Trolls: The Good and Bad Side of the Phenomena

I think a issue like this needs to be readily discussed. As now it's becoming far more prevalent and in some cases in dangers people. There are people who defend trolls and to some degree I defend them under freedom of speech and expression, but it's when their behaviour begins to endanger people. Someone I know on yahoo answers is being attacked by trolls and she's had all her personal information found out --- this should be illegal, but due law not catching up quick enough, people like this are safe. I personally find this wrong.

Let us discuss both the good and bad of Trolls and whether we need to implement laws to handle the more hardcore ones?

There is absolutely no good about them. Freedom of speech is something that people simply do not understand. It doesn't give you to the right to harass other people.

You have full amendment rights until it infringes on the well being on another. So that 'free speech' excuse doesn't fly here.

I put trolls in the same category as those "Christians" who picket funerals of servicemen. I'm all for free-speech, but there needs to be restrictions when they are direct attacks or ignorant/malicious comments. Now, purists would argue that if one decided to limit some facets of free-speech others could inhibit all walks of freedom. Granted, most of these people think the second amendment entitles them to anti-tank rifles for home protection, but I can see they do have a point. Personally, I would interpret free-speech as a constructive interjection that perhaps deemed unseemly by a governing body, is just as credible to our development.

Do we have the right to anonymity on the Internet? If we don't, those trolls did nothing wrong.

dealing with it wrote:Do we have the right to anonymity on the Internet?

Legally? I'm not sure. Should we? Yes.

*shrugs It's how the net is like do enough research on anyone and you can prolly find information about someone they posted up -years- ago. Sides. The whole internet tough guy phenomenon has been getting easier to carry over into the real world due to various boards and such that allow or grant access to others that can create real life vandettas against people. Its one thing to troll people on the net -you're amusing yourself with the reactions of others- but offline you can actually see their faces as you torment them with hundreds.of people like you supporting you. There have been a multitude of stories where both online and offline trolling has lead to the deatha and suicides of others. That is not excusable.

Trolls make me sick to my stomach.

Smokescreen wrote: I'm all for free-speech, but there needs to be restrictions when they are direct attacks or ignorant/malicious comments.

You want to outlaw ignorance? We already have mandatory education, I don't think we can do much better. "The sky is yellow" is an ignorant comment. Usually, at least. Ignorance is bad, but not in the same way that maliciousness is bad.

Rights are rights until they infringe on the rights of another. You don't have the right to not be insulted. If we're talking about general internet trolls, they are so easy to ignore. You choose to reply, you choose to continue reading even after you've seen all the signs of a trolling post. Now, as for password-stealing identity-thieves? Not trolls. THAT should be illegal, as that's theft. But insulting people? Rude. Pointless. Protected.

That's not to say that message boards can't ban people for trolling, of course. There is no bill of rights for private companies like RPG and other websites. Well, employees have rights, but... bah. You get it. Hopefully.

I half get the feeling that there should be 'internet classes' in schools, teaching kids at a young age the dangers of the internet and the appropiateness of it.

And when to keep their mouth shut.

People do stupid things on the internet and make themselves targets. It's not like offline where being a social outcast makes you target. It takes getting noticed on the internet for someone to troll you.

This doesn't justify trolling. It's more a statement of 'Some people are stupid and get trolled because of it'.

I agree with the statement of if you're getting insulted you should have good sense enough to ignore that person.
Information thievery, or changing names to harrass someone that's a whole other matter and a very illegal one.
But back to the original statement.
I can't count how many times I've been insulted online and I've heard them all.
Now I didn't ignore it but chose to fight back. (I do not recommend the previous course of action for everyone.)
I don't think classes would do a bit of good but parents policing their kids and where they go to there's an idea.
Alot not all but alot of the personal information people get on you are things you've told someone.
Usually a friend or in a good deal of cases things you've told a former friend.

Stop blaming the folks on the internet because "little Johnny got trolled" did you ever look to see what little Johnny did to deserve that?
Most people don't just attack you on or offline if all you're doing is minding your own business.
At least that's my experience.
Remember people on the internet cannot hurt you anymore than you let them for the most part.

So much hating on the trolls. One might almost think ya'll were....trolling?

I actually do not mind trolls. Being reasonably intelligent gives one almost instant immunity to anything trolls can do or say. They are a paper tiger. Most of the people who let trolls get to them either

1) Take themselves to seriously
2) Ascribe dogmatically to a set of easily criticized and mocked ideas
3) Are Children

Of all of these only the third one bothers me, but I'm not going to be giving up the Freedom of Speech so that people can be crappy parents.

Also remember that trolls can do some very positive things. Have we forgotten Draw Muhammad Day where vast corners of the internet said NO to Islamic fundamentalists who had threatened many mainstream media sources into treating their religion with kid gloves. What about Project Chanology begun by the /b/tards who invented trolling and designed to expose human rights abuses within the Church of Scientology. In general trolls serve the purpose of the Fool upon the interwebs, a vital and always under-appreciated role. They prevent us from taking ourselves too seriously or polluting the web with the tired ideologies of the meat-o-sphere.

As for the Freedom of Speech, its powers only end when one's words threaten or cause PHYSICAL harm. Shouting FIRE in a crowded theater is the classic example. Making you cry is not PHYSICAL harm nor is criticizing your religion or calling you a Fatty-Fat-Fatpants. However, it should be noted that an internet forum is privately owned so they can disallow certain speech if they so desire. They do so at their peril of course because most internet users frown upon constrictions on speech. Come to think of it the openness of this forum and its tolerance of mature themes is the reason I'm here and not at RPG guild or some other prudish, overly modded site.

Oh and information theft is distinct from trolling. Some people who troll might also do this but that doesn't make them one and the same.

I would like to add in the point that there is a fine line between trolling, greifing, and harassment.

For example, I define trolling as the stereotypical "U mad Bro" type comments which ruffle feathers for fun. Greifing is constantly trolling to the point where it is unpleasant. Harassment is where most of you are categorizing trolls as.

It's all a mater of just ignoring the stupid ones and chuckling at the witty ones who rile people up for a bit of lols and then let it drop.

Generally, Trolling serves only to ignite conflict- but that only works as easily as the victim is to being provoked. Trolls aren't really dangerous if you have common sense, but sadly many people lack that common sense to simply ignore the troll- no matter how fallacious his/her arguments get. These tend to be children, or new users on the internet.

The problem with trolls is that you have to have experience (or wisdom) in dealing with them. You can tell a kid new to the world-wide-web to watch out for trolls and perhaps even explain to him what to look for, but when the troll begins insulting things he enjoys to do or begins harassing him, then those guidelines get a little sketchy.

I agree with madscirat, however. Trolling, though usually used for malicious purposes CAN be utilized for good/"Virtuous" effect as well. A troll by definition is "someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion". That does not necessarily mean that the action itself is inherently evil.

I'd like to reinforce Shiva's comment;

A troll goes to.. say a forum where there's predominately teenagers.. eg Myspace, and trolls them for being fat, ugly, etc. That itself is inherently malicious.


Now if a troll goes to say.. NAMBLA and trolls them for being pedophiles.. is that inherently evil or malicious?

madscirat wrote:Also remember that trolls can do some very positive things. Have we forgotten Draw Muhammad Day where vast corners of the internet said NO to Islamic fundamentalists who had threatened many mainstream media sources into treating their religion with kid gloves. What about Project Chanology begun by the /b/tards who invented trolling and designed to expose human rights abuses within the Church of Scientology. In general trolls serve the purpose of the Fool upon the interwebs, a vital and always under-appreciated role. They prevent us from taking ourselves too seriously or polluting the web with the tired ideologies of the meat-o-sphere.

As for the Freedom of Speech, its powers only end when one's words threaten or cause PHYSICAL harm. Shouting FIRE in a crowded theater is the classic example. Making you cry is not PHYSICAL harm nor is criticizing your religion or calling you a Fatty-Fat-Fatpants. However, it should be noted that an internet forum is privately owned so they can disallow certain speech if they so desire. They do so at their peril of course because most internet users frown upon constrictions on speech. Come to think of it the openness of this forum and its tolerance of mature themes is the reason I'm here and not at RPG guild or some other prudish, overly modded site.

In response to madscirat:

Firstly, the people who ran "Draw Muhammad Day" or "Project Chanology" are not people whom I would consider "trolls" in the sense of the definition as "someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." Their respective sites do not include messages that are inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic (especially off-topic) within their own community or community page (as in the case of Draw Muhammad Day.) Inflammatory, yes.

In response specifically to "Draw Muhammad Day," it is considered disrespectful, in mainstream Islam, to depict Muhammad because of the repeated warnings in Islam against idolatry. The idea goes that depictions of Muhammad could lead to veneration of such depictions, which would fly against one of the core tenets of Islam -- tawhid, or the oneness of God. In Judaism, to draw a parallel, the tetragrammaton of the four letters of G-d's proper name, yod, hei, vav, and hei, commonly transliterated as YHWH, are written with the proper consonants but the diacritic markings for the vowels of a different word, Adonai, meaning our Lord. The tetragrammaton has not been itself pronounced in centuries, and any piece of paper containing this name must not be discarded out of respect. To do so in a flippant response, say, to Jewish fundamentalists [yes, they exist], is actually an offense to the entire Jewish community. Likewise, to encourage thousands of uninformed internet users to draw pictures of Muhammad (some of whom, trolls within Draw Muhammad Day, took the opportunity to draw blatantly malicious pictures of Muhammad in depictions meant to offend anyone) as a "screw you" to Islamic fundamentalists actually encouraged those thousands of uninformed internet users to offend the entire Muslim community, which extends far above and beyond fundamentalists.

There is a huge difference between making honest, uninhibited critiques of religion -- or any specific religion, or any specific adherents to a religion -- and outright violating the principle of respecting another individual or community's cultural norms. Engaging in a critical debate with someone of another religious persuasion, writing an essay or giving a speech that points to flaws in religious practice or specific adherents to a religion, observing historical instances of offensive acts committed by adherents to a particular religion -- those are methods of critique that are frequently and gainfully employed by people with far more maturity than those who created Draw Muhammad Day, which is, at best a crude attempt to exercise freedom of speech, and at worst a malicious attack on Muslims for their religious beliefs and mores. Showing a modicum of respect for another religion or people who practice it isn't "treating their religion with kid gloves," but extending the same type of respect that you would expect someone else to show for you. And if you make the argument that all the respect goes one way -- so be it. Better that you have the principles and act upon them than stoop to the level of someone who refuses to exercise the same principles. Your mother was right when she said, of bullies, "Don't stoop to their level."

Secondly, you state that "Freedom of Speech, its powers only end when one's words threaten or cause PHYSICAL harm. Shouting FIRE in a crowded theater is the classic example. Making you cry is not PHYSICAL harm nor is criticizing your religion or calling you a Fatty-Fat-Fatpants." Absolutely and unequivocally wrong. As we have tragically witnessed countless times in the last two years alone, physical harm is not the only way that people can be deeply hurt and driven to the point of suicide. If you dare to come to me and say that freedom of speech -- by the definition that you gave, not moments before -- justifies bullying (face to face or online) as long as it does not "threaten or cause physical harm," then you have become an enabler of such an enormous outpouring of hatred toward individuals and communities, and particularly the most vulnerable members of society. Why? Because so much bullying, which includes some forms of trolling, does not threaten or cause physical harm. But it causes devastating emotional harm.

Psychology tells us that repeated bullying can lead to the development of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD.) One of my best friends has PTSD for this precise reason, and I know of a few others for whom that is also true. If you can sit in front of your computer, read this post, and dismiss that, or worse, laugh at it, then there is something seriously wrong with you. The news, furthermore, tells us that repeated bullying -- including online bullying, surprise -- can lead to major depression and suicide, in children as young as ten. (As well as older young adults, college-age students.) If we adopt your definition of what constitutes the acceptable "limits" of free speech, then we must accept all types of bullying. Harassment is a form of bullying. To deny that is to skirt the issue and underplay it. Trolling can be bullying. To uphold trolling as if it is a virtue is inexcusable and deplorable.

You state that "[b]eing reasonably intelligent gives one almost instant immunity to anything trolls can do or say." Again, this is completely unfounded and untrue. Very intelligent people, including people with IQs two, three, or even four standard deviations above the norm are as equally subjected to bullying -- or vicious trolling -- as people who may not have that level of measurable intelligence. Intelligence does not equal immunity to trolling. It does not and to suggest that it does is to conflate your own personal experience and understanding with that of an entire population, which is in itself a logical fallacy. (Each one of the people mentioned above with diagnoses of PTSD related to bullying have IQs of over two standard deviations above the mean.)

Lastly, let me sketch a difference between the type of trolling that I am addressing and that which, by some standards, might generally be considered acceptable. Whenever it is posted with the intent -- or de facto effect -- of causing emotional, psychological, or threat of physical harm, it is trolling and bullying. Whenever the author could have reasonably predicted that emotional or psychological harm would result from the contents of the post, it is trolling. Whenever the community members where it was posted could have reasonably predicted that the post would cause emotional or psychological harm, it is trolling. If, on the other hand, it was a snide -- perhaps even rude -- comment about say, politics, the weather, a particular sports team, a book, a movie, etcetera., that could be construed as disrespectful and perhaps offensive, but may not be automatically trolling. (i.e. "The Boston Red Sox suck ass." "Twilight is a god-awful shitty book." "Sarah Palin is such a bitch." All disrespectful and incredibly rude, but not intended to, and likely, in most cases, will not cause emotional or psychological harm to someone else.) On the other hand, "You're such a fatass." "Your holy book should be shit on." "Fuck your beliefs." and such statements are trolling and bullying, because anyone who writes such a thing and does not expect it to cause emotional or psychological harm is asinine.

Ylanne wrote:There is a huge difference between making honest, uninhibited critiques of religion -- or any specific religion, or any specific adherents to a religion -- and outright violating the principle of respecting another individual or community's cultural norms.

Nobody except the members of a religion are under any obligation to follow the rules and rituals of that religion. There is literally nothing wrong with non-Muslims drawing Mohammad: it is intolerant to believe otherwise. Honestly, given the climate of intolerance, I think that that artistic statement needed to be made, and by a large group of people. Our cardinal values encourage us to behave in such a way.

Why should we respect the norms of all other cultures? I barely respect all the norms in our own. Because it's an easy example, I don't, for instance, respect the philosophies and morals of sadists. With belief systems like that floating about, asking me even to tolerate everyone else's beliefs is already a tough demand, and this is from someone who can see the value of tolerance. I can respect someone's rights to form their own conclusions (by advocating freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience), and yet not respect their conclusions.

Intelligence does not equal immunity to trolling.

Agreed. I would be surprised if intelligent people were less gullible than stupid ones.

Whenever it is posted with the intent -- or de facto effect -- of causing emotional, psychological, or threat of physical harm, it is trolling and bullying.

I had a mentor who was certain that the ego and the emotions are actually impediments to the quest for truth. He definitely caused emotional and psychological harm to many people he spoke with, and intentionally; yet, I wouldn't call it bullying or trolling. It was actually quite enlightened. He didn't do it for pleasure, but because he genuinely believed that emotional people think poorly. He did it because he valued truth above all else, and sentimentality gets in the way of rationality.

"You're such a fatass." "Your holy book should be shit on." "Fuck your beliefs." and such statements are trolling and bullying, because anyone who writes such a thing and does not expect it to cause emotional or psychological harm is asinine.

A sadist tries to sell you some philosophy right out of the pages of Marquis de Sade. How long do you need to ponder the value of seeking personal pleasure by causing pain to others before you can tell the sadist to fuck his beliefs? 120 Days of Sodom should be shit on.

I guess this isn't a perfect example, because I don't think sadists are brittle enough to be hurt by that. Might as well be insulting the weather.

dealing with it wrote:

Ylanne wrote:There is a huge difference between making honest, uninhibited critiques of religion -- or any specific religion, or any specific adherents to a religion -- and outright violating the principle of respecting another individual or community's cultural norms.

Nobody except the members of a religion are under any obligation to follow the rules and rituals of that religion. There is literally nothing wrong with non-Muslims drawing Mohammad: it is intolerant to believe otherwise. Honestly, given the climate of intolerance, I think that that artistic statement needed to be made, and by a large group of people. Our cardinal values encourage us to behave in such a way.

Why should we respect the norms of all other cultures? I barely respect all the norms in our own. Because it's an easy example, I don't, for instance, respect the philosophies and morals of sadists. With belief systems like that floating about, asking me even to tolerate everyone else's beliefs is already a tough demand, and this is from someone who can see the value of tolerance. I can respect someone's rights to form their own conclusions (by advocating freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience), and yet not respect their conclusions.

Between one extreme of kowtowing to political correctness every which direction of every imaginable culture or religion, and the other extreme of willfully violating a cultural taboo with the intent to insult, there is the middle ground of avoiding intentional offense. There is also a huge difference between a major world religion and culture (i.e. Islam) and a minority subculture that by almost any outsider's standards engages in unethical practices. The vast majority of non-Muslims would probably agree that avoiding drawing pictures or sculpting people isn't immoral or unethical. Strange and unfamiliar to those of us who have been raised alongside such images and pictures, yes, but not outright unethical. That's the difference between extending respect to "the philosophies and morals" of whole groups of people from, say, another country (i.e. the Chinese), or another ethnic group (i.e. the Kurds), or another religion (i.e. Islam) wherever those philosophies and morals are not entirely abjectly morally objectionable, and "respecting" the "philosophies and morals" of, say, the followers of the Marquis de Sade.

dealing with it wrote:

Ylanne wrote:Whenever it is posted with the intent -- or de facto effect -- of causing emotional, psychological, or threat of physical harm, it is trolling and bullying.

I had a mentor who was certain that the ego and the emotions are actually impediments to the quest for truth. He definitely caused emotional and psychological harm to many people he spoke with, and intentionally; yet, I wouldn't call it bullying or trolling. It was actually quite enlightened. He didn't do it for pleasure, but because he genuinely believed that emotional people think poorly. He did it because he valued truth above all else, and sentimentality gets in the way of rationality.

There is again a huge, vast difference between making someone uncomfortable, challenging his or her beliefs, and forcing him or her to accept unpleasant truths... and belittling, demeaning, or attacking that person (that is, intentionally causing emotional or psychological harm). As an Autistic person, and one who approaches all facets of life and discussions such as this one entirely with the frame of rationality, unimpeded by emotions in nearly all instances, I fully respect and applaud the idea that reason can be inhibited by emotional overreaction. That does not mean emotions or a person's feelings are worthless, useless, or meaningless. It does not mean that you should not strive to respect someone's feelings. I too value truth above all else, and it is truth that emotions are an innate part of being human. It is truth that if you are not emotionally affected by, say, the Holocaust, or the Armenian genocide, or the Rwandan genocide, or the Bosnian genocide, or 9/11, in some small way, than you are not experiencing that sense of devastation and loss as any rational human being would. For while emotion can inhibit reason, the truly rational person understands that emotion is a part of the human experience that must be as fully embraced as the intellect. That is what you fail to understand.

Ylanne wrote:There is also a huge difference between a major world religion and culture (i.e. Islam) and a minority subculture that by almost any outsider's standards engages in unethical practices.

This whole paragraph is an argumentum ad populum. You have condemned sadism because sadists are a minority compared to larger belief structures. I don't see the number of people who hold a belief as being of any consequence as to its moral worth.

The vast majority of non-Muslims would probably agree that avoiding drawing pictures or sculpting people isn't immoral or unethical.

You don't find censorship unethical?

There is again a huge, vast difference between making someone uncomfortable, challenging his or her beliefs, and forcing him or her to accept unpleasant truths... and belittling, demeaning, or attacking that person (that is, intentionally causing emotional or psychological harm)

Argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy, true. But it is not a fallacy to call someone's belief system a crock of shit, no matter how badly it hurts their feelings. It is imperative to separate one's beliefs from one's ego.

It is truth that if you are not emotionally affected by, say, the Holocaust, or the Armenian genocide, or the Rwandan genocide, or the Bosnian genocide, or 9/11, in some small way, than you are not experiencing that sense of devastation and loss as any rational human being would.

The thing about sadism is that it is rational, even if you disagree with it. But this wasn't quite my point; I'm not defending genocide.

I use sadism as an example because it causes disgust in many people, myself included. I rarely take pleasure in another's pain, and wouldn't consider it a positive trait when I do so. But there are other philosophical and spiritual beliefs that are disgusting. Anything that preaches extreme conformity is worthless in my eyes. So is that fatalism that lives only to die. There are entire religions that I find just as abhorrent as sadism, as well.

For while emotion can inhibit reason, the truly rational person understands that emotion is a part of the human experience that must be as fully embraced as the intellect. That is what you fail to understand.

Emotion should be understood because it affects our judgement, but trusted judiciously. If we followed all our emotions, we would be more animal than human.

Do Not Feed The Trolls... That's really what I go by...

This seems an appropriate place to post this. Somebody is trolling RP's. At first, I thought it was just Sciamancer's RP, ASCO (name drop!), but when I checked the front page, quite a few Rp's were tagged really weirdly.

Worst of all, I have a weird feeling that this is somehow connected to me. Because quite a few trolltags in ASCO were comments made by me, so im wondering whats going on here.

Also, the majority of trolls suck. Trolling for justice, however, is funny and interesting.

For example, I trolled this one guy real hard for blaming his friends for him getting caught by his parents smoking weed. That was stupidly written. The guy got caught smoking weed, and blamed his friends for selling him out. So I asked him a few questions, made a few comments, and basically wove an intricate web that led to one conclusion: He was responsible for choosing to smoke weed in the first place. I left the scene laughing and singing. trololololololol.