Ask HN: Suggest steps that can help to stop the trolls in an online community?
24 comments
Note that the worst, and most sophisticated trolls will just keep a second well-behaved account to monitor the actual forum as others see it; so it won't be more powerful than a ban to them. Forcing you to 3) as you say.
Someday we'll have shadow banning deluxe - not only will the troll be seeing a different forum, but they alone will see fake A.I. generated responses to them that will cause the troll to waste endless amounts of their time continuing to troll-debate. Time they can't spend buggering around with someone else's forum.
Sadly, by that time, we'll also see A.I. auto-troll-programs appearing in large numbers.
Someday we'll have shadow banning deluxe - not only will the troll be seeing a different forum, but they alone will see fake A.I. generated responses to them that will cause the troll to waste endless amounts of their time continuing to troll-debate. Time they can't spend buggering around with someone else's forum.
Sadly, by that time, we'll also see A.I. auto-troll-programs appearing in large numbers.
It's probably best to start defining what factors contribute to trolling of an online community.
What particular communities are more susceptible and why?
Let's first tackle the non-sybil form of trolling and think about individuals.
Consider the differences and similarities between a community like linked in vs say 4chan? These are as far apart on the spectrum of communities as I can currently think of. Is one of these communities more easily trolled or duped than the other? Why might that be?
I hypothesize a community like linkedin would be more difficult to troll as you must offer personal data or spoof personal data in order to be let into the community. Certainly this isn't impossible to circumvent, but requires a greater degree of commitment. This commitment is essentially a subconscious time value calculation as well as a calculation of social cost. The logical conclusion is that the social cost of being a troll on Linked in is difficult as there is a very real and immediately perceivable lost opportunity cost.
Let's take another example of online discourse and hold a single variable constant, identity. Consider a discussion forum for a college course where students are asked to participate in discussion of class material learned from a physical lecture hall VS topical online discussion on a facebook group. Both groups are forced to offer up some form of personal identification. There is one difference between the groups and that is face to face interaction. My hypothesis is that the first group has a larger social cost tied to being a troll on the discussions and perceivable punishment from acting in bad faith vs facebook where the social costs can be diminished and mostly result in being unfriended. Even removing the possibility of lost tuition dollars as punishment (aka you attend free college) I would argue that the per capita rate of trolling would be diminished compared to facebook.
To summarize my hypothesis with in the original scope, if an individual does not perceive the social costs for their actions with in any community their propensity for becoming a bad actor should increase.
What particular communities are more susceptible and why?
Let's first tackle the non-sybil form of trolling and think about individuals.
Consider the differences and similarities between a community like linked in vs say 4chan? These are as far apart on the spectrum of communities as I can currently think of. Is one of these communities more easily trolled or duped than the other? Why might that be?
I hypothesize a community like linkedin would be more difficult to troll as you must offer personal data or spoof personal data in order to be let into the community. Certainly this isn't impossible to circumvent, but requires a greater degree of commitment. This commitment is essentially a subconscious time value calculation as well as a calculation of social cost. The logical conclusion is that the social cost of being a troll on Linked in is difficult as there is a very real and immediately perceivable lost opportunity cost.
Let's take another example of online discourse and hold a single variable constant, identity. Consider a discussion forum for a college course where students are asked to participate in discussion of class material learned from a physical lecture hall VS topical online discussion on a facebook group. Both groups are forced to offer up some form of personal identification. There is one difference between the groups and that is face to face interaction. My hypothesis is that the first group has a larger social cost tied to being a troll on the discussions and perceivable punishment from acting in bad faith vs facebook where the social costs can be diminished and mostly result in being unfriended. Even removing the possibility of lost tuition dollars as punishment (aka you attend free college) I would argue that the per capita rate of trolling would be diminished compared to facebook.
To summarize my hypothesis with in the original scope, if an individual does not perceive the social costs for their actions with in any community their propensity for becoming a bad actor should increase.
Not quite a troll, perhaps, but an interesting sock puppet:
https://theweek.com/speedreads/764714/dizzying-story-david-j...
Another bad rule I don't advise: insist on a peer-reviewed journal reference for literally everything said. There are a lot of problems with this, too many to list, really.
One is that inevitably it is only fully applied to statements that contradict the current prejudice, whatever that is; blocking the very sort of up-to-date knowledge you hope to find in a forum.
Another problem is that accomplished trolls will badly distort or reverse the takeaway from an opaque study and drop then drop that as a reference. The moderator can't possibly devote the hours to police that.
But yes, I've actually seen this system tried in a forum.
One is that inevitably it is only fully applied to statements that contradict the current prejudice, whatever that is; blocking the very sort of up-to-date knowledge you hope to find in a forum.
Another problem is that accomplished trolls will badly distort or reverse the takeaway from an opaque study and drop then drop that as a reference. The moderator can't possibly devote the hours to police that.
But yes, I've actually seen this system tried in a forum.
Humans need intermediate punishments. It's how we work. (Homeostasis and all that.)
Therefore Facebook (etc) ought to provide a very automatic "time-out" system for moderators allowing them to one-click to create a temporary ban (a week, a month) for a user that reinstates that user automatically after that period without further action by the moderator. Automatic tracking of past penalties and auto-escalations (if desired) to harsher punishments up to a ban would be a good idea, too.
A quick display of relevant stats regarding that user would be helpful right then, too; giving you some rough idea of how valuable past contributions by them have been. (Sometimes what looks like a troll is just a fact that few people, even in the field, know.)
Manually managing such a system works but Lord is it a ton of fiddly (and unnecessary) work for the moderator.
One of the advantages of this is that mild penalties can usually make the point with little risk that a bad penalty decision will permanently piss-off a valuable contributor.
Therefore Facebook (etc) ought to provide a very automatic "time-out" system for moderators allowing them to one-click to create a temporary ban (a week, a month) for a user that reinstates that user automatically after that period without further action by the moderator. Automatic tracking of past penalties and auto-escalations (if desired) to harsher punishments up to a ban would be a good idea, too.
A quick display of relevant stats regarding that user would be helpful right then, too; giving you some rough idea of how valuable past contributions by them have been. (Sometimes what looks like a troll is just a fact that few people, even in the field, know.)
Manually managing such a system works but Lord is it a ton of fiddly (and unnecessary) work for the moderator.
One of the advantages of this is that mild penalties can usually make the point with little risk that a bad penalty decision will permanently piss-off a valuable contributor.
A bad "solution" I've seen more than once in health user groups - ban disagreement (but allow contradictory threads.) "If you don't like what you see, just move along to the next thread." This removes any chance of limiting fake news, and takes trolling to a whole new level since the first big lie wins, in any thread. So not that.
Make people pay for a user account
The general principle here is one from Economics 101 - free goods are used in very uneconomic ways. If water is unmetered, much is wasted since it's not even worth thinking about whether you're wasting (literally) tons of water. Therefore even a very small charge for metered water (so small it doesn't cover the cost of providing that water) can change behavior remarkably, greatly reducing consumption and inconvenience to others.
So even a charge of ten cents will discourage some trolls who would otherwise keep returning with a new free account after yet one more ban.
So even a charge of ten cents will discourage some trolls who would otherwise keep returning with a new free account after yet one more ban.
Pay to use forums still have trolls. They also have enough mods to deal with trolls. But paid fora change the relationship between users and mods. People are willing to cut volunteer mods some slack. People paying, even minimally, think it's part of the service and are OUTRAGED when they're subject to mod action.
Do people will really pay? I am not sure about this one.
worked for SomethingAwful
Not to be a snarky, but this worked in 2002(?) to combat 12 year old trolls.
The point it really speaks to is
What is an appropriate barrier to entry for an online community where two conditions are satisfied?
1. The online community can scale. 2. The online community is susceptible to what is essentially a sybil attack.
It may be the case these two conditions are inversely related and can't be simultaneously satisfied.
In the case of SA the admin correctly identified that 12 year old trolls aren't willing to pay 5 dollars to troll. This is an economic barrier to entry that just doesn't apply in the current landscape.
The point it really speaks to is
What is an appropriate barrier to entry for an online community where two conditions are satisfied?
1. The online community can scale. 2. The online community is susceptible to what is essentially a sybil attack.
It may be the case these two conditions are inversely related and can't be simultaneously satisfied.
In the case of SA the admin correctly identified that 12 year old trolls aren't willing to pay 5 dollars to troll. This is an economic barrier to entry that just doesn't apply in the current landscape.
The current landscape also includes 12 year old trolls who aren't willing to pay 5 dollars to troll. If a barrier stops some but not all trolls, it's still useful.
The problem with charging is, I probably wouldn't pay for the privilege of posting here. I suspect I'm not alone. If you charge to deter trolls, you deter (some) trolls, but you also deter some fraction of real users. It would result in a different community.
The problem with charging is, I probably wouldn't pay for the privilege of posting here. I suspect I'm not alone. If you charge to deter trolls, you deter (some) trolls, but you also deter some fraction of real users. It would result in a different community.
Let me put a few caveat on why 5 dollars in 2002 DNE 5 dollars in 2018 for a 12 year old.
Moving forward, people have to value the idea of an online community free of trolling in order to even put a price tag on that idea. I would find it very hard to believe that
a.) enough people (I'm talking an order of magnitude equal to the number of facebook users) value a troll free environment
b.) that, said people would have a unified enough of an idea of what an act of trolling is such that focused discussion doesn't boil down to pointing fingers. Maybe this point would merely resolve it self over time.
Ease of payment, when SA instituted this barrier a young troll intent on disruption had less of a problem coughing up 5 dollars for an account, and more of a problem finding a means to pay this 5 dollars. This is not the case for today's youth. See Xbox live and twitch donations if you don't think I'm being fair here.
Scale-ability, which you directly touch on. Enforcing an upfront cost is a very real value calculation one must make prior to having extracted any value from the service and something most people my self included are currently adverse to. This directly impedes a communities ability to scale.
Moving forward, people have to value the idea of an online community free of trolling in order to even put a price tag on that idea. I would find it very hard to believe that
a.) enough people (I'm talking an order of magnitude equal to the number of facebook users) value a troll free environment
b.) that, said people would have a unified enough of an idea of what an act of trolling is such that focused discussion doesn't boil down to pointing fingers. Maybe this point would merely resolve it self over time.
Define worked?
Goons - goons in eve, goons in secondlife, goons in... well everywhere.
Something awful charged and only attracted the most determined trolls, ones that would NOT quit. Lucky for SA they directed their energy OUT not in.
The problem is if you set the bar too low you still have a troll who you have to treat differently because they are a paying customer.
Goons - goons in eve, goons in secondlife, goons in... well everywhere.
Something awful charged and only attracted the most determined trolls, ones that would NOT quit. Lucky for SA they directed their energy OUT not in.
The problem is if you set the bar too low you still have a troll who you have to treat differently because they are a paying customer.
Ban users early and often. Make signing up for accounts difficult (pay real money, require phone number verification, etc). It needs to cost the user money(or time) directly (they need to keep finding phone numbers that aren't banned, etc etc).
>Ban users early and often.
OP is referring to an online community not an echo chamber. Therefore, your advice does not apply IMHO.
OP is referring to an online community not an echo chamber. Therefore, your advice does not apply IMHO.
Not understood. There may (or may not) be an argument to be made about the difficulty of sorting between trolls and those with unusual but accurate knowledge, but you haven't made that argument. I'd be interested to hear it, but you've gotta make it.
I've never seen a never-ban policy and can't believe it would work; the conduct of genuine psychopaths online can be truly extreme and not just uncivil, but designed to prevent the forum from functioning. Persistence-bullying is one of the nastier forms this takes.
I've never seen a never-ban policy and can't believe it would work; the conduct of genuine psychopaths online can be truly extreme and not just uncivil, but designed to prevent the forum from functioning. Persistence-bullying is one of the nastier forms this takes.
Depends on the type of troll.
Meatball wiki has a bunch of information about this. Here are a few.
http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/UsAndThem
http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/VestedContributor
http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/GoodBye
http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/DissuadeReputation
Meatball wiki has a bunch of information about this. Here are a few.
http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/UsAndThem
http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/VestedContributor
http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/GoodBye
http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/DissuadeReputation
vBulletin online forum had a way for admin to quietly disable user. Making his posts invisible to anyone but himself.
So proud troll keep moving full steam ahead with no harm to anyone.
They called this feature: "Tachy goes to coventry"
So proud troll keep moving full steam ahead with no harm to anyone.
They called this feature: "Tachy goes to coventry"
That’s fantastic! Thanks. I didn’t know that.
A.I. to detect Character Disorders - since people with Character Disorders tend to be very repetitive and characteristic in their behavior (hence the name.) People with Character Disorders can't be remotely cured and won't temper their behavior in any way that truly matters.
It's not well understood that many trolls don't see themselves as trolls (even though they thoroughly are.) For example, narcissists who just can't allow themselves to be contradicted and really take the gloves off if they are, or who want to simply take over a forum to hog all the oxygen and glory. Sadly, such people are not a smaller problem than conscious trolls. In fact, they may be far harder to discourage since they lack insight into their behavior and won't necessarily act with any prudence. You can't even count on them to be self-serving.
1 - Moderate comments and remove any comments you don't like. Make a rule that all comments need to be approved before they will be posted. This will cut down on about 60% of the stuff you'll see.
2 - Shadwo ban users: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banning
3 - If Shadow Banning doesn't work, then target and block their IP addresses. If you need to, warn them you will contact their ISP and let them know.
These are the big three that always seemed to limit the trolling behavior I saw. Only in extreme cases do you have to do #3.