> 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.
> 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
Unintentional trolling would contradict that.