Anyone Can Become a Troll: Causes of Trolling Behavior in Online Discussions [pdf](files.clr3.com)
files.clr3.com
Anyone Can Become a Troll: Causes of Trolling Behavior in Online Discussions [pdf]
https://files.clr3.com/papers/2017_anyone.pdf
86 comments
You'll find that political, religious, and any other extreme group is an easy target, in direct proportion to their sincerity. It's not like it's hard to target Alex Jones' followers... Lady Gaga did it without even trying. Any group of passionate people is usually easy to get a rise out of.
The opposite!
The aim isn't to get a rise out of them, it is to split them. Lighting the spark that causes significant in-fighting means they do all the work for you. The environment in some of these vulnerable groups make this simple. Divide them into a couple of sections based on ideological disagreements and it comes crashing down quickly and hard.
Religious and many political groups are easy to get a rise out of, but their commitment to a common goal is greater than internal power struggles. It is much harder to split these groups when their common aim is so clear and hard felt.
When groups with a strong common aim and a sense of unity are attacked by the out-group, they get stronger in their resolve.
The aim isn't to get a rise out of them, it is to split them. Lighting the spark that causes significant in-fighting means they do all the work for you. The environment in some of these vulnerable groups make this simple. Divide them into a couple of sections based on ideological disagreements and it comes crashing down quickly and hard.
Religious and many political groups are easy to get a rise out of, but their commitment to a common goal is greater than internal power struggles. It is much harder to split these groups when their common aim is so clear and hard felt.
When groups with a strong common aim and a sense of unity are attacked by the out-group, they get stronger in their resolve.
> The aim isn't to get a rise out of them, it is to split them.
Not necessarily. 4chan often trolls other communities (and even other boards within 4chan) not out of deep opposition but for sports. Certainly, trolling or related tactics can be used to further some agenda, but that is not essential to the trolling itself.
It can also be used to require some conformance to community rules. If no moderation tools are available to the users then they can simply tell outsiders that they are not welcome by trolling them. That does not mean they try to disrupt or divide the community from which the outsider came. No, they're actually defending their own community.
Of course getting other communities to tear themselves apart would be "mission accomplished" for a troll, but that does not mean it is the end-goal, just one possible outcome.
Not necessarily. 4chan often trolls other communities (and even other boards within 4chan) not out of deep opposition but for sports. Certainly, trolling or related tactics can be used to further some agenda, but that is not essential to the trolling itself.
It can also be used to require some conformance to community rules. If no moderation tools are available to the users then they can simply tell outsiders that they are not welcome by trolling them. That does not mean they try to disrupt or divide the community from which the outsider came. No, they're actually defending their own community.
Of course getting other communities to tear themselves apart would be "mission accomplished" for a troll, but that does not mean it is the end-goal, just one possible outcome.
I don't think this is at all the mechanism at work. It's much more accurate to think of trollers as spammers -- and the effect they can have on discourse is almost akin to violence as they attack the means by which the mediums they troll could otherwise support meaningful communication.
You suppose that variations in response to trolling from Religious communities vs liberal communities has some fundamental relationship to the intrinsic properties of those communities. In reality, I think trolling is a weapon and the difference you see in how these communities respond reflects the difference in the amount of ammunition spent on trolling those communities vs the size and efficacy of any agenda that tried to counter the influence of trolls.
You suppose that variations in response to trolling from Religious communities vs liberal communities has some fundamental relationship to the intrinsic properties of those communities. In reality, I think trolling is a weapon and the difference you see in how these communities respond reflects the difference in the amount of ammunition spent on trolling those communities vs the size and efficacy of any agenda that tried to counter the influence of trolls.
One example might help reinforce my case. Note to commenters, I am not making any judgements on these communities, these are just my observations.
A hard left community which is heavily invested in identity politics is inherently vulnerable to this type of destruction. It is in the DNA of the movement. I have witnessed this in many groups.
Group starts building large number of members for a cause, lets call it "Womans March". Initially all unified behind a common cause. Exploit identity politics to break it.
"Wow, I can't believe ALL the admins are white woman" "smh, these people need to stay in their lane and lets POC take charge" "my trans* friend was just messaged by an admin telling them "men" aren't allowed" "some of the people on this page are too ghetto"
As long as the culture is focused on grievance and division, they will divide and divide with a miniscule amount of pushing. Resentment and infighting grow almost exponentially.
A group of 5 co-ordinated trolls using these tactics collapse massive communities over and over again. You would not believe how effective it is. These are all old CIA tactics, unclassified manuals are studied and disseminated.
A hard left community which is heavily invested in identity politics is inherently vulnerable to this type of destruction. It is in the DNA of the movement. I have witnessed this in many groups.
Group starts building large number of members for a cause, lets call it "Womans March". Initially all unified behind a common cause. Exploit identity politics to break it.
"Wow, I can't believe ALL the admins are white woman" "smh, these people need to stay in their lane and lets POC take charge" "my trans* friend was just messaged by an admin telling them "men" aren't allowed" "some of the people on this page are too ghetto"
As long as the culture is focused on grievance and division, they will divide and divide with a miniscule amount of pushing. Resentment and infighting grow almost exponentially.
A group of 5 co-ordinated trolls using these tactics collapse massive communities over and over again. You would not believe how effective it is. These are all old CIA tactics, unclassified manuals are studied and disseminated.
I think the actual explanatory power from your example comes from the fact that these are communities whose purpose is to grow over time. The coordinated trolling is a means to attack that growth by destroying the means of legitimate discourse (particularly around any form of disagreement) and by recruiting more trolls (who aren't part of the original 5 coordinators but who might share the goal of the coordinators).
The efficacy of this tactic has nothing to do with the properties of the community being attacked (other than that it's a community that exists to grow) and everything to do with the properties and volume of the attackers.
Additionally -- I think the women's march example undermines your claim. Despite significant coordinated deployment of these tactics, the group became quite large indeed. The only people who now subscribe to your view that it has collapsed are those who oppose the agenda of the women's march. There is nothing objective to substantiate your claim that it has collapsed.
The efficacy of this tactic has nothing to do with the properties of the community being attacked (other than that it's a community that exists to grow) and everything to do with the properties and volume of the attackers.
Additionally -- I think the women's march example undermines your claim. Despite significant coordinated deployment of these tactics, the group became quite large indeed. The only people who now subscribe to your view that it has collapsed are those who oppose the agenda of the women's march. There is nothing objective to substantiate your claim that it has collapsed.
What did the women's march accomplish? Any policy changes? Any social reform?
Frankly, it was rather absurd seeing posters of a woman in a hijab as a poster for freedom and equality considering the hijab is a tool of social oppression. In the Middle East women's rights groups protest against the hijab, not for it.
Not to mention it did get hijacked by groups with disparate agendas.
At the end of the day, it's already been forgotten and accomplished nothing.
Frankly, it was rather absurd seeing posters of a woman in a hijab as a poster for freedom and equality considering the hijab is a tool of social oppression. In the Middle East women's rights groups protest against the hijab, not for it.
Not to mention it did get hijacked by groups with disparate agendas.
At the end of the day, it's already been forgotten and accomplished nothing.
If it has been forgotten than why are we talking about it?
I challenge you to support the argument that your perception that the movement accomplished nothing is unbiased.
The reality is that the movement hasn't ended yet. It was the largest protest in American history and there will be fruits born from that. The opposition party is without any official power in government at the moment so if your expectation was an immediate sea change in policy that seems an unrealistically high standard. Other areas (that carry real effects) are already affected however -- that kind of political expression has many soft power effects. Companies are marketing to that demographic (rather than sticking to non-political messaging), government officials who disagree with illegal policy orders presented to them are seeing and feeling support from a large segment of the population to oppose and resist. Many local governments are seeing sharp increases in community participation at local events. Congress critters are being stalked by opposition supporters, cancelling public speaking events sometimes, their call centers are overwhelmed with dissenting opinions. This stuff is going to matter despite your promises of non-effect.
You frame an ongoing movement as entirely impotent and by doing so you very much ignore the important reality of soft power in government and politics.
I challenge you to support the argument that your perception that the movement accomplished nothing is unbiased.
The reality is that the movement hasn't ended yet. It was the largest protest in American history and there will be fruits born from that. The opposition party is without any official power in government at the moment so if your expectation was an immediate sea change in policy that seems an unrealistically high standard. Other areas (that carry real effects) are already affected however -- that kind of political expression has many soft power effects. Companies are marketing to that demographic (rather than sticking to non-political messaging), government officials who disagree with illegal policy orders presented to them are seeing and feeling support from a large segment of the population to oppose and resist. Many local governments are seeing sharp increases in community participation at local events. Congress critters are being stalked by opposition supporters, cancelling public speaking events sometimes, their call centers are overwhelmed with dissenting opinions. This stuff is going to matter despite your promises of non-effect.
You frame an ongoing movement as entirely impotent and by doing so you very much ignore the important reality of soft power in government and politics.
Occupy Wall Street was also a big movement. What did it accomplish? Bernie's rise in the primaries was a movement, he brought out big crowds, what good did that do?
Let's face it, the Republicans winning all 3 branches of power and a majority of state institutions is far more of a statement than a large turnout for a protest.
Let's face it, the Republicans winning all 3 branches of power and a majority of state institutions is far more of a statement than a large turnout for a protest.
Some people think the tea party movement caused the republicans to gain control over congress in 2010.
Like it or not, more than half the population of voters is not represented in the federal government currently. They are actively expressing their voices. Ignoring that (as is being done on a grand scale) will have political consequences.
Like it or not, more than half the population of voters is not represented in the federal government currently. They are actively expressing their voices. Ignoring that (as is being done on a grand scale) will have political consequences.
>"Modern left" leaning groups are so easy to disrupt and destroy it is child's play.
That raises the question, whose fault is it? If people are so sensitive that they get spooked by halloween masks and triggered by witty remarks, does the world around them have to change, or do they have to change?
That raises the question, whose fault is it? If people are so sensitive that they get spooked by halloween masks and triggered by witty remarks, does the world around them have to change, or do they have to change?
I don't think it raises any questions about strawmen descriptors of the "modern left" at all. The pearl-clutching over "ess jay doublyous" far outweigh any impact they have in real life.
A few people lose their jobs as authorities try to placate the SJWs and the chilling effect over the whole society is palpable. Ask Brendan Eich or the leaders of that University in Missouri or the guy who made an innocent dongle joke at a conference.
People remember that kind of thing and millions edit themselves in a general low-level miasma of fear they might get targeted.
People remember that kind of thing and millions edit themselves in a general low-level miasma of fear they might get targeted.
For the most part, they're more annoying than anything else.
But wow, are they annoying.
But wow, are they annoying.
Which one is annoying -- the SJWs or the pearl clutchers?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Im not sure what the answer to that question is.
What appears to be the case is that if certain movements at their core significant weight on identifying/separating groups of people, especially based on grievance, it will inevitably split.
A group that bases itself on division, will inevitably divide and weaken.
What appears to be the case is that if certain movements at their core significant weight on identifying/separating groups of people, especially based on grievance, it will inevitably split.
A group that bases itself on division, will inevitably divide and weaken.
> "Modern left" leaning groups are so easy to disrupt and destroy it is child's play.
that is not my experience at all, modern left leaning groups instantly ban people with even slightly different opinions.
that is not my experience at all, modern left leaning groups instantly ban people with even slightly different opinions.
Nah, that's amateur hour.
They're easy to disrupt because if you throw out a piece of fake or mostly fake information that accedes to some viewpoint they hold holy they'll throw themselves into a rabid fury without much thought.
For an example just look at the 0-60 leg humping of lyft they did last week because of that selectively true uber story. All that despite Icahn and Thiel each having 9 (?) figures invested in lyft. L to the ol.
They're easy to disrupt because if you throw out a piece of fake or mostly fake information that accedes to some viewpoint they hold holy they'll throw themselves into a rabid fury without much thought.
For an example just look at the 0-60 leg humping of lyft they did last week because of that selectively true uber story. All that despite Icahn and Thiel each having 9 (?) figures invested in lyft. L to the ol.
Or for another example, look at this story and how the folks against GamerGate responded to it:
https://medium.com/@mombot/zachattack-how-i-tricked-anti-har...
All it took was a bit of fake evidence and a story these people wanted to believe (that someone they disliked 'wasn't a minority'), and suddenly you had a whole bunch of people looking like idiots and making fools of themselves.
So easy to then ramp this up to focus on someone in the activist's/extremists' own community and hey, the whole group is now up in flames over a fabricated story.
https://medium.com/@mombot/zachattack-how-i-tricked-anti-har...
All it took was a bit of fake evidence and a story these people wanted to believe (that someone they disliked 'wasn't a minority'), and suddenly you had a whole bunch of people looking like idiots and making fools of themselves.
So easy to then ramp this up to focus on someone in the activist's/extremists' own community and hey, the whole group is now up in flames over a fabricated story.
I'm not familiar with GamerGate. Can you explain this story?
From reading the article I make some inferences and try to explain what I understood -- I explain below just to illustrate what I understand coming from a place of zero information on the topic -- please clarify and correct my understanding as presented.
GamerGate is a movement of some kind (I actually have no idea what they support) that began deploying an attack called 'doxing' (which I understand involves publicly disclosing the identity behind social media personas in order that real life attacks/intimidation can be conducted against the actual humans) against people they are against.
Anti-GamerGate is a movement with the agenda to 'dox the GamerGate doxxers'. The above article claims to be an account of how two individuals worked together to convince anti-GamerGaters to dox a fake identity and in the process uncovered the identity of the anti-GamerGaters and proceeded to 'dox' them with that information.
What I'm failing to undestand is how exactly this proves anything about left-leaning groups in general? Is it your position that coordinated deployment of fake information can only be used against communities with certain philosophical properties commonly identified as 'liberal'? In your opinion what kind of information would be required to prove this perspective? Do you have evidence to support the idea that communities with a different philosophical leaning would not succumb to such a coordinated mis-information campaign?
From reading the article I make some inferences and try to explain what I understood -- I explain below just to illustrate what I understand coming from a place of zero information on the topic -- please clarify and correct my understanding as presented.
GamerGate is a movement of some kind (I actually have no idea what they support) that began deploying an attack called 'doxing' (which I understand involves publicly disclosing the identity behind social media personas in order that real life attacks/intimidation can be conducted against the actual humans) against people they are against.
Anti-GamerGate is a movement with the agenda to 'dox the GamerGate doxxers'. The above article claims to be an account of how two individuals worked together to convince anti-GamerGaters to dox a fake identity and in the process uncovered the identity of the anti-GamerGaters and proceeded to 'dox' them with that information.
What I'm failing to undestand is how exactly this proves anything about left-leaning groups in general? Is it your position that coordinated deployment of fake information can only be used against communities with certain philosophical properties commonly identified as 'liberal'? In your opinion what kind of information would be required to prove this perspective? Do you have evidence to support the idea that communities with a different philosophical leaning would not succumb to such a coordinated mis-information campaign?
Trolling? :P
This is true for just about any superficial community, which reddit is full of. Clickbait driven logic.
It is absolutely a biased perspective to pretend that left leaning communities are more likely to be "rabidly supportive" of fake news that conforms to their worldview than right leaning communities.
Right leaning community discourse is almost entirely oblique references to trigger topics and meme images that use simplistic analogies to pattern match against the audiences worldview.
Right leaning community discourse is almost entirely oblique references to trigger topics and meme images that use simplistic analogies to pattern match against the audiences worldview.
Exactly. That behaviour shows you they can be split easily.
Medium term infiltration into these groups is straightforward as the external signifiers of group membership are known and easy to emulate.
Stimulate what appears to be a genuine disagreement and sides quickly form. As they are used to banning people quickly, the culture is strong and hard disagreement. If they can be turned on each other, it quickly collapses.
Medium term infiltration into these groups is straightforward as the external signifiers of group membership are known and easy to emulate.
Stimulate what appears to be a genuine disagreement and sides quickly form. As they are used to banning people quickly, the culture is strong and hard disagreement. If they can be turned on each other, it quickly collapses.
That means that get rid of unintelligent trolls -- the best trolls are the one who hang around and worm their ways into position of power, so they can do the banning.
My experience has been people who claim they're banned from groups for espousing different opinions actually did so in the least constructive way possible. They weren't banned for the opinion, they were banned for their conduct.
See: Reddit. With the notable exception of alt-right subs like /r/The_Donald -- who apparently have no issue with banning anyone they even _think_ is going against the hive mind.
See: Reddit. With the notable exception of alt-right subs like /r/The_Donald -- who apparently have no issue with banning anyone they even _think_ is going against the hive mind.
That's true. People complain about being banned, and then it turns out that they called someone's mother a hamster.
Not that there isn't some awful part of me thinks it's a little bit funny to tweet gay porn at the alt-right, but if you do something like that, than don't complain about getting banned: you had it coming.
Not that there isn't some awful part of me thinks it's a little bit funny to tweet gay porn at the alt-right, but if you do something like that, than don't complain about getting banned: you had it coming.
"trolling behavior in discussion communities, defined in the literature as behavior that falls outside acceptable bounds defined by those communities"
Is this the definition you would use for "trolling behavior"? It's not what I was expecting, and greatly changes my understanding of what the study is looking at compared to the title.
Is this the definition you would use for "trolling behavior"? It's not what I was expecting, and greatly changes my understanding of what the study is looking at compared to the title.
Yeah, I'm not sure what credence to give to "the literature" they cite.
Just speaking for me personally, I was musing on it long ago [0] and I'd like to suggest three starting points:
1. Trolling always means the user is, in some way, not sincere or not honest in their interactions.
2. Trolling is always about triggering or goading victims into a reaction.
3. Trolling is not the same as humor, trolling can incorporate humor, but only in a "mean-spirited" way.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/p7u3k/troll_level_ma...
Just speaking for me personally, I was musing on it long ago [0] and I'd like to suggest three starting points:
1. Trolling always means the user is, in some way, not sincere or not honest in their interactions.
2. Trolling is always about triggering or goading victims into a reaction.
3. Trolling is not the same as humor, trolling can incorporate humor, but only in a "mean-spirited" way.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/p7u3k/troll_level_ma...
#2 gets closest. South Park's latest season was a very insightful satire of Trump as the ultimate troll. Online trolls originally pushed Trump's candidacy as a way of antagonizing the virtue-signaling left. Of all the Republican candidates he was the most leftfield in the sense that he had no political experience and was also the least politically correct. He was brash and mean to the other candidates and seemed not to care if what he said came off as insensitive or even racist/sexist. Trump's success in the primaries triggered the left into over-reacting and running a campaign which contained far too much identity politics. Many felt the left was already overusing the racist/sexist card. Trump was easy bait to push them even further, exposing them and making them seemed like that's ALL they cared about.
> #2 gets closest.
Well, those aren't alternatives, I'm saying that "trolling" requires all three.
> Trump as the ultimate troll
You want to bring politics into this? Ah well, I guess people can minus-click the thread.
Whether Trump is a troll or not depends on whether he's telling the truth -- or thinks he is at the moment it comes out of his mouth. Personally, I don't think he's a troll, his internal dysfunction is on some other existential tier.
> as a way of antagonizing the virtue-signaling left. Of all the Republican candidates he was the most leftfield
I'm going to assume that "leftfield" is 100% sports-jargon and in no way a veiled back-reference to "the left" politically.
Well, those aren't alternatives, I'm saying that "trolling" requires all three.
> Trump as the ultimate troll
You want to bring politics into this? Ah well, I guess people can minus-click the thread.
Whether Trump is a troll or not depends on whether he's telling the truth -- or thinks he is at the moment it comes out of his mouth. Personally, I don't think he's a troll, his internal dysfunction is on some other existential tier.
> as a way of antagonizing the virtue-signaling left. Of all the Republican candidates he was the most leftfield
I'm going to assume that "leftfield" is 100% sports-jargon and in no way a veiled back-reference to "the left" politically.
Leftfield meaning unconventional, perhaps more commonly said is 'out of left field.'
> Whether Trump is a troll or not depends on whether he's telling the truth
Does it, though? It could equally apply to someone who feigns ignorance of the truth. For example, someone starts talking about a topic. You're an expert in the topic but disagree with his assessment. You pretend not to be an expert and ask questions. He thinks he's helping you understand while in reality you are goading him into overstating his position and proving him wrong. There may be some deception as to your level of knowledge but the underlying argument isn't necessarily untrue.
> Whether Trump is a troll or not depends on whether he's telling the truth
Does it, though? It could equally apply to someone who feigns ignorance of the truth. For example, someone starts talking about a topic. You're an expert in the topic but disagree with his assessment. You pretend not to be an expert and ask questions. He thinks he's helping you understand while in reality you are goading him into overstating his position and proving him wrong. There may be some deception as to your level of knowledge but the underlying argument isn't necessarily untrue.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> 1. Trolling always means the user is, in some way, not sincere or not honest in their interactions.
Unintentional trolling would contradict that.
Unintentional trolling would contradict that.
> Unintentional trolling
As I mentioned in the ancient link, there's no such thing, because I consider that a contradiction in terms, much like "accidental assassination" or "unperturbed terror". You only see the words together when the author is going for rhetorical effect:
> No matter how moronic, argumentative, or misinformed a person might be, they cannot be a troll if they are trying to be honest and their motives are straightforward.
There are many other unflattering labels you can use for the kind of person you describe, but "trolling" implies and requires intent.
As I mentioned in the ancient link, there's no such thing, because I consider that a contradiction in terms, much like "accidental assassination" or "unperturbed terror". You only see the words together when the author is going for rhetorical effect:
> No matter how moronic, argumentative, or misinformed a person might be, they cannot be a troll if they are trying to be honest and their motives are straightforward.
There are many other unflattering labels you can use for the kind of person you describe, but "trolling" implies and requires intent.
> A troll has been defined in multiple ways in previous literature as a person who initially pretends to be a legitimate participant but later attempts to disrupt the community[26], as someone who “intentionally disrupts online communities”[77], or “takes pleasure in upsetting others” [47], or more broadly as a person engaging in “negatively marked online behavior” [37] or that “makes trouble” for a discussion forums’ stakeholders [9].
> In this paper, similar to the latter studies, we adopt a definition of trolling that includes flaming, griefing, swearing, or personal attacks, including behavior outside the acceptable bounds defined by several community guidelines for discussion forums [22, 25, 35].
You may have missed part of the relevant section there.
> In this paper, similar to the latter studies, we adopt a definition of trolling that includes flaming, griefing, swearing, or personal attacks, including behavior outside the acceptable bounds defined by several community guidelines for discussion forums [22, 25, 35].
You may have missed part of the relevant section there.
I always considered trolling to be an intentionally disruptive thing- posting things you may not even believe to get a rise out of people. Based on their definition, they risk lumping everyday assholery/immaturity/ignorance into it. Trolling is a lot more specific than "anything an ideally managed community would moderate out"; it's intentionally disturbing a person or community for various reasons (mostly sociopathic).
I always understood that troll “takes pleasure in upsetting others”. Also there's a spectrum from being mildly jokingly annoying to acting out all of the possible horribleness.
Yeah; it is an interesting definition of trolling. By my own internalized definition of trolling, about 80% or more of reddit comments are trolling. By the definition in this literature virtually nothing on reddit is trolling.
Huh, interesting to see a lot of people here coming out as apparently pro-troll. Or at least troll-neutral.
There are a lot of problems with certain modes of discourse in the US, but is anyone here willing to argue that trolling has possibly positive transformative benefits, similar to political satire?
If so, I'd like to see that argument made coherently, as I have yet to hear it. If not, then any "victim-blaming" really should be called out as at least a red herring.
IMHO, "political correctness" is not the problem, it is a symptom. Trolling, to me, just aggravates the actual problem: deep socioeconomic/racial/sexual inequities.
There are a lot of problems with certain modes of discourse in the US, but is anyone here willing to argue that trolling has possibly positive transformative benefits, similar to political satire?
If so, I'd like to see that argument made coherently, as I have yet to hear it. If not, then any "victim-blaming" really should be called out as at least a red herring.
IMHO, "political correctness" is not the problem, it is a symptom. Trolling, to me, just aggravates the actual problem: deep socioeconomic/racial/sexual inequities.
I think political correctness is not a symptom of anything; rather, it's a calculated effort to control language and shape ideals. If you can control the way people talk about things, you can also shape the way they come to think about the things they are talking about.
Just look at LGBT scene. In 2003 it was culturally acceptable to ostracize/demonize the LGBT crowd. You could use the word "gay" anytime you wanted in reference to anything ("this pencil is so gay... it keeps breaking") or "fag" if you got annoyed with your friend. Enter massive PC effort where "gay" and "fag" are now pushed into taboo area and you have to use PC terms in reference to LGBT people. 10 years later, mission accomplished, people now think that it's okay to be LGBT simply because you made it taboo to say offensive LGBT slurs.
The problem is that PC is basically censorship-lite and can be weaponized to fit all sorts of agendas, good and bad.
Just look at LGBT scene. In 2003 it was culturally acceptable to ostracize/demonize the LGBT crowd. You could use the word "gay" anytime you wanted in reference to anything ("this pencil is so gay... it keeps breaking") or "fag" if you got annoyed with your friend. Enter massive PC effort where "gay" and "fag" are now pushed into taboo area and you have to use PC terms in reference to LGBT people. 10 years later, mission accomplished, people now think that it's okay to be LGBT simply because you made it taboo to say offensive LGBT slurs.
The problem is that PC is basically censorship-lite and can be weaponized to fit all sorts of agendas, good and bad.
Trolling absolutely can be a form of satire, and has existed far longer than the internet. While there are trolls who do it simply to spark anger or get attention, some do it to point out the absurdity of an argument.
> IMHO, "political correctness" is not the problem, it is a symptom.
The problem is that society is becoming increasingly stratified, and large swaths of it don't accept differences of opinion.
> Trolling, to me, just aggravates the actual problem: deep socioeconomic/racial/sexual inequities.
I'd say it's the opposite. If anything, it points out the deep hypocrisy among certain groups to accept different opinions.
When I think of trolls that exist outside the internet, I think of something like Charlie Hebdo, which satirizes a subject in a rather extreme way that's meant to provoke. Or a public figure like Milo Yiannopolous, or even Kanye West.
> IMHO, "political correctness" is not the problem, it is a symptom.
The problem is that society is becoming increasingly stratified, and large swaths of it don't accept differences of opinion.
> Trolling, to me, just aggravates the actual problem: deep socioeconomic/racial/sexual inequities.
I'd say it's the opposite. If anything, it points out the deep hypocrisy among certain groups to accept different opinions.
When I think of trolls that exist outside the internet, I think of something like Charlie Hebdo, which satirizes a subject in a rather extreme way that's meant to provoke. Or a public figure like Milo Yiannopolous, or even Kanye West.
> The problem is that society is becoming increasingly stratified, and large swaths of it don't accept differences of opinion
This sentence started so well! This fixation on opinion is really strange to me. There are real, "stratified" power differentials in our country that have nothing to do with opinions.
Radical Islam was not created by people talking nice about their Syrian neighbors. But plenty of people have been killed by nutty trolls inciting nuttier Muslims to violence.
IMO stratification of opinion is always well downstream of the stratification of something more elemental: ethnicity, sex, mode of production, etc.
This sentence started so well! This fixation on opinion is really strange to me. There are real, "stratified" power differentials in our country that have nothing to do with opinions.
Radical Islam was not created by people talking nice about their Syrian neighbors. But plenty of people have been killed by nutty trolls inciting nuttier Muslims to violence.
IMO stratification of opinion is always well downstream of the stratification of something more elemental: ethnicity, sex, mode of production, etc.
>Trolling, to me, just aggravates the actual problem: deep socioeconomic/racial/sexual inequities.
Trolling needn't have anything to do with any of those subjects.
It has, however, become associated with them, as trolling is inherently anti-PC.
Trolling needn't have anything to do with any of those subjects.
It has, however, become associated with them, as trolling is inherently anti-PC.
> trolling is inherently anti-PC.
You can also troll acceptable targets. It may be a little less glorious if you're not defying the mainstream.
You can also troll acceptable targets. It may be a little less glorious if you're not defying the mainstream.
I'm not one to play devil's advocate, so I'd appreciate being heard out on this:
I don't want to necessarily contend that trolling is "good," but I think it can be done in a way that is healthy. I liken it to in college, when there is that one dude who's way-too-serious and so you play a practical joke on him/her to get them to cool their jets. For example, in college there was this kid Chris, and he printed schoolwork in the psychology lab printers and was always TERRIFIED they'd get mad at him for doing so (you were only allowed to print schoolwork related to psychology on those printers). So one day a few friends printed out an official-looking notice that he was in serious trouble for doing so, and that he had to pay a fine of $23.35 and slipped it into his campus mailbox.
Now you may think I'm just a jerk for this, and maybe I am, but for me this act was an olive-branch. If he had laughed it off and called me a "fucker" he would have been more a friend. I think when somebody is overlysensitive to something your friends can sometimes intentionaly desensitize you by bringing it up too much as a way to relax your trigger (say your roommate is afraid of snakes so you put a rubber snake in their bed).
Now I have no idea if other people who do this kind of thing do it with good intent or not, and it's entirely possible that Chris hates me more than ever and is even more paranoid about following silly rules. But I can say that I at least consider this type of thing a potential bonding activity.
I don't want to necessarily contend that trolling is "good," but I think it can be done in a way that is healthy. I liken it to in college, when there is that one dude who's way-too-serious and so you play a practical joke on him/her to get them to cool their jets. For example, in college there was this kid Chris, and he printed schoolwork in the psychology lab printers and was always TERRIFIED they'd get mad at him for doing so (you were only allowed to print schoolwork related to psychology on those printers). So one day a few friends printed out an official-looking notice that he was in serious trouble for doing so, and that he had to pay a fine of $23.35 and slipped it into his campus mailbox.
Now you may think I'm just a jerk for this, and maybe I am, but for me this act was an olive-branch. If he had laughed it off and called me a "fucker" he would have been more a friend. I think when somebody is overlysensitive to something your friends can sometimes intentionaly desensitize you by bringing it up too much as a way to relax your trigger (say your roommate is afraid of snakes so you put a rubber snake in their bed).
Now I have no idea if other people who do this kind of thing do it with good intent or not, and it's entirely possible that Chris hates me more than ever and is even more paranoid about following silly rules. But I can say that I at least consider this type of thing a potential bonding activity.
> Trolling, to me, just aggravates the actual problem: deep socioeconomic/racial/sexual inequities.
Easy to flag as a problem in a world with so much blatant inequality. But a system designed to erase inequality would only have the effect of amplifying small differences, and most people would seek victim status -- just as they do now.
Easy to flag as a problem in a world with so much blatant inequality. But a system designed to erase inequality would only have the effect of amplifying small differences, and most people would seek victim status -- just as they do now.
Nope, not willing to argue that. Trolling is purely destructive in the way that vandalism is; in a way that theft is not.
I view it as the lowest form of humanity.
I view it as the lowest form of humanity.
Because no graffiti/vandalism has ever been social commentary, or employed by 'positive' movements.
> Trolling, to me, just aggravates the actual problem: deep socioeconomic/racial/sexual inequities.
Do have to bring that into everything? Online trolling is hardly about inequalities if you can manage minimal information hygiene. The authors analyzed CNN comments which I assume have no realname requirement [I don't actually see any comment section on their page]. Which means you can act with out much identity-signalling at all.
Only when people choose to bring their real-life identity to the table others can bring discrimination into the game. If they don't then "trolling" is just a range of non-constructive or self-serving behaviors that may serve as amusement to some parties while bothering others. It's not like it is unfairly targeting any particular group, because anyone can be a troll and anyone can be a victim.
> anyone here willing to argue that trolling has possibly positive transformative benefits, similar to political satire?
Trolling and satire seem closely related to me. If the target does take it seriously and is mislead by the satire performer then it is both at the same time. https://i.imgur.com/eivlSBa.jpg
Do have to bring that into everything? Online trolling is hardly about inequalities if you can manage minimal information hygiene. The authors analyzed CNN comments which I assume have no realname requirement [I don't actually see any comment section on their page]. Which means you can act with out much identity-signalling at all.
Only when people choose to bring their real-life identity to the table others can bring discrimination into the game. If they don't then "trolling" is just a range of non-constructive or self-serving behaviors that may serve as amusement to some parties while bothering others. It's not like it is unfairly targeting any particular group, because anyone can be a troll and anyone can be a victim.
> anyone here willing to argue that trolling has possibly positive transformative benefits, similar to political satire?
Trolling and satire seem closely related to me. If the target does take it seriously and is mislead by the satire performer then it is both at the same time. https://i.imgur.com/eivlSBa.jpg
a lot of people here coming out as apparently pro-troll
is anyone here willing to argue
any "victim-blaming" really should be called out
"political correctness" is not the problem, it is a symptom
the actual problem: deep socioeconomic/racial/sexual inequities
Trolling is in the eye of the beholder.
is anyone here willing to argue
any "victim-blaming" really should be called out
"political correctness" is not the problem, it is a symptom
the actual problem: deep socioeconomic/racial/sexual inequities
Trolling is in the eye of the beholder.
This is logically false -- it implies that no action, even deliberately undertaken can be called trolling -- which is just a ridiculous fluff claim. It's akin to saying "you can't talk about beauty because it doesn't exist".
At the very least, we can objectively define trolling when both the poster and at least one responder think a post is trolling. Reality actually allows far less strict definitions and there is nothing at all that prevents real empirical analysis to be performed on those concepts.
Your narrow logic is without merit and carries no ability to advance any communication on the topic at all.
At the very least, we can objectively define trolling when both the poster and at least one responder think a post is trolling. Reality actually allows far less strict definitions and there is nothing at all that prevents real empirical analysis to be performed on those concepts.
Your narrow logic is without merit and carries no ability to advance any communication on the topic at all.
Calling something logically false, usually indicates that you have some sort of proof. Instead you've provided an inference without any supplementary reasoning, which yields a result which I think YOU think is a contradiction, but is not. Ie it would not be logically false to insist that no action, even deliberately undertaken, can objectively be called trolling.
Presumably, in an effort to remedy this, you attempt a construction, which fails in two ways.
First that is the skeeviest use of the word objective if I've ever seen. An objective definition is one which does not depend on the observer. To get around this, you have simply fixed two observers, thereby demonstrating the one to one correspondence of subjective statements and objective statements as follows:
I believe X is so ->
X' is so if I believe X is so.
This doesn't really count, I think, partly because of the second way the argument fails which is that your construction uses no properties OTHER than what these two observers think. In particular, the definition of troll, is formally equivalent to the following definition of ice cream. "if the poster, and at least one responder think it is ice cream then it is ice cream".
So before you invoke things phrases like "logically false" and "narrow logic", I think you should take a good hard look inward, and I mean this, of course, objectively.
Presumably, in an effort to remedy this, you attempt a construction, which fails in two ways.
First that is the skeeviest use of the word objective if I've ever seen. An objective definition is one which does not depend on the observer. To get around this, you have simply fixed two observers, thereby demonstrating the one to one correspondence of subjective statements and objective statements as follows:
I believe X is so ->
X' is so if I believe X is so.
This doesn't really count, I think, partly because of the second way the argument fails which is that your construction uses no properties OTHER than what these two observers think. In particular, the definition of troll, is formally equivalent to the following definition of ice cream. "if the poster, and at least one responder think it is ice cream then it is ice cream".
So before you invoke things phrases like "logically false" and "narrow logic", I think you should take a good hard look inward, and I mean this, of course, objectively.
We are discussing trolling in the context of communication between groups of humans.
"Trolling is in the eye of the beholder" -- the intuitive basis for this claim is that there cannot be a method for establishing agreement about what is and is not trolling. I offered a minimal definition of trolling for which constructing agreement is clearly possible.
My toy example is just to illustrate that there exist ways to construct or approximate agreement on what trolling is -- there are in fact many ways to construct such agreement. Pretending like such agreement is impossible is a strategy to empower trolls.
I'll partially accept your pedantic criticism over my use of the phrase "logically false" -- but your attempt to disparage my use of the word Objective is welcome to go sit alone with you in a motionless universe for the rest of eternity.
"Trolling is in the eye of the beholder" -- the intuitive basis for this claim is that there cannot be a method for establishing agreement about what is and is not trolling. I offered a minimal definition of trolling for which constructing agreement is clearly possible.
My toy example is just to illustrate that there exist ways to construct or approximate agreement on what trolling is -- there are in fact many ways to construct such agreement. Pretending like such agreement is impossible is a strategy to empower trolls.
I'll partially accept your pedantic criticism over my use of the phrase "logically false" -- but your attempt to disparage my use of the word Objective is welcome to go sit alone with you in a motionless universe for the rest of eternity.
Let me put it another way. In your construction, if I make a post, and someone makes a comment on a post which a responder then describes as trolling, How may I objectively determine whether or not that comment qualified as trolling?
Since I am the poster, and at least one responder has called it trolling, it is now trolling if and only if I say it is trolling. In this case, I have no objective definition to look to. This is both a real world case, and a case where your definition is degenerate, which I would call a critical failure of your definition.
Since I am the poster, and at least one responder has called it trolling, it is now trolling if and only if I say it is trolling. In this case, I have no objective definition to look to. This is both a real world case, and a case where your definition is degenerate, which I would call a critical failure of your definition.
Either you agree it's trolling (establishing the fact that your post was trolling with respect to the toy definition) or you disagree (establishing that the post was not trolling with respect to the definition).
Either way it's possible to label the post as trolling or not with respect to the toy definition and it's possible for observers to agree about that label.
My response to the original beholder subjectivity claim is not about whether a thing "is" trolling or not, it's about whether people can agree a thing "is" trolling or not. There are plenty of sufficiently good methods for people to agree about this designation that we don't need to invoke a Plato's spheres argument asserting that "trolling doesn't exist".
Either way it's possible to label the post as trolling or not with respect to the toy definition and it's possible for observers to agree about that label.
My response to the original beholder subjectivity claim is not about whether a thing "is" trolling or not, it's about whether people can agree a thing "is" trolling or not. There are plenty of sufficiently good methods for people to agree about this designation that we don't need to invoke a Plato's spheres argument asserting that "trolling doesn't exist".
You claimed that the notion of definition by agreement was sufficient to demonstrate the existence of some objective definition compatible with the first. I have plainly proven that false.
In the real universe, objective only ever exists relative to some set of observers.
You have proven nothing I said false, you merely interpreted the words I used in a way that does not treat the implication that some interpretations of words which do not admit the possibility for such concepts as human communication to exist, are flawed interpretations with respect to the set of observations about human communication that it is possible to make (which show that human communication does exist). That's the original fallacy I pointed out which you rejected as non-fallacious because you seem to not believe that it is possible to talk about consistency of agreement between sets of communicating humans in objective terms.
You think you've exposed a flaw in my argument but really you've just been spinning your wheels on misconstructions of what I said -- from my perspective either your interpretive process has misled you or you have engaged in a deliberate process of failing to communicate.
You have proven nothing I said false, you merely interpreted the words I used in a way that does not treat the implication that some interpretations of words which do not admit the possibility for such concepts as human communication to exist, are flawed interpretations with respect to the set of observations about human communication that it is possible to make (which show that human communication does exist). That's the original fallacy I pointed out which you rejected as non-fallacious because you seem to not believe that it is possible to talk about consistency of agreement between sets of communicating humans in objective terms.
You think you've exposed a flaw in my argument but really you've just been spinning your wheels on misconstructions of what I said -- from my perspective either your interpretive process has misled you or you have engaged in a deliberate process of failing to communicate.
I have been failing to communicate, but it has not been deliberate.
Your assertion that there is no such thing as objective truth is A) false and B) not a reason to redefine objective truth (a property that is impossible to obtain is still a useful thing to talk about).
Humanity does not generate the properties that it invents language to describe. Those properties can be thought of objectively, but natural language does not always do that (it does do it sometimes though, the word "three" is objectively defined).
Some words do not contain within their definition any objective phenomena; "Beauty", for example, does not. The reasoning you have applied thus far should apply to all words, since you have not expressed any particular property of 'troll' in any of your arguments. So if the original comment had said "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and we had continued to have this same argument, the validity of either of our positions would be unchanged. Would you still be complaining about relativism if that had been the topic?
Your assertion that there is no such thing as objective truth is A) false and B) not a reason to redefine objective truth (a property that is impossible to obtain is still a useful thing to talk about).
Humanity does not generate the properties that it invents language to describe. Those properties can be thought of objectively, but natural language does not always do that (it does do it sometimes though, the word "three" is objectively defined).
Some words do not contain within their definition any objective phenomena; "Beauty", for example, does not. The reasoning you have applied thus far should apply to all words, since you have not expressed any particular property of 'troll' in any of your arguments. So if the original comment had said "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and we had continued to have this same argument, the validity of either of our positions would be unchanged. Would you still be complaining about relativism if that had been the topic?
> This is logically false -- it implies that no action, even deliberately undertaken can be called trolling
I took it more as an expression of something like Poe's Law. If someone says something inflammatory, is it a troll, or is it an honest expression of opinion? You can theorize about the author's mental state, but you can't know what they're thinking. Without extra information, the difference rests in the reader's perception.
I took it more as an expression of something like Poe's Law. If someone says something inflammatory, is it a troll, or is it an honest expression of opinion? You can theorize about the author's mental state, but you can't know what they're thinking. Without extra information, the difference rests in the reader's perception.
With respect to any particular objective definition of trolling, there may exist perfect snowflake comments that are not trolling but are identified as such by the definition.
There exist plenty of definitions that can be imagined which make the above snowflakes very rare in practice.
If the beholder argument is that the existence of a single such snowflake invalidates the possibility that useful objectivity can be used to study the concept of trolling -- then the claim is ludicrous. We can study the notion of trolling without getting every single label right every time.
There exist plenty of definitions that can be imagined which make the above snowflakes very rare in practice.
If the beholder argument is that the existence of a single such snowflake invalidates the possibility that useful objectivity can be used to study the concept of trolling -- then the claim is ludicrous. We can study the notion of trolling without getting every single label right every time.
> If the beholder argument is that the existence of a single such snowflake invalidates the possibility that useful objectivity can be used to study the concept of trolling -- then the claim is ludicrous.
Agreed, but I don't think we're talking about snowflakes. I think we're talking about a significant portion of the communication out there that might be identified by some as "trolling". And I guess I'm less interested in an objective definition of trolling than I am in an objective determination of whether some particular post or group of posts is intended as a troll.
On top of that, I don't think it's a binary determination. There's such a thing as a 100% troll post or a 100% innocent post, but there's also everything in between.
Agreed, but I don't think we're talking about snowflakes. I think we're talking about a significant portion of the communication out there that might be identified by some as "trolling". And I guess I'm less interested in an objective definition of trolling than I am in an objective determination of whether some particular post or group of posts is intended as a troll.
On top of that, I don't think it's a binary determination. There's such a thing as a 100% troll post or a 100% innocent post, but there's also everything in between.
I'm more interested in the side of the spectrum containing the posts that are the most clearly likely to be agreed upon as examples of trolling. It's my opinion that way too many of this variety of trolling voice (augmented by bots) has been shouting trolling messages at groups of people in a way that discourages real attempts at communication. I see this kind of messaging as a way of isolating communities from each other and blocking avenues of communication between perspectives that would otherwise evolve organically.
Some interesting points here:
> Though political issues in the US may appear polarizing, the politics section has one of the lowest rates of post flagging, similar to tech.
That's baffling. Though if I had to give a possible explanatation, maybe it's because people expect worse in a political debate? Maybe being a troll has become normalised in political discussions?
Hence less people would flag comments considered trolling elsewhere?
Honestly, I don't know.
> paired t-test reveals a small, but significant increase in negative behavior between 11 pm and 5 am
Presumably, people are more likely to act grouchy when tired. Might also be because of time zones though. I mean, maybe trolls like staying up to late to argue with people on the other side of the world?
For example, a European troll might like to stay up late to get into fights with American users. Or vice versa.
> Figures suggest that negative behavior can persist in and permeate a community when left unchecked
This is a fairly well known point as far as community management goes, but yeah. The more a site allows trolling (or flame wars, or spammy content, or anything else), the more it spreads on the site. This is also why webmaster forums crash and burn so quickly on a quality level. Because once one user gets away with posting meaningless fluff, you suddenly start to see more and more spammers and one line posters appearing.
Just some thoughts here.
> Though political issues in the US may appear polarizing, the politics section has one of the lowest rates of post flagging, similar to tech.
That's baffling. Though if I had to give a possible explanatation, maybe it's because people expect worse in a political debate? Maybe being a troll has become normalised in political discussions?
Hence less people would flag comments considered trolling elsewhere?
Honestly, I don't know.
> paired t-test reveals a small, but significant increase in negative behavior between 11 pm and 5 am
Presumably, people are more likely to act grouchy when tired. Might also be because of time zones though. I mean, maybe trolls like staying up to late to argue with people on the other side of the world?
For example, a European troll might like to stay up late to get into fights with American users. Or vice versa.
> Figures suggest that negative behavior can persist in and permeate a community when left unchecked
This is a fairly well known point as far as community management goes, but yeah. The more a site allows trolling (or flame wars, or spammy content, or anything else), the more it spreads on the site. This is also why webmaster forums crash and burn so quickly on a quality level. Because once one user gets away with posting meaningless fluff, you suddenly start to see more and more spammers and one line posters appearing.
Just some thoughts here.
I think tech happens to avoid trolls because trolling tech really only happens when someone who's a little clueless asks a dumb question. How many "How do I do (x)?" questions get a "rm -rf /" as the response?
Politics is probably because people take serious positions that may as well be trolling.
Politics is probably because people take serious positions that may as well be trolling.
> Though if I had to give a possible explanatation, maybe it's because people expect worse in a political debate?
There are very few people who are interested in actually moving something in politics who read the comments. It's also a very loaded question, because any flagging in politics sections usually gets a huge crowd yelling about "censorship".
>> but significant increase in negative behavior between 11 pm and 5 am
I'm sure it's pure coincidence that this roughly coincides with the work day in Eastern Europe.
There are very few people who are interested in actually moving something in politics who read the comments. It's also a very loaded question, because any flagging in politics sections usually gets a huge crowd yelling about "censorship".
>> but significant increase in negative behavior between 11 pm and 5 am
I'm sure it's pure coincidence that this roughly coincides with the work day in Eastern Europe.
>Presumably, people are more likely to act grouchy when tired. Might also be because of time zones though. I mean, maybe trolls like staying up to late to argue with people on the other side of the world?
I think it's because people who don't have better things to do with their time tend to be up more often at those times. Conversely, people with a professional 9-5 job are less likely to troll and less likely to be up at 2am.
I think it's because people who don't have better things to do with their time tend to be up more often at those times. Conversely, people with a professional 9-5 job are less likely to troll and less likely to be up at 2am.
An overnight time corresponds fairly well to when a 9-5 working professional has retreated to bed with their spouse, yet sleep remains elusive. Finding themselves alone with their thoughts and fewer and fewer of their friends being still awake, I can see why some would turn to commenting, venting, or inciting on public forums, for malicious disruption or otherwise. I don't think the hypothesis you appear to draw follows from the facts at all.
Ah! The dead of night! When I once had my most meaningful conversations with my loved ones who, alas!, now turn to the sleep they did not before, for some reason we shall not dig into, for there lie dragons!
Politics doesn't get flagged because people on general love to fight about it. We love to humiliate, mock, gotcha, and insult the adversaries, and banning them deprives us of that pleasure.
The forum they used as a source of data was a media outlet during a presidential election. What, precisely, is the community that they are imagining the comments section consists of? It is by definition contentious. Furthermore, antisocial behavior cannot possibly be defined as something you do as a group. It's in the name! Political vitriol is a team sport.
Trollish behavior is also mutually exclusive with anger, for the simple reason that we already have a pretty good understanding for the cause of peoples behavior when they are angry. Anger. The fact that discussions degenerate when people are angry is, presumably, WHY the study looks to explain trollish behavior.
My understanding of the methodology, when you leave out the CNN data, was as follows (Please correct me if I'm wrong, because my opinion is scathing).
First they garnered a set of participants with no overarching demographic, presumably to ensure that the results were as broadly applicable as possible, but I think failing to remember that online communities tend to be much more homogenous.
They then found a political article on reddit and seeded a new comment section for some with some reddit comments on the original article. They made 32 copies of this comment section, randomized the order of the comments and assigned 20 people to each.
Before they were allowed to comment, they were given a quiz designed to manipulate their mood by asking hard or easy questions, and then lying about how well they did relative to the median. They then justified the use of this particular piece of psychological warfare as having an effect which correlated with positive and negative moods, which are then interpreted as the causal element in the behavior that follows.
Immediately before commenting, the users are instructed that they are "testing a new voting system", which is just, excuse my language, the shittiest instruction I have ever seen participants given in a study.
Then they measured something other than the stated definition of trolling, and declared their results to be significant.
I won't comment on the stated definition of trolling except to say that a strong case can be made that these stanford/cornell researchers participated in behavior which was both dishonest and disruptive, with the effect of pissing at least me off. Does that not qualify?
Trollish behavior is also mutually exclusive with anger, for the simple reason that we already have a pretty good understanding for the cause of peoples behavior when they are angry. Anger. The fact that discussions degenerate when people are angry is, presumably, WHY the study looks to explain trollish behavior.
My understanding of the methodology, when you leave out the CNN data, was as follows (Please correct me if I'm wrong, because my opinion is scathing).
First they garnered a set of participants with no overarching demographic, presumably to ensure that the results were as broadly applicable as possible, but I think failing to remember that online communities tend to be much more homogenous.
They then found a political article on reddit and seeded a new comment section for some with some reddit comments on the original article. They made 32 copies of this comment section, randomized the order of the comments and assigned 20 people to each.
Before they were allowed to comment, they were given a quiz designed to manipulate their mood by asking hard or easy questions, and then lying about how well they did relative to the median. They then justified the use of this particular piece of psychological warfare as having an effect which correlated with positive and negative moods, which are then interpreted as the causal element in the behavior that follows.
Immediately before commenting, the users are instructed that they are "testing a new voting system", which is just, excuse my language, the shittiest instruction I have ever seen participants given in a study.
Then they measured something other than the stated definition of trolling, and declared their results to be significant.
I won't comment on the stated definition of trolling except to say that a strong case can be made that these stanford/cornell researchers participated in behavior which was both dishonest and disruptive, with the effect of pissing at least me off. Does that not qualify?
"opinion of this so-called judge", "The judge opens up our country to potential terrorists", "a judge would put our country in such peril"
This is trolling a judge at the highest level.
This is trolling a judge at the highest level.
I don't think a sincere, ad hominem attack constitutes trolling at all. Trolling involves some level of indirection, where the target is being manipulated by taking a message as sincere when it's not.
It doesn't inspire much confidence in the study when it doesn't even acknowledge the pervasive issue of astroturfing online.
However important it is, it's a separate issue and -- because most online comments are anonymous -- much harder to study.
I think the troll we see mostly on the web is a derivation of thinking against believe.
Isn't that what most trolls have in common? targeting a group that can be defined by a pattern of thinking.
Altough a real troll to me is more like a clever joke, where u can point something out by tricking him into a slightly different point of view if your lucky!
Isn't that what most trolls have in common? targeting a group that can be defined by a pattern of thinking.
Altough a real troll to me is more like a clever joke, where u can point something out by tricking him into a slightly different point of view if your lucky!
The best interpretation of a troll was actually on "South Park: Season 20, Episode 10" Trevor's Axiom:
https://vimeo.com/194900488
https://vimeo.com/194900488
I would argue that not just anyone can be a troll. Or at least, an effective one. As disgusting as the words sound, there is an art to hurting people, and most trolls are downright comic.
I wouldn't say that hurting people is always the objective of trolls.
For example, I enjoy trolling as a flat-earther from time to time. Do I really believe the earth is flat? No, but it's fun trying to defend something absurd just for the sake of honing debate skills. Sometimes I can find logical fallacies in round-earther arguments and leverage them, which is immensely satisfying.
For example, I enjoy trolling as a flat-earther from time to time. Do I really believe the earth is flat? No, but it's fun trying to defend something absurd just for the sake of honing debate skills. Sometimes I can find logical fallacies in round-earther arguments and leverage them, which is immensely satisfying.
[deleted]
"Modern left" leaning groups are so easy to disrupt and destroy it is child's play. Trolling is an exceptionally powerful weapon if targeted communities have a particular outlook. It has been a full on blitzkrieg the last 12 months and until fundamental issues are addressed by targeted groups, they will be vulnerable.
An interesting area of research would be the relationship between individual trolls, collective trolls and emergent behaviour of these.
edit: A group defined by division, will divide and die.