll yrslf, y prbbly wrn't mtnlly ft ngh t gt n th ntrnt n th frst plc.
The van blew up from all that heat and pressure building up from an influx of gay sex pictures being sent to a laptop inside. Don't worry, the "fed up hacker" in the video will shut down all the chans and vans will be safe once again.
Jokes & Fox News aside, I do agree with #1 Antinous.... I havne't read the article yet, but I do know that some of the invasion channers truly are some less than human sociopaths.
Of course, sometimes hosting invasion chans like that WILL come back to bite you in the ass (and hard). For example, the guy who runs 420chan.org got SWATed by someone (some Australian?) spoofing his phone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoHrsm-Jq0Y
Heh, heh.. heh... lawl...
It's long, but a very good bit of writing from the birthplace of many a troll- 4chan! about how an anonymous forum prevents much trolling actually.
http://www.4chan.org/blog/2005/11/09/in-response-to-anonymity/
PS
I would wager that most BoingBoing readers are NOT equipped to handle the internet at large.
shes just as bad as a troll.
Why don't we just fast forward to Godwin's Law and get it over with before bedtime. Personally, I like to be compared to Stalin because he had that great moustache.
consider the source. Then stomp it.
g'nite. And remember the vampire must be invited before it can pass the threshold.
Antinous, I am the only one around here who wears the Stalin 'stache, bub. You can be Trotsky or Idi Amin or Papa Smurf.
I'd consider myself a semi-professional troll, but not one of those ranting idiots that these people seem to be referencing. I prefer more the style that was common in many Usenet boards where the goal is to evoke a response, be it anger or excitement or what have you, in a way such that is humorous to the troll and anyone who recognizes their antics. Of course it's a little fun at the expense of a patsy, but it's worth it for the others involved. Master trolls like Steven Colbert and Sasha Baron Cohen do it on TV or even in movies and you can find the same thing in many message boards like 4chan if you know what's what.
Personally I see nothing wrong with that at all, but such high quality trolls are usually missed by the sort of people who might complain about them (those being trolled). Idiots who post things like "SHUT UP JACKASS" as responses don't even count, and any experienced internet user just rolls their eyes at such a thing, but a clever devil's advocate who makes such a stupid case that it destroys the position he or she is endorsing or someone who gives a very technical, very wrong answer about how induced electromagnetic fields cause headphone cables to twist are what internet trolling is all about.
@22 - that's the finest trollbait I have ever seen!
I hope the trolls enjoy their 15 minutes of coverage that considers them to be human and allows them to elaborate on their tortured justification for doing what they do. It won't be long before they have to go back to hanging out with spammers, pedophiles, malware authors and other internet vermin.
@3 Xeni Jardin: @1 Antinous: "Troll" really does encompass a wide range of antisocial behavior, from that which is rude to that which is (or should be) criminal.
Remember of course that "troll" is a double-entendre:
A) [from a fisherman pulling a line with bait] This type of trolling is merely "rude" and, for the most part, is nothing personal. Example: "Slapping some brass and leather on an everyday object doesn't make it steampunk. Steam engines do."
B) [from the typically ugly creature of Scandinavian lore that hides underneath bridges and eats children] For this type of troll, it's not fun unless it's personal. Includes sociopaths and behavior that "is (or should be) criminal". They enjoy causing mental anguish and "just want to watch the world burn".
Its interesting that a person may be perceived in completely different lights in different mediums. @22's comment is understandable that in the real world a persons actions can be perceived as comedic and entertaining and in another form as something completely negative and frowned upon. It maybe argued that a person may say things in one medium such as the interent because a certain level of anonymity is given to them that they would not other wise say in the real world to some one face to face. However who makes those calls, who judges people on there moral compass, in some ways playing god. I love the phrase that "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter." People and society draw these perceived lines of morality and political correctness, but thats exactly where the system begins to break down because it is people who are doing the drawing. One of my favorite figures in the 20th century is Malcolm X. The man was seen as a threat and a liability not only from the outside but also from within. Yet he spoke his mind, he went against the establishment, he was villafied during his life, and honored in death. How is some one that may be outspoken that may "make waves" disemvoweled from posts. That may be the character of a leader or an outspoken critic speaking there mind. It's understandable that there is a line between right and wrong but that line is very wide and gray. To say that we should all be nice and kind to each other online is a Utopian ideal, it sounds great and exciting but it doesn't exist in the real world how can it be expected in the virtual world. The Matrix movie made an excellent point regarding that when it said that humanity could not handle or grasp the Utopian state, we need external pressures to evolve to learn to become better at what we are.
I guess this is a long rant of ideas on looking at things from both sides of the picture. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
I loved the NPR piece with Mark in it by the way very interesting and very thought provoking from all the people that were involved in that conversation.
What does this have to do with hitler?
Why in hell would I want a troll as a friend?
In order to keep traffic on your bridge down.
First point: I have been, and have seen other people, been disenvowled here for humorous but honest criticisms.
Second point: The people interviewed here are pretty blatantly trolling the interviewer. "The Organization"? Moot's initials are CP and his last name is "Poole"? Come on people.
Another cunning method of dealing with trolls (pioneered on JoelOnSoftware's discussion board, and carried over to CrazyOnTap) is to make deleted comments invisible to everyone but the troll -- when a post is removed, the original poster can still see it so as far as they're concerned they've been left unmolested but no-one else has to deal with their drivel.
Unless a sock puppet is used.
Oh no. Anonymous blew up all my yellow vans! will this madness never stop?!??!?
I love fox news.
The rules of taxonomic nomenclature would insist on capitalizing the genus name, and you only get species and variety (or subspecies) after that. LIMITING taxonomic names to just two, or, in a pinch, three, was one of Linnaeus' main contributions. Thus
Trollius maximus (I like that...the dickwad is sort of redundant, and internet is implied), or
Trollius interneti (this assumes internet is a 2nd declension masculine noun, and we want to name him "of the internet"), or, if you think the internet is a place name,
Trollius internetensis.
Dickwad, I think, is best regarded as a noun in apposition, thus simply:
Trollius dickwad.
Whichever, if this is a formal description of a new species, the proper citation would be, e.g.
Trollius dickwad Jardin 2008.
If we must have subspecies (viewed by professionals as rather indecisive), of the three epithets you propose, maximus seems most likely. Or did you mean that dickwads are different from maximi? No, you meant the BIG dickwad, so
Trollius dickwad maximus or Trollius interneti maximus.
The good news is that, even though all generic names have to be unique, you needn't worry that Trollius (globeflower) is preoccupied--the rule applies to either plants or animals, but not both!
The one thing you didn't mean was
Trollius internetius
because in a bygone and more classical world, we would have capitalized Internetius because it's an honorific--a species named in honor of the Internet, which we have to latinize to Internetius, like Marcus Aurelius.
But since nobody wants to honor these people, Trollius internetius would be an ironic mistake.
The article's dismissal of everything involving "the lulz", Encyclopedia Dramatica, /b/ and what is rapidly becoming a 4chan-generated "internet culture" as trolling really bothers me. If Encyclopedia Dramatica is just about trolling than lolcats becomes a method of trolling, etc.
Hillarious.
Rule one for me is not to call anyone's B.S. on the internet that I wouldn't call in person. I'm not much afraid of real bullies either.
#17 POSTED BY MEEK
Rules 1 & 2 !!!
"is to make deleted comments invisible to everyone but the troll"
that smells like win.
Strictly speaking, if you are using the ICZN format, the binomal should be italicized. Or, if hand written, you could use quotation marks.
#36
Agreed. Rules #1&2.
Encyclopedia dramatica is very deliberately offensive and inflammatory. It's also very very funny, but there's no doubt in my mind its trolling of a sort.
It took me a while to figure out what was going on with the disemvoweling. At first I thought it was just a bunch of Crackberry addicts who couldn't be arsed to typed in whole words.
Personally, I'd rather see offending posts moved off to a quarantine thread for all such posts, with a link to the quarantine area from the point in the thread where they were originally posted. To me, this strikes a good balance between on the one hand enabling free speech and avoiding censoring, while on the other hand keeping their noise out of our faces unless we really want to go looking for it.
I have a couple of quick thoughts...
it occurred to me as I was thinking about this article, but there’s a really positive aspect to the piece: three out of the five worst internet troll things I’ve ever heard of — the Craigslist experiment, the Kathy Sierra debacle and the Megan Had It Coming blog — were all perpetrated primarily by this one guy. That doesn’t necessarily speak to a pervasive culture of evil — it’s mostly just this one dude and a few of his high-profile colleagues.
Regarding the more garden-variety troll and its relationship to Colbert or Sascha Baron Cohen (Andy Kaufman, Brother Theodore, etc.) -- yes the analogy is apt, but like most amateur imitators of greatness, the vast majority of trolls are irritating and totally unfunny. I get the joke, I just think it's blisteringly stupid and a waste of my time. Also, some venues are more appropriate for that sort of discourse than others. Boing Boing, for example, has made it very clear that this is an inappropriate place for trolling.
I have to comment on something overlooked. It goes partly to the character of "Trolls and Griefers and destructive malware writers. The fact is-no sane apologia exists. ALL such willful bad acts do is confirm the perp as a sociopath.
In the "Real" world we risk consequences for "overtly sociopathic acts". Surely our collective wisdom will evolve a counter force to net baddies.
Call this one a wishful thinking Karma of sorts.
Trolls have a chance of eventual enlightenment.
Not so for Griefers and destructive malware creators. Those genes going away will hardly be missed. It's a debate for the future on the HOW.
As while sadly we cannot advocate Genital Mutilation to sterilize their kind- Rule#34 will make it's application a popular new porn. and yes- it's a Karma multiplier with Schadenfreude bonus that rule34 allegedly derives from troll forums:>
all you can do is establish a community that has a clear understanding and solid ethical grounding. If more than 99% of your people automatically recoil from evil, refuse to feed it and will not let it stand unchallenged - it cannot take root and flourish. That is why community moderation is the way. The very first to see a weed plucks it. The burden is distributed and our garden grows. It comes down to having faith in people.
The news clip seems like just another slanted FOX News report.
Anonymous are ... HACKERS! *Cue exploding van*
The funny thing about Anonymous is that they only threaten. I don't think they have ever done anything directly to any of their victims. As someone pointed out - if someone was as emotionally unstable as to let an internet troll convince them to kill tehmselves, they probably should have been supervised while online in the first place.
*Dons conspiracy theory hat*
Honestly, I'm not surprised to see FOX News reporting on how dangerous Anonymous are, it seems like just the type of story that would have been fueled/funded by a hidden Scientologist scheme to improve their own image (something the group has done secretly before).
Trolls all have the same problems. They feel insignificant and hopeless in their real lives. They almost always are unsuccessful in love, or at least are deeply unhappy with their relationships.
But instead of working towards solutions for these problems, they project all their pain and depression onto the world in the form of sociopathic pranks. It's all about as deep and complex as a pubescent boy's poetry.
Of all the methods I've seen of dealing with those idiots, disemvowelling is definitely my favorite. It takes the piss right out of a comment and makes it into instant comedy. It's like turning the volume down to a mumble, but the image of the arm-waving, furious commenter remains.
It's like turning the volume down to a mumble, but the image of the arm-waving, furious commenter remains.
Heh.
#33: I think "Trollius dickwad" sounds best, in relation to the reality of the so-named .
"Interneti" and "maximus" sound too good for this bunch...too "classy". Or do I mean classic? Classical? Eh whatever. Nuff said.
how about attaching an embarrassing image to an offending post? The tag would vary with the offense.
(hitler, steaming pile, gaping mouth etc.) No words, just a picture.
Internet users adopted the word “troll” to denote someone who intentionally disrupts online communities.
Using this definition many so-called trolls are not trolls at all. Just people who have different beliefs than whatever community they happen to be in. It's just inter-tribal conflict.
“You look for someone who is full of it, a real blowhard. Then you exploit their insecurities to get an insane amount of drama, laughs and lulz."
Sounds like a useful service, arrogant blowhards should have their bubbles popped.
The fact is-no sane apologia exists.
I'm sure that deer feel the same about wolves. The worst that could happen would be for them to get their wish. See? easy.
I always wondered how one italizes in one of these boxes...
How many Trollius species are there? Early on in this thread (#22 posted by mhlaxp) proposed a sort of useful, or at least entertaining, Trollius species, perhaps Trollius sardonicus?
Then, clearly there is T. puerilis, which isn't quite the same as T. trivialis, and T. dickwad, of course. Closely related to puerilis, but older, and lacking a certain charm.
Some of the folks profiled in the article are larger and darker beings, T. luciferi? Or maybe we should honor Heath Ledger, Trollius ledgeri?
In Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell's "From Hell" there's this really eerie scene, which like much of the book is based facts as they occured, where the "ripper letters" are being written.
All across London men of every station, from a Vicar to a hospital patient to a guy in a pub, are writing vile and horrid letters to the police in the persona of "Jack the Ripper".
That disturbing sequence kept coming to mind reading that article.
The anonymity of the mails allowed those men to act with such callowness.
We bring the depths of our vileness and the highest of our ideals to any new venture.
For every artist sharing their images of their work online or musician reaching new audiences you have people harassing the parents of dead children.
My hope, my faith, tells me that that good far outweighs the bad.
@#52 and others...
Then, clearly there is T. puerilis, which isn't quite the same as T. trivialis, and T. dickwad, of course. Closely related to puerilis, but older, and lacking a certain charm.
Some of the folks profiled in the article are larger and darker beings, T. luciferi? Or maybe we should honor Heath Ledger, Trollius ledgeri?
Hah, I'll have to ask Ape Lad if he'd consider drawing some diagrams of the different troll species you guys. Let me know what the correct presentation of the species and genus should be, and I'll correct my presentation there in the body of the post.
Hah, I'll have to ask Ape Lad if he'd consider drawing some diagrams of the different troll species you guys.
GENIUS!!
Don't be so limited in genera! What about Verbithrax loqacius: the timewaster troll? Or Verbithrax verbultimus: the 'last word' troll?
all you can do is establish a community that has a clear understanding and solid ethical grounding. If more than 99% of your people automatically recoil from evil, refuse to feed it and will not let it stand unchallenged - it cannot take root and flourish.
Whose ethical ground? Whose community? Let me help you out a bit. Lets diagram the common utopian/dystopian fantasies of many people.
1.
actor/observer
---------------------->
2.
actor/observer
---------------------->
---------------------->
---------------------->
Fascism(1) admits of only one narrative. History has a vector, come join us. Liberalism(2) admits multiple narratives but only as long as they conform to a preconceived arc of history. Far too many subscribe to one other the other of these.
3.
actor/observer
---------------------->
^
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is how the world works (forgive the limited typography. The diagram should have arrows pointing in all directions). There is no master narrative, history has no arc, it isn't going anywhere. It simply is. This is the model for life as theater, for how to pick up girls, for comments in blogs. It is also a diagram of the arts, of craft, as a mode of reflexive activity and social engagement. It's the model of artists' relation to one another and of artist to critic, if the critic sees himself in a reciprocal relation rather than that of a voyeur vampire. Everything you are and represent is constantly being recontextuaized, reformed. It is the model for intellectual "progress".
All that exists is the world and one's response to it. There is nothing else. Our society is a society built upon isolation and simultaneously upon a fixation on a desire/fear of simple absolute unity. Raves and The Borg are products of the same fear, desire, sadness. A geek is someone who is so wed to his own fixations that he is unable to imagine the world through the mind of another. Americans are the prototypical geeks, unable to imagine non-Americans.
When one is confronted with any man made thing what is our response? Text or subtext? The thing itself or the intention of it's maker? We can't know beforehand but we can learn. "Is this person someone I can learn from, a thinker, someone who constructs dynamic structures or can I only learn from him/her as symptom, as affect pointing to a larger problem."
I would place trolls in the latter category. They bring their own gifts, a lesson to be learned, though not the most obvious one.
There is a big difference between saying obnoxious things and posting someone's name and home address along with a death threat. The first is stupid trolling, the second is dangerous stalking. I'm all for going after the real world trolls who post home addresses with threats, or crank call people. Knock on someone's door or calling someone at home crosses a line from obnoxious to dangerous.
Perhaps saying this will simply make me a target for trolls, but I have to say that I was very upset by the NYT piece. The earlier commenter who made reference to "watching the world burn", a line recently used in the excellent new Batman film, is drawing an apt comparison. TDK's Joker is a troll par excellence.
What gets me about trolls, besides their sociopathy, is that their existence reinforces a lot of destructive beliefs on the part of otherwise good people. I teach ethics, among other things, and something I frequently like to communicate to my students is this: Nobody actually thinks of themselves as evil, with the exception of the insane and the exceptionally silly like Satan worshipers. In other words, pronouncements of good intention are almost guaranteed accompaniments of atrocious actions.
Why this is important: First, because it gives us pause about things that we--as individuals or as groups like nation states--do to others in the name of good. For instance, it's a given that political leaders offer noble-sounding justifications for questionable foreign policy. These should never be taken at face value, and never are--when we are dealing with foreign governments. For some reason, though, far too many people don't treat their own government with the same due skepticism. (Incidentally, in the US case, this criticism applies to Democratic and Republican administrations alike, although not always to the same extent.)
Second, recognizing that no sane person thinks of themselves as evil prevents us from dehumanizing our adversaries. Generally speaking, people are unwilling to negotiate with what they consider to be evil. If, however, we try to understand the grievances of our enemies, at least some of which will usually turn out to be legitimate, we can find nonviolent resolutions to conflict more easily. Moreover, understanding their motives will give us a better sense of what our adversaries might actually do, which has strategic advantages as well. If, on the contrary, we think of our enemies as absolutely evil, then we can justify the most horrendous of actions against both them and those who (willingly or not) associate with them (e.g., the relatively innocent citizens of nations run by tyrannical rulers).
Now, the worst trolls (like those profiled in the NYT piece) undermine this recognition, by providing examples of people who truly seem bent on destruction for its own sake. Their frequent anonymity makes it even worse, by causing people to believe that just about anyone could be a psychopath, at least some of the time. Their very existence breeds misanthropy and undermines the social order.
What to do about it? I wish I knew. One place to start, I think, is by not lumping all trolls into the same group, something which the NYT might have done a better job of. Who among us has not occasionally had a bad day and done something troll-like, either online or IRL? Most occasions of trolling are probably something like this. Going lower under the bridge, we find the people who regularly act this way, some of whom even embrace the "troll" label, but who do no significant harm. Perhaps these people are just responding to bad life circumstances, in which case their trolling may just be symptomatic of larger problems within a society.
At the very bottom are those who are effectively criminals, whether they break formal laws or not. I doubt that all of them are mentally imbalanced, but many of them probably are. If they are beyond help, these individuals need to be removed from society, whether they be put in prisons or mental institutions. Fortunately, these are probably a very small number.
Trolling will never disappear entirely--it's a sort of natural outgrowth of mass societies and their opportunities for anonymity--but I do think it is something we can keep in check if we're sensible about it.
I think that, for the media, trolls are the new pedophiles: a tiny group of people whose impact is magnified a thousandfold in order to sell newspapers. Many people, given anonymity and an audience are tempted to abuse them, but soon realize that they're not cut out to be mean and it doesn't make them happy.
Wait, is reciting sociology or ethics textbooks considered trolling?
Oh crap, now I'm trolling!
Where'd I put that home vasectomy kit . . .
I kid!
wonder what would happen if an anonymous,public minded group put the effort into outing the most egregious trolls? Think Fortuny could be a good example if his picture and address were posted worldwide? We could do spammers next.
http://eglima.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/dd_gibbet.jpg
I have to admit that Weev's characterization of Zeno, Socrates and the like as trolls blew my mind. Not that I'd put Weev in that category, but situating trolling within the broader history of critical inquiry almost renders noble Fortuny's (misguided) idea of using trolling as a means of educating his parents.
Even amongst people with such lofty goals, or the cajones to compare themselves to mythological tricksters, how often does any of this actually accomplish anything apart from the cheap thrill of mega-lulz, which Fox knows we'll stop at nothing to get. We've all seen more than enough trolls back-pedalling to know that "it was a social experiment" usually just means "I got caught". #22's citation of Colbert as a successful and provocative troll who actually engenders thought (although Colbert is also benefited by the protection that being a court jester's always provided) seems appropriate; maybe the distinction lies in Colbert's selection of targets vs. Fortuny's...or maybe the distinction is that which lies between relentless critical inquiry and pure sophism (in the modern sense).
PS: I loved the article, but "Malwebowence"? It's 2008, Gray Lady. Cheap web-pun headlines died around the same time as Mosaic.
"Disemvoweling" is an odious practice. I hate seeing it, and I hated having it done to me.
(Once. Look it up if you are curious. Was I trolling or just expressing my opinion?)
Think Fortuny could be a good example if his picture and address were posted worldwide?
He moves constantly and he's not so distinctive looking that most people would recognize him from a photo. It would be like challenging a professional hit man to a duel. Not sensible, preciousss.
@D3, if it was only once, maybe it's not worth worrying about.
FIRST!!!!
#15 mister_mental:
No offense, but if you are the type of person who gets their [sic] panties in such a tight knot over trolls that you kill yourself, you probably weren't emotionally fit enough to get on the internet in the first place.
No offense, but you may not be living up to your moniker. We're talking about an adolescent, right? Can't you remember what it was like? As I recall, it's a very sensitive time, fraught with grave doubts and feelings of unworthiness, moments of self-loathing and emotional distress. A dangerous time. Please don't insult a dead child with that deplorable panties-in-a-knot metaphor. A dead child deserves better.
#17:
I would wager that most BoingBoing readers are NOT equipped to handle the internet at large.
Well, then, let's capture it if it's at large! Okay ... then how do I get in shape? It isn't as hard as boot camp is it? What to do, psychic push-ups?
#30 ElBiggus:
Another cunning method ... is to make deleted comments invisible to everyone but the troll ... as far as they're concerned they've been left unmolested....
I think bb's already doing that. That's why a lot of my stuff sails on alone through perilous cyber seas.
#44 Oren Beck:
As while sadly we cannot advocate Genital Mutilation to sterilize their kind....
No need. You don't think women are actually going to shag those wankers, do you?
#56 Antinous:
Don't be so limited ... What about Verbithrax loqacius: the timewaster troll? Or Verbithrax verbultimus: the 'last word' troll?
NOW you're meddling!
Mister Mental #15, slapping the words "no offense" at the beginning of an offensive comment doesn't actually make the comment inoffensive.
Buddy,
"Panties in a knot" isn't an insult - just the closest that he's ever come to mating. The words always betray the mind.
...What this Times article fails to address are the "CT Nutter" trolls who have flooded Usenet with conspiracy theories and/or bogus "scientific" claims, not because they want to cause trouble, but because they're truly, certifiably, incarcerateably nuts. Trolls - some of whom have plagued Usenet since the late 1980's - along the lines of:
* Daniel Joseph Min
* Tony "Big Bertha" Lance
* John Thomas Maxson
* Brad Guth
* "~CT" AKA "Stuff4"
* Tommy Lee "ElfNazi" Elfritz
...Da Google on any of these worthless whackjobs, and you'll realize there was a subspecies of trolling that the NYT writer failed to acknowledge.
...Also, one other ommission: the word "willingly" before "abused" when the trolls discussed how they were molested by their families. Still, the comments made by the trolls interviewed pretty much proved my theory that most, if not all trolls were willingly molested as children, and are taking their frustrations out on us normal people because they have come to realize that they could have been charging far more than a couple of candy bars for their services.
"slapping the words "no offense" at the beginning of an offensive comment doesn't actually make the comment inoffensive."
...Agreed. That ranks right up there with someone posting a long, snot-filled flame, and then signing his post with "Cheers!" as if that makes it all better.
"is to make deleted comments invisible to everyone but the troll"
...Back when I ran the infamous Klingon Empire BBS from 1986 to 1996, that was one of the tricks I implemented on the message bases I hosted. If someone got branded a troll, if I didn't punt them outright their posts simply became invisible to everyone but themselves. After a while, they gave up and disappeared. Later, when the WWIVnet-Usenet gateway went up, the code for this was modded to help WWIVNet Sysops filter out troll traffic from the Usenet newsgroups that were being gated. By default Portal, CUNY/CCNY, and one particular egotripping net.god on rec.arts.comics were on the "eternal purge" list, and it helped keep our side of the gateway pretty useful as Usenet moved from academia to pay-per-troll.
AUGUST,
You said incarcerateably!
FIRST! New one on me and I LOVE IT. My vocabulary grows . . . And that, son, is how I came to love bb.
How can I not comment on this one?
I was happier when the word was used to mean an intentional disrupter of a community, and not just one with opinions radically divorced from those of the community.
The problem is that there's no room anywhere for radicalism. If you're a Green who thinks the solution is not education and treaties, but to shut off every bit of machinery NOW and don't turn them back on until we can prove beyond all doubt that they won't harm the Earth, you're going to be called a troll. Where can such a person go where their posts count as much as anyone else's?
I think the best method for dealing with trolls already exists, and has for years. It's the kill-file. Let anyone say anything, but let each reader decide who they don't want to listen to.
I think the other thing to do would be to create a well-known, troll-friendly place on the Internet. A Coventry, if you will. A site with no rules. A site where posting is a right, not a privilege. If someone trolls you, tell him to post it there, and maybe he'll be happy enough to do so.
But if we can't bring that onto Web-based fora, then what should be done? Assume, hypothetically, that I wish to troll some community. They don't want me to do so. What can they offer me to go away? There are bans, but there are also fake IP addresses. If such sites are so dedicated to community, authoritarian bannings probably aren't the best way to go.
In short, why not try respecting the troll as a human being, not try eliminating him?
There is a big difference between saying obnoxious things and posting someone's name and home address along with a death threat.
Unless of course we do it. Then it's justified.
pronouncements of good intention are almost guaranteed accompaniments of atrocious actions.
And nobody has better intentions than we do. Our motives are pure, our hearts unclouded. Only we are the enlightened ones, the children of God/the disciples of Science/the reality based community/the invisible hand of the market. Come with us and march into our preordained and Glorious Future!
Why this is important: First, because it gives us pause about things that we--as individuals or as groups like nation states--do to others in the name of good.
But we are unconscious of the evil that we do to others in the name of good. The clothes you wear were assembled by slaves (more or less). If all a so-called "troll" does is to make you aware of the damage your narcissism does to the rest of the world then that is an honorable thing indeed.
situating trolling within the broader history of critical inquiry almost renders noble Fortuny's (misguided) idea of using trolling as a means of educating his parents.
Weev believes in David Icke's reptilian BS and Fortuny was molested by his family of origin. They are broken individuals and represent the Discourse of Hysteria. What they represent is more important than what they have to say (or do).
One should listen, they are trying to tell you something important.
#72, OM, there is no such animule as the 'willingly' molested child. no matter what anyone has told you. any child offering sex for a snickers bar has been set on that path due to earlier abuse which has rewired the poor kid's brain. this is usually done by an older, male member of the family, regardless as to the sex of the child. secret sex with stepdaddy= trip to baskin robbins! you do the math.
You think disemvoweling is bad? Check out this rare case of deconsonanting.
Nelson.C, that is a thing of beauty.
Also, I came back to this thread just to say one more thing. We, as humans, are social animals. I don't think anybody would deny that.
Being social animals, we are hardwired with the ability to interpret body language, tone and even written words as emotional and logical input. Within this ability is a complex system of rules for interpreting the input. These rules are almost completely universal.
That said, there really is no defense for the habitual troll. If you get your jollies by bothering other people, it's probably because you're defective in some way and cannot interact meaningfully with your peers. If you find yourself always feeling the urge to upset other people online, then it may well be worth your time to think about speaking with a professional counselor.
I'd like to target the last part of this just to clear a few things up.
I would like to point out that the use of the Faux News story is an amusing related story, but also not entirely appropriate. Reason being? Logic.
Some, if not many anonymous are trolls (some are also rather unpleasant, as seen above).
Some trolls are anonymous.
These things do NOT equate to trolls==anonymous.
I would then like to point out, that anonymous is an extremely loose collective, if it could be even called that, and as such not all anonymous, are THOSE anonymous. Anyone who hasn't published their name on something is anonymous. In fact, a lot of Fox's sources choose to remain Anonymous.
My two cents.
► INTERNET TOUGH GUY
Huh.. it's almost like Xeni posted this totally absurd Fox News video just to elicit a response from the trolls out there how might react strongly to it... hmm, there should be a word for that.
One useful anti-troll feature is having an ignore feature - which makes the ignored posters comments not show up (but you can click to read them if you wish).
With ignore, each user can choose to ignore whom they wish to ignore, as sometimes one memes troll is another memes man.
Of course one other trick is to let a moderator mark the troll as ignored by EVERYONE - so people have to explicitly un-ignore the troll if they want to see their work.
Another simple trick is to just set the text color of the questionable post to the background color of the page. You can still read the comment by hilighting it if you wish to.
The key here is that you aren't removing (or making it nrdbl b rmvng vwls) the post. You're just making it so the average user doesn't have to see it - sort of like those little adult magazine shields in some magazine racks.
Disemvoweling IMO is too harsh.
the pug-nosed troll?
#77 Noen: Good call on the Lacan/Zizek. You might be interested in Jodi Dean, a political theorist who analyzes conspiracy theory discourse using Lacan and Zizek:
http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2007/02/trent.html#more
Ah, Fox News. At times, the biggest trolls of all.
Sure, there's a defense against the standard troll: don't give him a podium, a microphone, and an audience.
Is there anyone here who feels obliged to let absolutely anyone join their conversations, attend their parties, or walk in on their meetings? I hope we're all open-minded and generous enough to give the benefit of the doubt to strangers and newbies; but if someone walks into your party and takes a dump in the punchbowl, then starts drop-kicking the still-wrapped birthday presents across the room, do you quietly tell all the other guests to just ignore him unt