PG on trolls(paulgraham.com)
paulgraham.com
PG on trolls
http://paulgraham.com/trolls.html
174 comments
I think news.yc has a 5th troll behavior and it's down modding a comment because they disagree with it
That's not a troll behavior ("troll" comes from the fishing term), and it's much less common here than on reddit or digg or (god help you) dailykos, where intelligent but unfashionable opinions get sunk hard.
There are only a few fashionable subjects around here (the importance of lisp, for example), whereas on other sites almost every question has a boilerplate answer, against which all opposition is "trolling". At any rate, no amount of actual "trolling" is as bad as groupthink. I'd rather a whole parliament of disagreeable colicky horseradish farmers than one unipartisan politburo.
ADDENDUM: Just thought I'd tack this on. Near the top of digg right now is this:
http://digg.com/business_finance/What_1_Million_Buys_In_Home...
That's sort of an interesting subject, but look at the comments. At the top with 9 diggs:
I dugg the story, but I refuse to click on anything with Forbes magazine. They force a full-screen ad (that you can skip) but in my efforts to help stop obnoxious advertising, I boycott Forbes.
Okay, there you have a 15-year-old combining 1) his irrational dislike of full-page ads (perhaps he thinks Forbes survives on government grants), with 2) his irrational proclivity to upmod things without looking at them, with 3) his belief that Forbes cares whether a 15-year-old looks at its slideshows. This sort of sad lameness is actually what kills online discussions, not "trolling".
That's not a troll behavior ("troll" comes from the fishing term), and it's much less common here than on reddit or digg or (god help you) dailykos, where intelligent but unfashionable opinions get sunk hard.
There are only a few fashionable subjects around here (the importance of lisp, for example), whereas on other sites almost every question has a boilerplate answer, against which all opposition is "trolling". At any rate, no amount of actual "trolling" is as bad as groupthink. I'd rather a whole parliament of disagreeable colicky horseradish farmers than one unipartisan politburo.
ADDENDUM: Just thought I'd tack this on. Near the top of digg right now is this:
http://digg.com/business_finance/What_1_Million_Buys_In_Home...
That's sort of an interesting subject, but look at the comments. At the top with 9 diggs:
I dugg the story, but I refuse to click on anything with Forbes magazine. They force a full-screen ad (that you can skip) but in my efforts to help stop obnoxious advertising, I boycott Forbes.
Okay, there you have a 15-year-old combining 1) his irrational dislike of full-page ads (perhaps he thinks Forbes survives on government grants), with 2) his irrational proclivity to upmod things without looking at them, with 3) his belief that Forbes cares whether a 15-year-old looks at its slideshows. This sort of sad lameness is actually what kills online discussions, not "trolling".
I'd rather a whole parliament of disagreeable colicky horseradish farmers than one unipartisan politburo.
Wow. That is the best sentence I have ever read in a comment thread.
Wow. That is the best sentence I have ever read in a comment thread.
I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness.
It only becomes abuse when people resort to karma bombing: downvoting a lot of comments by one user without reading them in order to subtract maximum karma. Fortunately we now have several levels of software to protect against that.
It only becomes abuse when people resort to karma bombing: downvoting a lot of comments by one user without reading them in order to subtract maximum karma. Fortunately we now have several levels of software to protect against that.
I don't entirely agree.
I have seen quite a few comments that were extremely insightful, and/or interesting that got downmodded due to an unpopular opinion. The reason this is unfortunate is not only that you tend to miss these (assuming that there is a higher probability that you read or think about comments that are rated higher, which I am surely not the only one that is guilty of) but also that it tends to promote groupthink . This is especially important on a forum like this where we are here to learn and share our thoughts, ideas and experiences for a very particular niche: Starting startups.
I have noted that comments that don't promote the "build it and they will come" view tend to be voted down. Since this site is primarily populated with hackers this is entirely understandable - it is human nature to think that your part of the project is the most important. But the reason we all come here is (I presume) to learn. And the things about which we know the least are the things where we have most to learn.
It is not only a question of abuse, but also a question of opening peoples eyes to issues, problems and points of views that lie outside their expertise, but which they will probably encounter in a startup. And this includes such diverse fields as marketing, financing and sales.
I am here to learn about stuff I didn't know already, and that is often outside my field. In return for this I will offfer my opinions in the fields where I may have something to contribute.
At the end of the day this makes us all better entrepreneurs. Because as anyone who has ever done a startup will tell you - you have to get everything right. Hacking, finance, sales, PR, marketing, hiring, etc.
So I think that the up and down arrows should not express agreement, but insightfullness or truth. Not opinion. That way I will be able to judge the validity of a comment in a field that I do not know well by its points. And hopefully learn something.
I have seen quite a few comments that were extremely insightful, and/or interesting that got downmodded due to an unpopular opinion. The reason this is unfortunate is not only that you tend to miss these (assuming that there is a higher probability that you read or think about comments that are rated higher, which I am surely not the only one that is guilty of) but also that it tends to promote groupthink . This is especially important on a forum like this where we are here to learn and share our thoughts, ideas and experiences for a very particular niche: Starting startups.
I have noted that comments that don't promote the "build it and they will come" view tend to be voted down. Since this site is primarily populated with hackers this is entirely understandable - it is human nature to think that your part of the project is the most important. But the reason we all come here is (I presume) to learn. And the things about which we know the least are the things where we have most to learn.
It is not only a question of abuse, but also a question of opening peoples eyes to issues, problems and points of views that lie outside their expertise, but which they will probably encounter in a startup. And this includes such diverse fields as marketing, financing and sales.
I am here to learn about stuff I didn't know already, and that is often outside my field. In return for this I will offfer my opinions in the fields where I may have something to contribute.
At the end of the day this makes us all better entrepreneurs. Because as anyone who has ever done a startup will tell you - you have to get everything right. Hacking, finance, sales, PR, marketing, hiring, etc.
So I think that the up and down arrows should not express agreement, but insightfullness or truth. Not opinion. That way I will be able to judge the validity of a comment in a field that I do not know well by its points. And hopefully learn something.
Better to encourage people to read comments even though they've been downmodded. Ultimately voting is about the reaction people have to the comment, and trying to institute some sort of high brow rules is unlikely to work. I must admit I'll read comments that have been downmodded just to see what the controversy is - and those I agree with I try to back up.
Highly downmodded comments stand out to me almost as much as highly upmodded comments.
I wish I had more votes to downmod you into prominence! J/k, I upmodded (for agreement)
Heh, it'd be funny to have the most negative karma on YC. The only reason I care about karma is cuz I want to change my header's color. Only 15 more points to go!
Once there, I'll stick a post on the front page and get downmodded into oblivion.
Once there, I'll stick a post on the front page and get downmodded into oblivion.
I'm sorry to inform you but you don't get to keep your color if your karma drops below 250... although it is saved and it pops back when your karma passes 250 again. (already did the experiment :) )
I can't downmod stories? Not that I ever have too... It's easy enough to post a comments explaining why you don't agree with a story than to downmod it.
And that's where I take my queue for comments. If I agree/ laugh/ enjoy a comment I upmod it. If I don't agree I leave it. If the guy is trolling I downmod it.
And that's where I take my queue for comments. If I agree/ laugh/ enjoy a comment I upmod it. If I don't agree I leave it. If the guy is trolling I downmod it.
any publicity is good publicity
>I don't entirely agree.
According to him, you should have just downmodded him. What's with all this discussion and reason?
According to him, you should have just downmodded him. What's with all this discussion and reason?
Isn't discussion and reason why we are here?
thanks for helping me think.
I hope that my opinion about trolls is worthwhile, and hopefully will be corrected if it's not. What I observed, but didn't hear directly stated: trolls feel threatened. For whatever reason, unfamiliarity sends some folks into a state of neurosis, an upsetting of their equilibrium.
I think of a troll partly in the case of the Three Billy Goats sense: the troll is an owner of a critical pathway. He collects tolls (tribute) a/or has a reputation to uphold in performing his daily routine. He is defining and defending the status quo. If he sees that you wish to build a new alternative (bridge), this threatens his current monopoly. Instead of scaling his current operations and building new bridges, outsourcing the admin of them, and franchising the operation, he wants NO NEW BRIDGES. Perhaps he inherited his power, or wrested it away in a primitive sense. Any evolution of methods that doesn't go the way he likes, he will thwart, dismiss, or destroy. Perhaps it's bullying, not to defend the troll, but to see things from his perspective: he was bullied, and overcame bullies to get where he is now. All he sees are threats and he doesn't want to play any new games. If you owned the phone lines, perhaps you're seeing wireless that way.
To return to your point: trolls aren't interested in learning new things about stuff outside their field. They aren't nomadic like the goats, so they see goats as merely trespassers, competitors, or as victims. Not as neighbors, partners, or customers. That would take a more open mind.
Part of rudeness is not knowing how really rude one is; the other part is not caring. Back to the old joke of when the punk is asked "are you ignorant or apathetic ?" he replies "I don't know and I don't care !" Perhaps it's natural that trolls see life as a zero-sum competition.
I hope that my opinion about trolls is worthwhile, and hopefully will be corrected if it's not. What I observed, but didn't hear directly stated: trolls feel threatened. For whatever reason, unfamiliarity sends some folks into a state of neurosis, an upsetting of their equilibrium.
I think of a troll partly in the case of the Three Billy Goats sense: the troll is an owner of a critical pathway. He collects tolls (tribute) a/or has a reputation to uphold in performing his daily routine. He is defining and defending the status quo. If he sees that you wish to build a new alternative (bridge), this threatens his current monopoly. Instead of scaling his current operations and building new bridges, outsourcing the admin of them, and franchising the operation, he wants NO NEW BRIDGES. Perhaps he inherited his power, or wrested it away in a primitive sense. Any evolution of methods that doesn't go the way he likes, he will thwart, dismiss, or destroy. Perhaps it's bullying, not to defend the troll, but to see things from his perspective: he was bullied, and overcame bullies to get where he is now. All he sees are threats and he doesn't want to play any new games. If you owned the phone lines, perhaps you're seeing wireless that way.
To return to your point: trolls aren't interested in learning new things about stuff outside their field. They aren't nomadic like the goats, so they see goats as merely trespassers, competitors, or as victims. Not as neighbors, partners, or customers. That would take a more open mind.
Part of rudeness is not knowing how really rude one is; the other part is not caring. Back to the old joke of when the punk is asked "are you ignorant or apathetic ?" he replies "I don't know and I don't care !" Perhaps it's natural that trolls see life as a zero-sum competition.
It might be interesting to experiment with two axes of rating: one signifying agreement/disagreement, the other quality/abuse.
Whether it's worth the added complexity, I'm not sure, but it would resolve an ambiguity in the signals sent to commenters.
(To squeeze into the existing UI and mental model of this sort of site, I might make the current up/down mean quality -- should more people see this or should it recede from view? -- and add a right/left for agreement, giving posts tiny little inline spot polls, of a sort. Maybe it could even be a sparkline or two-tone percentage-bar.)
Whether it's worth the added complexity, I'm not sure, but it would resolve an ambiguity in the signals sent to commenters.
(To squeeze into the existing UI and mental model of this sort of site, I might make the current up/down mean quality -- should more people see this or should it recede from view? -- and add a right/left for agreement, giving posts tiny little inline spot polls, of a sort. Maybe it could even be a sparkline or two-tone percentage-bar.)
The problem is that the two axes may get confused in one's head. If I disagree with something (especially ideologies), it's often enough because I feel the opposing viewpoints are not thought out, and the post may set off the same internal growling as rudeness. Someone on your side may seem like a virtuous knight as you watch them engage the opposition in debate; the other side may view them as an harsh aggressor.
The only problem is such a system will tend to award popular ideas (or humor) as opposed to unique, albeit possibly controversial ideas. When I go digging into the comments I generally look for two things... a large thread of comments and particular users whose opinions I regard. These are not necessarily, although they often are, the posts with the highest points. Occasionally I find gems near the bottom.
Count me in the people that don't agree as well. I used one of my very few down-mods on you, pg! Seemed appropriate given your comment. I very rarely downmod.
The karma system should predict how good I am going to feel after consuming the media -- nothing more. The problem is that for a simple question, the solution ain't so simple. I believe there is one, and I believe we've danced around this subject long enough for those paying attention to have figured it out.
Also -- thanks for the term "karma bombing". I've been a victim in the past, now I have a cool geeky name to describe it.
The karma system should predict how good I am going to feel after consuming the media -- nothing more. The problem is that for a simple question, the solution ain't so simple. I believe there is one, and I believe we've danced around this subject long enough for those paying attention to have figured it out.
Also -- thanks for the term "karma bombing". I've been a victim in the past, now I have a cool geeky name to describe it.
very true but I have seen valid responses down modded because of fanboyism and blindness to other views.
I guess we don't always behave in a grown up way online. I am as guilty of that as the next guy.
I guess we don't always behave in a grown up way online. I am as guilty of that as the next guy.
lol the irony of being down modded for my last comment :p
it's not necessarily ironic. maybe they didn't like how you used "grown up" to imply that children have the various bad traits you listed. which isn't a very reasonable or informative description of children.
I am sorry but you are twisting what I said there. I was meaning immature behavior which to quote the dictionary can mean "Marked by or suggesting a lack of normal maturity: silly, immature behavior."
People often tell others acting like an ass to grow up.
This has nothing to do with being an informative description of children and more to do with PG's troll post, now that is somewhat ironic :p
People often tell others acting like an ass to grow up.
This has nothing to do with being an informative description of children and more to do with PG's troll post, now that is somewhat ironic :p
All those ways of insulting people are based in an ageist perspective, and one certainly can object to them.
For example, saying an asshole needs to grow up, is demeaning him by saying he is in an undesirable state (not grown up) which implies being a child is bad.
For example, saying an asshole needs to grow up, is demeaning him by saying he is in an undesirable state (not grown up) which implies being a child is bad.
The curt abruptness of hackers coupled with a tendency to mod down things that are perceived as wrong probably causes this.
We shouldn't down mod things we disagree with?
I think karma should be used as an indicator of the quality of the post, not as a reward for groupthink.
I guess it's a matter of pertinence. Comments supporting a constructive conversation should be uppmodded (which does not mean it's comments you agree with). Or comments you want others to pay attention to (diluting uninteresting ones by extension).
Like in this thread, we can note the irony (and worshiping) of the community, with the top comment (11 points so far) done by anewaccountname, deliberately taking a piss out of PG's essay.
Like in this thread, we can note the irony (and worshiping) of the community, with the top comment (11 points so far) done by anewaccountname, deliberately taking a piss out of PG's essay.
Actually, there's no way a comment like anewaccountname's would get upmodded to that extent were it not a verbatim reference to pg's previous article.
The fact that people here upmod/downmod based on whether they agree rather than whether it's insightful really bothers me. I think it's the wrong incentive structure.
The fact that people here upmod/downmod based on whether they agree rather than whether it's insightful really bothers me. I think it's the wrong incentive structure.
The first comment was funny, though. Yes, if you want to pick it apart, it was funny because it was a verbatim reference to the earlier article, but it was funny nonetheless.
Likewise, it was funny that the "Funny..." comment was modded to -1. At least, I found it funny. Point being, I don't think these were rewards for groupthink, so much as rewards for geeks being clever.
Likewise, it was funny that the "Funny..." comment was modded to -1. At least, I found it funny. Point being, I don't think these were rewards for groupthink, so much as rewards for geeks being clever.
It's really interesting the idea of being able to tag posts with a rating which describes their quality, such as "annoying" "boring" "funny" or "relevant" rather than just plus minus some points.
Because nobody cares whether you agree or disagree with anything. I'm expecting the score to represent _my_ feelings about the article after I read it, not yours.
I could go down a longer list: because mob rules is a not-so-good policy for quality reading material, because if one group votes on agreement and another group votes on quality then the agreement group "drowns out" the quality group, because it takes about 2 seconds to determine whether you agree with something, whereas determining if something is worth reading takes a lot longer (and is more valuable information), etc.
Note that I upmodded you, even though I take issue with your position. That's because you asked a good question. In another world, I'd just downmod you because I thought you were mistaken and for most readers the question would never have been asked (or answered)
I could go down a longer list: because mob rules is a not-so-good policy for quality reading material, because if one group votes on agreement and another group votes on quality then the agreement group "drowns out" the quality group, because it takes about 2 seconds to determine whether you agree with something, whereas determining if something is worth reading takes a lot longer (and is more valuable information), etc.
Note that I upmodded you, even though I take issue with your position. That's because you asked a good question. In another world, I'd just downmod you because I thought you were mistaken and for most readers the question would never have been asked (or answered)
You should refute mistaken ideas with better ideas.
If you want to downmod, it's no big deal. But there seems to be some proportion of the audience that feels vindicated in their views just because the opposite view was downmodded. Downmodding does not make opposing positions less legitimate.
These people seem to be different than the ones who write replies. I've had multiple lengthy threads where I hardly get any mods either way while discussing, and then when I wake up the next day I have -20 karma, but no new replies.
If you want to downmod, it's no big deal. But there seems to be some proportion of the audience that feels vindicated in their views just because the opposite view was downmodded. Downmodding does not make opposing positions less legitimate.
These people seem to be different than the ones who write replies. I've had multiple lengthy threads where I hardly get any mods either way while discussing, and then when I wake up the next day I have -20 karma, but no new replies.
Arc
Like graffiti, trolling can be impressive when it's done especially well. My favorite troll of all time is the guy from comp.compression last August:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.compression/browse_threa...
followed by the famous "Is Your Son a Computer Hacker?" troll from adequacy.org:
http://adequacy.org/public/stories/2001.12.2.42056.2147.html
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.compression/browse_threa...
followed by the famous "Is Your Son a Computer Hacker?" troll from adequacy.org:
http://adequacy.org/public/stories/2001.12.2.42056.2147.html
The "Commie Day Care" Adequacy troll was far superior, imho. And it was all much better when it was at k5.
I wasn't impressed by that one. The Hacker troll strikes a nerve because it's frightening. It's all too easy to imagine somebody really being that stupid, and too easy to imagine them becoming influential. The Daycare troll reads like just another ineffectual wingnut.
Fair enough (hence the upvote), but I judge trolls in part by the quality of the fish they catch. Obviously with Adequacy, this becomes an interesting game. But the "Kid's a Hacker" was awash with fanboys trying to out-"get it" all over each other. At least Commie Day Care's second-level trolls were _genuine_.
HAHAHA! I know the adequacy.org one. That had me in stitches for weeks.
reminds me of the physicist who wrote a fake post-modernist paper and submitted it to a journal and got it published.
He was doing more than trolling though. That was an experiment to show how low their filters were set.
Also, a couple of French TV show hosts pulled the same trick with physics instead of postmodernism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair
I'm not sure I'd regard the Sokal affair as trolling. It's hardly being an asshole, unless you consider exposing idiots being an ass, and it's hardly fishing for controversy, unless exposing any kind of potentially controversial stuff is trolling (was Watergate trolling?).
No, watergate was not trolling, because it was not a forum game. Watergate was a scam, it was also an accident (getting rather busted).
Trolling is a scam performed for the purposes of a humorous prank on a discussion board.
Watergate was a scam to pervert the course of democratic government.
Trolling is a scam performed for the purposes of a humorous prank on a discussion board.
Watergate was a scam to pervert the course of democratic government.
yeah i know. what pg said as well. still reminded me.
I think what PG called "incompetence" is really just rampant emotionalism. "Incompetence" is inaccurate because it suggests that people of all levels of experience can't happily share a forum, which I think they can. But what happens at Reddit nowadays is that anyone who posts an inane comment with a phrase like "why the fuck" will get lots of upvotes. (Case in point: Search for "fuck" in the comments for the top article at Reddit, and get: "That fucking cunt is going to get what she deserves," 15 points.)
I think in the early days of Reddit, the fact that everything including comments could be voted on was intimidating to trolls, so they were kept at bay. But some time later every primal scream was rewarded, and trolls started posting in droves.
It never helped that a really low-scoring post with a high-scoring rejoinder tended to be highly ranked. That's just begging for the sort of you-got-served culture that excites trolls.
I think in the early days of Reddit, the fact that everything including comments could be voted on was intimidating to trolls, so they were kept at bay. But some time later every primal scream was rewarded, and trolls started posting in droves.
It never helped that a really low-scoring post with a high-scoring rejoinder tended to be highly ranked. That's just begging for the sort of you-got-served culture that excites trolls.
I wonder if trolls can be categorized automatically. Caveats and all, trolls are characterized by their participation in negative-karma two-person conversations and down-voting of their comments by a diverse and changing set of users. A simple learning algorithm should zap the predictable ones. Trolls are nourished by attention and early detection and removal should nip that behavior in the bud.
I've thought a lot about that. I wouldn't be surprised if current spam filters would work unchanged. There are not enough trolls on News.YC to make it worth investing time in such countermeasures, but it would be an interesting experiment to see if you could use statistical filtering techniques to detect trolls in some large public corpus like Digg or Reddit or Slashdot comment threads.
I don't think that would work; you would essentially require a filter that could actually understand the subject matter, in order to determine whether the purpose of the stated opinion was to bait people's responses. For example:
"I've thought a lot about that. I would be surprised if current spam filters could work unchanged. There are not enough trolls on News.YC to make it worth investing time in trying to write it in Lisp, but it would be an interesting experiment to see if you could use C++ programming techniques to detect trolls in some large public corpus like Digg or Reddit or Slashdot's comment threads."
"I've thought a lot about that. I would be surprised if current spam filters could work unchanged. There are not enough trolls on News.YC to make it worth investing time in trying to write it in Lisp, but it would be an interesting experiment to see if you could use C++ programming techniques to detect trolls in some large public corpus like Digg or Reddit or Slashdot's comment threads."
Not necessarily.
Spam filters routinely filter out emails based on a common set of words that are used without understanding the subject matter. For example, if an email contains the words viagara and store, the probability of that email being spam go up tremendously. Paul's "A plan for Spam" essay explains a lot more. And, from what I understand, Bayesian filtering is at the root of most spam blockers out there.
I'd be willing to wager that Bayesian filtering would be pretty powerful in filtering out trolls on social sites, as well. For example, if a post contains the words "asshole" and "fucktard" the probability of that post coming from a troll goes up exponentially.
If you trained a Bayesian filter, or spam algorithm well enough, it should be able to flag trollish posts fairly easily.
Spam filters routinely filter out emails based on a common set of words that are used without understanding the subject matter. For example, if an email contains the words viagara and store, the probability of that email being spam go up tremendously. Paul's "A plan for Spam" essay explains a lot more. And, from what I understand, Bayesian filtering is at the root of most spam blockers out there.
I'd be willing to wager that Bayesian filtering would be pretty powerful in filtering out trolls on social sites, as well. For example, if a post contains the words "asshole" and "fucktard" the probability of that post coming from a troll goes up exponentially.
If you trained a Bayesian filter, or spam algorithm well enough, it should be able to flag trollish posts fairly easily.
I think the hardest problem with that approach would be avoiding a false-positive of detecting people who hold controversial opinions as trolls.
The moderation graph between users and comments would be really interesting. There's a lot of information in there to be mined.
The moderation graph between users and comments would be really interesting. There's a lot of information in there to be mined.
There is no automatic 100% defense against any tactic.
I don't think "distance" is the primary cause of asshole behavior by automobile drivers, though it does sound like a convenient first approximation.
If I was walking down the street with a $20,000 ming vase, and you were running around nearly hitting me, I'd probably swear at you. Likewise, if you were running around on the street wielding a sharp katana, I'd probably swear at you.
A car is both as expensive as a ming vase, and as deadly as a sword. The idea that a rational person would not get highly upset when somebody threatened both their life and the most expensive thing they own is absurd. "Distance" has little to do with it.
If I was walking down the street with a $20,000 ming vase, and you were running around nearly hitting me, I'd probably swear at you. Likewise, if you were running around on the street wielding a sharp katana, I'd probably swear at you.
A car is both as expensive as a ming vase, and as deadly as a sword. The idea that a rational person would not get highly upset when somebody threatened both their life and the most expensive thing they own is absurd. "Distance" has little to do with it.
False.
People have impunity in their car. They holler things out the window they would never say to your face because they would receive a right cross in the snout. Your assertion that you would swear at me if I were running around with a sharp katana fails the common sense test in a big way.
Speaking of incompetence, there is a third type of troll. These trolls manner of speaking is seen as hostile by those who come from a more genteel social milieu. For example, in person as on the internet, they might tell you to STFU, or use words like shitpump, yet be trying to make a point in a friendly and helpful (perhaps playful) way. You need not be an egghead to be abrupt. For an insight into this social milieu, see an episode of Trailer Park Boys. People need to learn to function differently on a forum, because it is a different social environment.
Speaking of incompetence, there is a third type of troll. These trolls manner of speaking is seen as hostile by those who come from a more genteel social milieu. For example, in person as on the internet, they might tell you to STFU, or use words like shitpump, yet be trying to make a point in a friendly and helpful (perhaps playful) way. You need not be an egghead to be abrupt. For an insight into this social milieu, see an episode of Trailer Park Boys. People need to learn to function differently on a forum, because it is a different social environment.
The quality which we are looking at is that of unassailable power. That's what makes people behave in an assertive an non-compliant way.
Cars give people that, guns give people that, web skills give people that.
Cars give people that, guns give people that, web skills give people that.
The Reddit thread is kind of sad.
http://reddit.com/info/68zz4/comments/
http://reddit.com/info/68zz4/comments/
It's more than kind of sad, it's pathetic.
My favorite (upmodded 26 points as of 9pst):
Regarding News.YC: "Your ancient ritual has summoned me to News.YC so those tight-assed holier-than-thou fucktards can be shown the error of their ways. Maybe the reason there aren't trolls is because NOBODY FUCKING VISITS THEIR SHITTY SITE."-- terwin, Reddit
Regarding News.YC: "Your ancient ritual has summoned me to News.YC so those tight-assed holier-than-thou fucktards can be shown the error of their ways. Maybe the reason there aren't trolls is because NOBODY FUCKING VISITS THEIR SHITTY SITE."-- terwin, Reddit
THIS IS A GREAT SITE!!!! but it's got some kind of anti-troll field protecting it. The most perfect trolling oppertunities always seem to degenerate into civilized rational discussion.
I think what Paul said about "Hacker News readers feel about trolls the way exiles from Cuba or Eastern Europe feel about dictators" is right on the money. sic semper tyrannis
It's actually rather amazing that we are fairly unanimous in down-modding trollishness, without having community guidelines or a big discussion about it.
It's actually rather amazing that we are fairly unanimous in down-modding trollishness, without having community guidelines or a big discussion about it.
I agree and I like that line a lot. I moved to the US, from a Eastern European country, as I was fed up with the retards that had taken over my country, and ruin it down. Unfortunately, who screams the loudest, often wins.
...as of yet. I won't rest easy until Hacker News has 10 million visitors a day and the comments and stories still work out. Which I doubt they will with that many users.
On a possibly-explanatory note, the article did call them all trolls...
(And on a recursive note, a comment on the Reddit thread now links to the parent comment, which links back to the Reddit thread, and so on...yay stack overflow!)
(And on a recursive note, a comment on the Reddit thread now links to the parent comment, which links back to the Reddit thread, and so on...yay stack overflow!)
People who tend to like pg's line of thinking also tend to migrate from Reddit to here... so in Reddit remain the people who mostly disagree with pg.
I haven't looked at Reddit comments in months. But... Wow. I'm just speechless.
Programming.reddit is still mostly OK.
Another way to keep signal to noise higher is to treat debates about languages the same as those about politics and religion. Maybe it's just best to agree to disagree.
I generally tend to avoid the "language war" threads for 3 reasons: 1. No one is really right or wrong. 2. Not much gets accomplished. and 3. It really doesn't make that much difference anyway.
Debates about favorite colors, on the other hand, should be strongly encouraged. Blue is definitely the best one.
I generally tend to avoid the "language war" threads for 3 reasons: 1. No one is really right or wrong. 2. Not much gets accomplished. and 3. It really doesn't make that much difference anyway.
Debates about favorite colors, on the other hand, should be strongly encouraged. Blue is definitely the best one.
While I agree with you that avoiding those discussions is a reasonable general policy, it's not the case that "no one is really right or wrong" in debates about computer languages, politics, or religion. There is a truth of the matter.
Your point that not much is accomplished by such discussions is definitely what usually happens. But it isn't what must happen. There are rational ways of discussing these subjects which can lead to knowledge creation and agreement.
The reason I'm posting is basically that I think people are a little too quick to give up, and if they tried to discuss seriously a bit more, they might find it sometimes works. Especially if they are careful to ignore the bad replies they get and only reply to the other people who are also taking the discussion seriously.
Your point that not much is accomplished by such discussions is definitely what usually happens. But it isn't what must happen. There are rational ways of discussing these subjects which can lead to knowledge creation and agreement.
The reason I'm posting is basically that I think people are a little too quick to give up, and if they tried to discuss seriously a bit more, they might find it sometimes works. Especially if they are careful to ignore the bad replies they get and only reply to the other people who are also taking the discussion seriously.
it's not the case that "no one is really right or wrong" in debates about computer languages, politics, or religion. There is a truth of the matter.
Well, yes and no. There's only a truth to the matter if you can get people to agree on a premise. Two libertarians who adopt the same premises can have a meaningful debate with each other. They'll agree that there can only be one consistent position -- so if they disagree on what it is then one of them must be mistaken -- and set about trying to figure out which of them holds the fallacy. But if you pit a libertarian with the premise of self-ownership against a communist with the premise of "property is theft", nobody is going to accomplish anything because neither will view the other's argument as relevant.
Well, yes and no. There's only a truth to the matter if you can get people to agree on a premise. Two libertarians who adopt the same premises can have a meaningful debate with each other. They'll agree that there can only be one consistent position -- so if they disagree on what it is then one of them must be mistaken -- and set about trying to figure out which of them holds the fallacy. But if you pit a libertarian with the premise of self-ownership against a communist with the premise of "property is theft", nobody is going to accomplish anything because neither will view the other's argument as relevant.
a court with no jester is destined to become pompous and corrupt.
There's only a truth to the matter if you can get people to agree on a premise. Two libertarians who adopt the same premises can have a meaningful debate
This is the myth of the framework. See Popper's book by that name:
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Framework-Defence-Science-Rationa...
Besides the issue of whether productive debate is possible across frameworks, there is also your (possibly accidental) assertion that what premises people believe affects what statements about reality are true (beyond statements about who believes what). That's solipsism.
This is the myth of the framework. See Popper's book by that name:
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Framework-Defence-Science-Rationa...
Besides the issue of whether productive debate is possible across frameworks, there is also your (possibly accidental) assertion that what premises people believe affects what statements about reality are true (beyond statements about who believes what). That's solipsism.
your (possibly accidental) assertion that what premises people believe affects what statements about reality are true
None of the statements in question have to do with reality, only with abstract ideas. Libertarians believe that property ownership is a right; communists believe that it is an offense. Neither of these assertions is empirically testable.
If the debate is about what policies will make us wealthier rather than what policies are ethical, then that's a different matter. But in that case, both sides are sharing the common framework of utilitarianism.
None of the statements in question have to do with reality, only with abstract ideas. Libertarians believe that property ownership is a right; communists believe that it is an offense. Neither of these assertions is empirically testable.
If the debate is about what policies will make us wealthier rather than what policies are ethical, then that's a different matter. But in that case, both sides are sharing the common framework of utilitarianism.
You give a good example: which policies towards the market create more wealth (on average, various things being equal) is a matter of fact. But I think this sort of non-arbitrary approach to thinking has much wider applicability, and indeed that all interesting subjects can be approached in a careful, meaningful way not based on personal taste.
Which policies are ethical, with "ethics" rightly construed, is also a matter of fact. Morality is about how to live, and it's not a religious concept. The notion that morality is (and must be) religious is unfortunately a bad, religious idea, that (oddly) most atheists still believe.
Just to get started, we can consider which lifestyles do and do not accomplish their own internal goals. Lifestyles that do not are bad ways to live -- they are "immoral". We don't have to use moral terminology; that isn't important. But whatever you call it, there are objective facts about how we should or shouldn't live.
And there's better than that. You can take a very wide variety of goals, and examine how to achieve them. And you can find common points -- certain ways of life are good for achieving many goals, while others are not. These common points, which make people powerful and able to accomplish things in general, are an important, useful, and objective find the field of morality.
Which policies are ethical, with "ethics" rightly construed, is also a matter of fact. Morality is about how to live, and it's not a religious concept. The notion that morality is (and must be) religious is unfortunately a bad, religious idea, that (oddly) most atheists still believe.
Just to get started, we can consider which lifestyles do and do not accomplish their own internal goals. Lifestyles that do not are bad ways to live -- they are "immoral". We don't have to use moral terminology; that isn't important. But whatever you call it, there are objective facts about how we should or shouldn't live.
And there's better than that. You can take a very wide variety of goals, and examine how to achieve them. And you can find common points -- certain ways of life are good for achieving many goals, while others are not. These common points, which make people powerful and able to accomplish things in general, are an important, useful, and objective find the field of morality.
It's funny that you think a lifestyle is immoral if it doesn't accomplish its own "internal goals." I think that's wrong, and not just in pathological cases. I might be an ultracompetitive misanthrope who lives to be on top (gordon-gecko-ish capitalist). But the way I get there (startup? investing?) might end up helping lots of people; maybe helping them surpass me. Was I immoral, because I didn't accomplish my goal to be number one? I'd rather have more of those people than more couch potatoes complaining about the immorality of powerful people.
That was a brief summary and one can say it more carefully. Most importantly, immorality is not a boolean thing. If you aren't accomplishing a goal, it'd be an improvement (more moral, a better way of life) to either change your approach, or change your goal. It is less moral (a worse way of life, immoral) to continue with a lifestyle that is failing by its own criteria of success and failure.
That needs the caveat that we only mean goals you actually intend to accomplish. We don't mean vague goals, and we definitely don't mean the sort of goal you would be happy to partially achieve -- in that case, the real goal is just making progress towards ... your "goal". (It's the same word, but it's a different concept than the one I mean).
Back to your points, you say that even if you fail by your own standards, you might help others, and the net effect of your life may be positive. That's absolutely true. However, it'd be even better (more moral) if you did the same actions, but had wiser goals, which those actions were achieving. Then you'd help others, but also consider your own life successful.
That needs the caveat that we only mean goals you actually intend to accomplish. We don't mean vague goals, and we definitely don't mean the sort of goal you would be happy to partially achieve -- in that case, the real goal is just making progress towards ... your "goal". (It's the same word, but it's a different concept than the one I mean).
Back to your points, you say that even if you fail by your own standards, you might help others, and the net effect of your life may be positive. That's absolutely true. However, it'd be even better (more moral) if you did the same actions, but had wiser goals, which those actions were achieving. Then you'd help others, but also consider your own life successful.
Mustn't goals themselves be good or bad, regardless of whether they're achievable? Or would you say that goals, such as Hitler's, were bad only b/c eugenics ultimately would be bad from an evolutionary point of view?
Then, there is a the problem of heroism, which is defined by a person's courage to pursue a noble goal even if its achievement is very unlikely.
Finally, by your definition, I could be one of the most moral people by making my goal "do whatever I want." Everyone is always doing whatever they want, at least at some level. This would pretty much render all talk of morality pointless. But, I suppose I'm being too literal with your definition.
Then, there is a the problem of heroism, which is defined by a person's courage to pursue a noble goal even if its achievement is very unlikely.
Finally, by your definition, I could be one of the most moral people by making my goal "do whatever I want." Everyone is always doing whatever they want, at least at some level. This would pretty much render all talk of morality pointless. But, I suppose I'm being too literal with your definition.
These are just starting points. I do think goals are themselves good or bad, but it's much harder to explain how you can objectively make assertions like that, so I wanted to make the lesser claim, for now: there are ways to explore morality objectively.
I'm definitely not claiming consistency of this sort is the only criterion of morality. Only that it's an important and objective one.
I don't mean to be a tease, but if I say too many things at once, I won't be understood as well. On the other hand, threads here go stale fast (usually in under a day), so I'm not sure how to ever get very far in explaining, here. By contrast, on another forum, I am in a thread that has been going for 4 years. And it's only 180 comments long -- so around 1 comment per 8 days.
I'll keep posting here if anyone replies. Or contact me, curi42 on AIM or [email protected]
So for depth, my best idea so far is to link longer, external writing. Here are two things I wrote about morality which explain my views a bit more:
Essay: http://www.curi.us/blog/post/1252-xii
Dialog: http://www.curi.us/blog/post/1169-morality
I'm definitely not claiming consistency of this sort is the only criterion of morality. Only that it's an important and objective one.
I don't mean to be a tease, but if I say too many things at once, I won't be understood as well. On the other hand, threads here go stale fast (usually in under a day), so I'm not sure how to ever get very far in explaining, here. By contrast, on another forum, I am in a thread that has been going for 4 years. And it's only 180 comments long -- so around 1 comment per 8 days.
I'll keep posting here if anyone replies. Or contact me, curi42 on AIM or [email protected]
So for depth, my best idea so far is to link longer, external writing. Here are two things I wrote about morality which explain my views a bit more:
Essay: http://www.curi.us/blog/post/1252-xii
Dialog: http://www.curi.us/blog/post/1169-morality
Ah, good. I figured I wasn't getting the whole picture. Something similar to objectivism makes sense to me. I think there is such a thing as human nature, so everyone is ultimately made happy by the same things, at a certain granularity. Morality's objectively good goal, in your framework, is to maximize happiness.
However, at this point I have to veer into territory considered "religious," because such a claim requires at least an element of non-materialism to make sense of our moral intuitions.
At any rate, my views are not rigorously defined enough, and I'd benefit from critical, constructive discussion. I'll check out your links and see if I can participate.
However, at this point I have to veer into territory considered "religious," because such a claim requires at least an element of non-materialism to make sense of our moral intuitions.
At any rate, my views are not rigorously defined enough, and I'd benefit from critical, constructive discussion. I'll check out your links and see if I can participate.
If it's any help:
I don't think there is any such thing as 'human nature', though I do think there is a lot of complex knowledge in cultures that achieves some of the same practical results.
I don't think the purpose of morality, or life, is to maximize happiness. I suspect maximizing happiness is consistent with the right way of life, if you understand enough, but I don't think it's the best way to look at things, and I think it makes it harder to see the answers.
In general, ideas don't need foundations. "You can't justify that," is not a valid criticism. This includes moral ideas. So if you have a "moral intuition", or think a common sense notion of morality makes sense, but can't justify it perfectly, I don't think that's a problem. It may be a sign of religion, but not a bad one.
The correct way to look at ideas is not to seek justification, but instead to compare them to rival theories. In other words, ask, "Got a better idea?" If there is no rival theory, then criticism is sort of useless. It can help us notice we'd like a better theory and find places to look for new ideas. But without a rival theory to compare with, we can't see which theory seems truer, or which stands up to criticism better, and can't abandon the current theory.
The ideas about foundations and justifications here were best explained in published work by Karl Popper, and also somewhat by David Deutsch (but more to come, he should have a new book out within 2 years). They are not especially popular, but in my judgment they actually make sense, unlike all the rival philosophies.
If you read Popper, be aware that he never wrote much applying his ideas to morality or education. He wrote a lot about science, and about communism and historicism, and also about certain (bad) schools of philosophy, but also explained epistemology in abstract.
Guess that's long enough for now. For what it's worth, I like fielding (non-hostile) questions in these areas.
I don't think there is any such thing as 'human nature', though I do think there is a lot of complex knowledge in cultures that achieves some of the same practical results.
I don't think the purpose of morality, or life, is to maximize happiness. I suspect maximizing happiness is consistent with the right way of life, if you understand enough, but I don't think it's the best way to look at things, and I think it makes it harder to see the answers.
In general, ideas don't need foundations. "You can't justify that," is not a valid criticism. This includes moral ideas. So if you have a "moral intuition", or think a common sense notion of morality makes sense, but can't justify it perfectly, I don't think that's a problem. It may be a sign of religion, but not a bad one.
The correct way to look at ideas is not to seek justification, but instead to compare them to rival theories. In other words, ask, "Got a better idea?" If there is no rival theory, then criticism is sort of useless. It can help us notice we'd like a better theory and find places to look for new ideas. But without a rival theory to compare with, we can't see which theory seems truer, or which stands up to criticism better, and can't abandon the current theory.
The ideas about foundations and justifications here were best explained in published work by Karl Popper, and also somewhat by David Deutsch (but more to come, he should have a new book out within 2 years). They are not especially popular, but in my judgment they actually make sense, unlike all the rival philosophies.
If you read Popper, be aware that he never wrote much applying his ideas to morality or education. He wrote a lot about science, and about communism and historicism, and also about certain (bad) schools of philosophy, but also explained epistemology in abstract.
Guess that's long enough for now. For what it's worth, I like fielding (non-hostile) questions in these areas.
I was saying that failing to achieve your goals can be moral. I'll add that it can be morally better than succeeding at them. Now you say, well yes but it'd be better if you had better goals in the first place. So I think the lesson is: it's not consistency between goals and outcomes that matters for morality; what matters is the morality of those goals and outcomes.
I think we are talking past each other. You are talking about morality, in the common sense semi-religious meaning. I am talking about "morality" referring only to the propositions I'd just put forward about how to live. When you say "failing to achieve your goals can be moral" you are not using the word in the way I did.
As far as consistency, can you give one good reason it would be a good way to live to make choices in a way that won't achieve the results you are hoping for? If not, then that is my point: that is a bad way of life. It might, by good luck, turn out well, but it doesn't work reliably, and better ways of life are available.
As far as consistency, can you give one good reason it would be a good way to live to make choices in a way that won't achieve the results you are hoping for? If not, then that is my point: that is a bad way of life. It might, by good luck, turn out well, but it doesn't work reliably, and better ways of life are available.
morality is not a boolean thing. Now that is absolutely bang on.
You see, a moral is extracted from a story, it is interpretation. Good stories don't have to spell it out. Some stories have many morals. Some stories the moral of the story is it's hard to find the morals, or the boundaries.
You see, a moral is extracted from a story, it is interpretation. Good stories don't have to spell it out. Some stories have many morals. Some stories the moral of the story is it's hard to find the morals, or the boundaries.
One of the main contributing factors to the abundance of trolling on forums is indeed that text is a much less expressive medium than face-to-face communication, meaning that you very often end up trapped into voicing your opinion in a trollish manner due to just carelessly throwing your initial thoughts into the text box.
You can give up, though, and perpetrate the crapstorm, or you can remind yourself that being good at communicating your ideas and opinions is an important part of being a well-rounded hacker; then you can view the posting of only coherent and non-inflammatory replies on fora as practice for when you'll have to communicate about programs you are writing.
You can give up, though, and perpetrate the crapstorm, or you can remind yourself that being good at communicating your ideas and opinions is an important part of being a well-rounded hacker; then you can view the posting of only coherent and non-inflammatory replies on fora as practice for when you'll have to communicate about programs you are writing.
My experience on forums is that -size matters-. A pond with ten fish gets far less trollers than a pond with ten thousand.
As for solutions: there have to be consequences. Either losing the ability to post or losing the ability to have your posts seen. Certainly banning accounts is an option, but then you have to fight with the crapflood, if and when it comes.
As for solutions: there have to be consequences. Either losing the ability to post or losing the ability to have your posts seen. Certainly banning accounts is an option, but then you have to fight with the crapflood, if and when it comes.
I think the community size bit is important (see 'monkey number'). I also wonder if that means that sites should somehow attempt to break people into smaller groups in some way in order to maintain that 'small town feel'.
>losing the ability to have your posts seen.
That's how it works on this forum. I leave "showdead" on just to see what the trolls and spammers are up to.
That's how it works on this forum. I leave "showdead" on just to see what the trolls and spammers are up to.
On news.yc it is not so extreme, but on german tech news site heise.de, there is also a modding system. Good threads become green, bad ones red. I have often wondered if people are more likely to start flaming away in the red threads. Sort of like beating up somebody who is already down on the floor (comments on the line of "you suck"). At heise.de I often had the impression that it is the case - not so much on news.yc, but it might be interesting to look at the statistics?
News.YC users are definitely influenced by the prevailing trend, in both directions. I.e. people are more willing to vote something up as its score rises, and more prone to attack something as its score falls. It's not too bad yet here, but it got to be such a problem on Reddit that about a year ago they switched to not showing how many points a submission has till it's an hour old.
Ever thought about doing a controlled experiment about it? I.e.: showing high points for a post to half the users, and low points to the other half.
[deleted]
Creating more selective communities with stricter guidelines seems to be the wrong approach to dealing with trolls, especially based on the scenario pg lays out. As pg says, the larger a community grows, the easier it is for trolls to be accepted and the harder it is to mod (prune) the community. It seems that critical mass is just when the pruning community becomes smaller than the trolling community, and that by creating new communities with more stringent rules, you are just delaying the date (hopefully indefinitely) when trolls come in. I understand that the yc community is special, but even the comments here show that it won't work for much longer as the community grows beyond yc. To answer the question of "Will it scale?", I think its already a no.
If you've ever hung out with a lot of girls (from a guy's perspective), you can beging to understand the trolling community. 1 on 1 with a girl and you can get intellectual conversation, but the minute 3 or 4 girls get together, they start talking about clothes, guys, dramas, and all other stuff that just isn't interesting. I bet girls see it the same with guys too (5 guys together = WoW, DOTA, girls or crude jokes).
Solutions? Keep it small. This fails to keep in line with the existing goals of news.yc (advertising for existing startups, attracting smart people, etc). Another solution? Maybe try to preserve the small community feel as the site gets bigger. One way to do this would be to use user upvotes and downvotes as community boundaries for each user - ie: making their community presence only to those who rate them up, and to make their personal community those who they rate up. This is speculative at best, though.
If you've ever hung out with a lot of girls (from a guy's perspective), you can beging to understand the trolling community. 1 on 1 with a girl and you can get intellectual conversation, but the minute 3 or 4 girls get together, they start talking about clothes, guys, dramas, and all other stuff that just isn't interesting. I bet girls see it the same with guys too (5 guys together = WoW, DOTA, girls or crude jokes).
Solutions? Keep it small. This fails to keep in line with the existing goals of news.yc (advertising for existing startups, attracting smart people, etc). Another solution? Maybe try to preserve the small community feel as the site gets bigger. One way to do this would be to use user upvotes and downvotes as community boundaries for each user - ie: making their community presence only to those who rate them up, and to make their personal community those who they rate up. This is speculative at best, though.
"Often users have second thoughts and delete such comments."
@PG, I've always wondered, are you able to see all the comments that I've posted and then deleted two minutes later? And if so, is this an acceptable way to send you semi-private messages?
@PG, I've always wondered, are you able to see all the comments that I've posted and then deleted two minutes later? And if so, is this an acceptable way to send you semi-private messages?
It doesn't have much to do with hacker personalities. Unless you want to argue that Youtube denizens are hackers of some sort too.
Forums used to be the province of the technorati. Not no more they ain't.
"Hackers can be abrupt even in person. Put them on an anonymous forum, and the problem gets worse."
I am sure everyone on this forum is on some kind of social network. If we can get every user's handle to link to their flavor-du-jour social network's public profile, verify via email -- that should at least cut down on some of the noise.
PG: What do you think?
I am sure everyone on this forum is on some kind of social network. If we can get every user's handle to link to their flavor-du-jour social network's public profile, verify via email -- that should at least cut down on some of the noise.
PG: What do you think?
If chains of trust could be widely and rigorously established online, most (maybe all?) of the big problems we have today would be gone.
It would be a good thing. If anyone wants to apply to YC with that kind of idea, we'd be into it.
I actually thought long and hard the other day about how such a system might be implemented, and came up with a few interesting ideas. Perhaps this encouragement will make me apply!
EDIT: I even wrote about it a long time ago, when I still updated my blog with any semblance of regularity. Weebly seems to be down for approximately the millionth time in the last month or so, though. I'll post the article if Weebly gets righted within the edit window.
EDIT: I even wrote about it a long time ago, when I still updated my blog with any semblance of regularity. Weebly seems to be down for approximately the millionth time in the last month or so, though. I'll post the article if Weebly gets righted within the edit window.
EDIT2: Weebly finally back online: http://myothercar.weebly.com/1/post/2007/11/a-confederacy-of...
I had thought facebook would be the beginning of this, but it seems to be a flash in the pan, and too locked in to really be effective.
That would indicate that people would have to become widely trustworthy and rigorous.
I don't use any social networks.
I do have my email and website (with real name) in my profile, though.
I do have my email and website (with real name) in my profile, though.
I wish comments remained deletable longer. My last comment is 3 hr old (and has no replies) and it has already become undeletable whereas when I made an insensitive comment, it continued to be downmodded for about 24 hr.
By "become undeletable", I mean there is no "edit" or "delete" link on the comment.
By "become undeletable", I mean there is no "edit" or "delete" link on the comment.
I just want to point out an issue with a small point Paul brings up, and that issue is how Karma works on YC versus Reddit.
I'm not saying one is better than the other, but there is a tradeoff. On Reddit, you can be rude, and people can downmod you, and it doesn't matter once the post sinks. Here, if you act like an asshole, you get downmodded, and your karma suffers. But even if you make a well reasoned, but controversial comment, you often do still get downmodded because of your unpopular views.
Not that I comment here often, but I'm at four down from seven at one point, and it's really the logical consequence of such a system. It seems to work here, but I do wonder, as Paul expresses near the end of his article here, does this technique scale?
I'm not saying one is better than the other, but there is a tradeoff. On Reddit, you can be rude, and people can downmod you, and it doesn't matter once the post sinks. Here, if you act like an asshole, you get downmodded, and your karma suffers. But even if you make a well reasoned, but controversial comment, you often do still get downmodded because of your unpopular views.
Not that I comment here often, but I'm at four down from seven at one point, and it's really the logical consequence of such a system. It seems to work here, but I do wonder, as Paul expresses near the end of his article here, does this technique scale?
PG's essays are getting shorter. I like that -- no matter what Steve Yegge says. (http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/01/blogging-theory-201-...)
I'm not convinced that you'll be able to deal with the Eternal September problem. It's all well and good that anti-trolling is built into the rules, but as more and more people join less and less of them will have read the rules.
I saw this on Metafilter. I am not a member but I enjoy almost daily reading on the site. I would offer than you have an unaddressed aspect in regard to those than are called trolls. Specifically Forum members who try to end a debate by labeling someone a troll. I am a member of Syracuse.com and DailyKos. I started posting maybe 7 years ago on Syracuse,com after RWers brought God to the defense an UNJUST war. I am a Catholic who marched against the Vietnam War and for black rights and anti-poverty programs. Since I started posting I have tried to distinguish between what Jesus would support in the positions of the Republicans and the Democrats. To the Right Wingers on Syracuse.com I am a troll because I call them to account concerning unjust wars, the death penalty and their continuing efforts to strangle social programs in a bathtub. On Daily Kos I am called a troll for not supporting "gay rights" or abortion. My views are consistent with my religion. Moreover when I was younger I developed a great appreciation for the Amish and Mennonites who view things in a similar manner but maybe to a greater extent and with greater consistency than the Catholics, I am civil and stay well within the site posting rules. I have had my posts and user name constantly deleted on Syracuse.com and that is fairly easily done there by any poster hitting the "Inappropriate Post" button. The modest size gay friendly community within DailyKos are very hostile to any posts that are in opposition to their goals.
I LOVE how the first response is a Troll comment! My only thought to add is an interaction I had recently with a programmer/hacker/entrepreneur who had made a macro program to automate mining in Eve Online. The program is explicitly contrary to the EULA and so constitutes a hack. The programmer/owner had an elaborate feedback password system, so I had to IM him directly to activate my copy of the program once I paid my fee. He was wildly rude--just throwing off flippant and rude remarks like a vagrant dog throws fleas. After the third or fourth example I started to call him on it--to his, and my great frustration. He did not like being called on his nasty tone at all and denied having one at all. I got so heated that I almost ditched the whole project, but finally calmed down enough to get the transaction done. Later I spoke to a friend in-game who had an identical experience. My point is that this article on how hackers and some programmers tend towards this behavior as a culture explains a lot. My programmer provocateur thought his nastiness was somehow normal, acceptable, and utterly justifiable on the basis of some sense of his own personal superiority. I suppose this is what happens when people take their coding/hacking acumen as a license for megalomania and a total disregard of social graces.
Great essay.
Great essay.
>One might worry this would prevent people from expressing controversial ideas, but empirically that doesn't seem to be what happens. When people say something substantial that gets modded down, they stubbornly leave it up. What people delete are wisecracks, because they have less invested in them.
How would you know? How would you know it does not stiffle unpopular opinions?
I think that I would personally practice self-censoring if I would lose karma by expressing unpopular opinions that are likely to be down-voted. I know that I already do on reddit, and there the down-votes are at least only temporary.
Not wanting to lose karma may seem a foolish reason for not expressing your opinions, and at first I din't mind. I kept writing my unpopular opinions on reddit, the down-votes made me put even more effort into them so that they would be above approach. But they' still only get a handful of points whereas one-liners expressing the popular opinion would get much more. So eventually I gave up.
Now I mostly just read a couple of stories a day, and occassionally write the one-liner comment.
As a final comment, I've always been disgusting by the way that people on reddit would constantly compare themselves, always favorable, to their bigger, would-be rival: Digg. Now you do the same thing towards reddit, and I can only shake my head in disgust. Learn to value your site in itself, not as the compare to other sites. It does not need to be a competition.
How would you know? How would you know it does not stiffle unpopular opinions?
I think that I would personally practice self-censoring if I would lose karma by expressing unpopular opinions that are likely to be down-voted. I know that I already do on reddit, and there the down-votes are at least only temporary.
Not wanting to lose karma may seem a foolish reason for not expressing your opinions, and at first I din't mind. I kept writing my unpopular opinions on reddit, the down-votes made me put even more effort into them so that they would be above approach. But they' still only get a handful of points whereas one-liners expressing the popular opinion would get much more. So eventually I gave up.
Now I mostly just read a couple of stories a day, and occassionally write the one-liner comment.
As a final comment, I've always been disgusting by the way that people on reddit would constantly compare themselves, always favorable, to their bigger, would-be rival: Digg. Now you do the same thing towards reddit, and I can only shake my head in disgust. Learn to value your site in itself, not as the compare to other sites. It does not need to be a competition.
On your final comment, it's a pretty universal truth that every community will eventually find a common enemy. It's part of feeling like you're part of something.
About what size was reddit (in uniques) before it jumped the shark?
Off the top of my head, maybe 40-50,000.
The fascinating thing is, all the data is still there. You can go and look at the old comments and stories and see what the site used to be like. If you could find a good proxy for stupidity, like comment length or spelling mistakes, you could graph the change as the site grew.
The fascinating thing is, all the data is still there. You can go and look at the old comments and stories and see what the site used to be like. If you could find a good proxy for stupidity, like comment length or spelling mistakes, you could graph the change as the site grew.
Are you sure about that? reddit hit 50k uniques about 6 months after it launched. I'd say the discourse was very similar to what it is here at that point in the game.
PG misses an important perspective, cyberbullies!
People who bully other people because they have better computer knowledge, mainly the two areas of administration and programming
The thing is learning, working ... are both hard, and many ppl got screwed or unlucky over their lives, they either learned useless crap at school or university, or work at non interesting jobs with bad bosses or collegues
And sometimes, we are humans, we are attracked to certain aspects of what we try to learn to escape, or trying to improve upon our bad lack
And sometimes the cyberbullies call us trolls. It's okay, thought, better be a troll than a bully, the thing is, in time we will learn, and on that road we will have fun, and, the road will not end, and it will meet plenty of bullies, and overtime we will learn to be quiet, for the next person we talk to, and dare to show to them that we don't know, might just be, the next bully ... who will accuse me of being troll ... or that other word incompetent.
But the bully don't see, just like the one in the school yard, its just a school yard, don't take yourself too seriously, its just a forum or irc!
I am reading chatting and enjoying my time, until you came and changed the game, ... thou shall not speak! and now the book seller might have won, for you know, thought can't do teach! And most of the blogs I read were just trolls!
People who bully other people because they have better computer knowledge, mainly the two areas of administration and programming
The thing is learning, working ... are both hard, and many ppl got screwed or unlucky over their lives, they either learned useless crap at school or university, or work at non interesting jobs with bad bosses or collegues
And sometimes, we are humans, we are attracked to certain aspects of what we try to learn to escape, or trying to improve upon our bad lack
And sometimes the cyberbullies call us trolls. It's okay, thought, better be a troll than a bully, the thing is, in time we will learn, and on that road we will have fun, and, the road will not end, and it will meet plenty of bullies, and overtime we will learn to be quiet, for the next person we talk to, and dare to show to them that we don't know, might just be, the next bully ... who will accuse me of being troll ... or that other word incompetent.
But the bully don't see, just like the one in the school yard, its just a school yard, don't take yourself too seriously, its just a forum or irc!
I am reading chatting and enjoying my time, until you came and changed the game, ... thou shall not speak! and now the book seller might have won, for you know, thought can't do teach! And most of the blogs I read were just trolls!
Perhaps the reason that people troll (or take part in any sort of asshole behavior, really) is that they don't have anything better to do. Hear me out.
Hacker News is a "forum" whose main purpose is getting people to talk about/think about/post links to information related to startups. It has a very explicit purpose and to this end I would not expect it to be "infested" to the extent of a lot of other forums.
For instance, would we expect to see a lot of trolls on a forum devoted to advanced topics in theoretical math? "Orbifold cohomology is so much better than Hopfschild cohomology!" No. No, we wouldn't. A serious, well-defined, topic begets serious discussion.
This is the real problem with reddit, digg, etc. - there's no clear GOAL. Like, there's no -reason- that people shouldn't be assholes. What are they getting in the way of?
It's like if you opened the doors to your house and just held a "general forum." At first, discussion would be great (it's just your friends). Later, discussion would get worse (it's your friends' friends). Eventually it would degrade into the biggest losers who have nowhere to go sitting around and making fun of all the fun they're not having out in the real world (outside the house).
I agree with pg's sentiments that the architecture/rules of hacker news make it a much more intelligent, even (gasp) friendly forum, but I also think it's the community. They keep coming back because they have active interest. They have active interest because hacker news has established as its goal the provision of things of interest.
As always, I might just be woefully naive about human nature; but things seem so simple!
Hacker News is a "forum" whose main purpose is getting people to talk about/think about/post links to information related to startups. It has a very explicit purpose and to this end I would not expect it to be "infested" to the extent of a lot of other forums.
For instance, would we expect to see a lot of trolls on a forum devoted to advanced topics in theoretical math? "Orbifold cohomology is so much better than Hopfschild cohomology!" No. No, we wouldn't. A serious, well-defined, topic begets serious discussion.
This is the real problem with reddit, digg, etc. - there's no clear GOAL. Like, there's no -reason- that people shouldn't be assholes. What are they getting in the way of?
It's like if you opened the doors to your house and just held a "general forum." At first, discussion would be great (it's just your friends). Later, discussion would get worse (it's your friends' friends). Eventually it would degrade into the biggest losers who have nowhere to go sitting around and making fun of all the fun they're not having out in the real world (outside the house).
I agree with pg's sentiments that the architecture/rules of hacker news make it a much more intelligent, even (gasp) friendly forum, but I also think it's the community. They keep coming back because they have active interest. They have active interest because hacker news has established as its goal the provision of things of interest.
As always, I might just be woefully naive about human nature; but things seem so simple!
[deleted]
Regarding the future of communities while they grow and "technical tweaks", eBay recently adjusted its policies to improve its community quality, restricting sellers from leaving negative feedback to buyers:
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2008/02/crowd_control.php
"The sites's guidelines explicitly ask people not to say things they wouldn't say face to face."
Interesting, I know quite a few people that would in fact all but troll in person, to your face.
Although in their case, its more to do with them having no outbound tact filter: http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html
Interesting, I know quite a few people that would in fact all but troll in person, to your face.
Although in their case, its more to do with them having no outbound tact filter: http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html
Regarding News.YC, I fear that it may eventually suffer the same fate as Slashdot, Digg, Reddit, etc. Trolling is a minor problem compared to self-promoting. The challenge is that there's no scarcity on the internet, so you have to create artificial scarcity. It may be that the best way to fix the problem (i.e. to create scarcity) is through fees. For example, a $1.00 (rising with demand) fee per submission would keep a lot of junk out of any discussion site. And any serious content producer or blogger wouldn't blink at the notion of a small fee. The assumption that everything should be free is what kills many of these sites.
I totally agree.
Seeing that most forums are started with something stupid like 'Everyone who uses this forum are woodheads', it sets a series of replies such as 'i am NOT a woodhead!' or "I agree, you are a woodhead or you wouldn't be here'. Especially when I don't know all those shortcuts that eliminate these posts, I find it terribly disturbing to have to read through all those 'comments'.
And I hope this isn't spam, please tell me if it is. I am only 11 years old.
Paul,
have you considered personalising as a method of minimising trolling?
As you pointed out, people do things on forums that they wouldn't do in person. IMO, this is partly because they're hiding behind a handle and partly because their target is.
I'm not sure how you'd go about making accounts have more personality and identity, but IMO that would be considerably more effective than just instructing people to behave like they're face-to-face. They know they're not.
As you pointed out, people do things on forums that they wouldn't do in person. IMO, this is partly because they're hiding behind a handle and partly because their target is.
I'm not sure how you'd go about making accounts have more personality and identity, but IMO that would be considerably more effective than just instructing people to behave like they're face-to-face. They know they're not.
Give George Carlin The Asshole Theory(~):
"The amount of an asshole a person is is directly proportional to the distance they are away from you at the time you discover this fault. Someone on TV is REALLY AN ASSHOLE! Someone in the car next to you is Pretty Much of an Asshole. A guy standing next to you on line: <whispers> 'this guy's a real asshole here'"
"The amount of an asshole a person is is directly proportional to the distance they are away from you at the time you discover this fault. Someone on TV is REALLY AN ASSHOLE! Someone in the car next to you is Pretty Much of an Asshole. A guy standing next to you on line: <whispers> 'this guy's a real asshole here'"
It's simple, trolls prey on people's inner asshole. It's like a form of bullying, if you rise to the bait, then you're done. There's no technical fix, there's a mentality fix. The act is as old as the hills, and they provide balance to the debate. Trolls are a form of court jester.
I am therefore pro-troll and anti troll-victim.
I am therefore pro-troll and anti troll-victim.
Another model for keeping out trolls is Metafilter's. They require a $5 donation when an account is created, and kick out assholes. Of course, this keeps out a whole lot more than trolls. It's certainly the wrong way to do it for most sites, but it works for them, and perhaps for others.
[deleted]
The simplest troll test. A troll (person or point of view) is incapable of introspection. This does not mean that trolls won't try to introspect, just that they cannot succeed at it. This can also be used to show why trolls have trouble with recursion and irony.
I think this might be the exact kind of situation that an advanced http://phoenomi.com/2008/02/13/the-rise-of-social-governance... system could solve.
I actually like trolls of the 1st kind. You know, the practical jokers, the original trolls, the ones that have no real bad intentions but just like to be silly once in a while. The second kind, well, I just call them "people"
Some people troll because they know better but they are tired of explaining it. They say the truth(tm) when the crowd does not want to here it. I like them.
I'm of the opinion that if you can't explain something without being exasperated, then why are you bothering to explain it? Go do something else.
Observing just the length of this thread, my initial thought is that pg has executed quite an exceptional troll himself...
This is a fantastic post on a topic that's been a problem with the web since day one.
Very insightful. The Four Reasons feel very accurate.
Thanks, Paul!
Very insightful. The Four Reasons feel very accurate.
Thanks, Paul!
Maybe this is interesting idea: http://lemurcatta.org/
Is there any fundamental difference in how karma is awarded in News.YC compared with Slashdot?
It's been a while since I've been on slashdot, but back then their system was quite sophisticated. You could not always vote on stories, only when temporary moderator status was assigned to you by a random process. Additionally, sometimes you would be assigned meta-moderator status and get to vote on the quality of moderators ratings. Those meta-moderations would in turn influence the likelihood of the rated moderators to become moderators again in the future.
Also, they have categories for the votes ("funny", "insightful", "troll", ...).
Who is this guy and what authority does he have to write about these topics? I haven't read the essay, but there's no way anything so short and written in such an informal style could have anything useful to say about such and such topic, when people with degrees in the subject have already written many thick books about it.
I also wonder how much of a contributing factor people's attempts at humor would spin the dynamics of group discussions out of control. The main reason why I went Slashdot -> Digg -> Reddit -> YCNews (and most likely YCNews -> ? within the next 18 months) was because of all the one-liners I kept reading over and over again of people attempting to be funny.
My thinking is along the lines of UserXYZ posts something humorous and gets 150 points. This causes others who feel they have a funny bone as well to pile in and attempt similarly witty remarks (which are initially harmless or contribute positively); but then you have an avalanche of users who become aspiring comedians on the message boards they frequent. I sometimes feel that these types tend to herd together and give each other a reason to continue with their behaviour by giving one another a few up-votes out of sympathy...
I would also say that the competitive nature of men in general (I'm a dude, and I won't assume anything on behalf of the women here) would contribute to certain sub-groups within this population with an increasing need to out-do one another. Thus a majority of the discussion devolves to one-liners and people trying to be funny, when all they do is come across as cynical while at the same time contributing little value.
In addition, attempts to be funny on a message board are somewhat akin to guessing on questions on your SAT exam: there is no penalty for trying. Whereas weakly setup arguments can carry a penalty of getting a barrage of refutations making yourself look (or perhaps more closer to the truth - FEEL) intellectually weaker.
My thinking is along the lines of UserXYZ posts something humorous and gets 150 points. This causes others who feel they have a funny bone as well to pile in and attempt similarly witty remarks (which are initially harmless or contribute positively); but then you have an avalanche of users who become aspiring comedians on the message boards they frequent. I sometimes feel that these types tend to herd together and give each other a reason to continue with their behaviour by giving one another a few up-votes out of sympathy...
I would also say that the competitive nature of men in general (I'm a dude, and I won't assume anything on behalf of the women here) would contribute to certain sub-groups within this population with an increasing need to out-do one another. Thus a majority of the discussion devolves to one-liners and people trying to be funny, when all they do is come across as cynical while at the same time contributing little value.
In addition, attempts to be funny on a message board are somewhat akin to guessing on questions on your SAT exam: there is no penalty for trying. Whereas weakly setup arguments can carry a penalty of getting a barrage of refutations making yourself look (or perhaps more closer to the truth - FEEL) intellectually weaker.
I think that Slashdot overall still has the highest quality comments. You just have to sort by score, and do a -2 funny modifier. The site instantly becomes much much better. Stay away from the new ajaxy score slider system.
Interesting. I wonder how Slashdot maintains a high level of commenting over time. Thanks for the tip. Perhaps I'll revisit them in 18 months...
;)
(This place is too cool at the moment!)
;)
(This place is too cool at the moment!)
This thread is two days old, but I wanted to put some content in relation to the behaviour of "trolling" to my comment above. I would add being quick to judge as yet another dynamic that adds little value and can cause positive dynamics to devolve. I volunteer myself as an example in the following link:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=119120
I put forth a great deal of skepticism regarding a product and actually got a response from one of the founding members of the company. It turns out that they actually had a real product that shows a great deal of promise...
This just goes to show that sometimes being quick to judge can have drastic consequences for others. I would argue that this is a form of trolling when a great deal of skepticism mixed with anecdotal information from the past (which has nothing to do with the present as things are more mutually exclusive than we would otherwise like to believe) leads to quick karma points and increased skepticism on behalf of other members.
"I for one welcome our new overlords". Oops wait, wrong context. What I meant to say is that being quick to judge is in many ways similar to the reactionary "comedic lashing out" I was citing in the comedic trolling above and can often times lead to making yourself look foolish at no cost to nobody but yourself (as immortalized by Kent Brockman in the above opening sentence of this paragraph!).
Like the comedic attempts above, this is not something that can be easily controlled. Rather this requires restraint exercised on behalf of the author of any given comment. One thing that I feel works against this all is the fact that the anonymity of the internet often affords people to keep doing what they are doing.
The fact that I'm using my real name online (for the first time mind you) is causing me to respond more deeply to this issue and to the open (and unfair) skepticism I was voicing in another thread. Definitely a tougher thing to do...definitely worth it.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=119120
I put forth a great deal of skepticism regarding a product and actually got a response from one of the founding members of the company. It turns out that they actually had a real product that shows a great deal of promise...
This just goes to show that sometimes being quick to judge can have drastic consequences for others. I would argue that this is a form of trolling when a great deal of skepticism mixed with anecdotal information from the past (which has nothing to do with the present as things are more mutually exclusive than we would otherwise like to believe) leads to quick karma points and increased skepticism on behalf of other members.
"I for one welcome our new overlords". Oops wait, wrong context. What I meant to say is that being quick to judge is in many ways similar to the reactionary "comedic lashing out" I was citing in the comedic trolling above and can often times lead to making yourself look foolish at no cost to nobody but yourself (as immortalized by Kent Brockman in the above opening sentence of this paragraph!).
Like the comedic attempts above, this is not something that can be easily controlled. Rather this requires restraint exercised on behalf of the author of any given comment. One thing that I feel works against this all is the fact that the anonymity of the internet often affords people to keep doing what they are doing.
The fact that I'm using my real name online (for the first time mind you) is causing me to respond more deeply to this issue and to the open (and unfair) skepticism I was voicing in another thread. Definitely a tougher thing to do...definitely worth it.
Where can I get a degree in trolling?
I'd try Hampshire College, UC Santa Cruz, or the New School.
As a New School student, I can only say... well... okay yes, you're probably right. It's great fun though. I can't imagine hating school anywhere else.
If you do go to Hampshire, take International Relations. Fun times.
Not very many places give out diplomas, but if you want to get a job at a trolling company, you can just practice on pretty much any forum. Eventually hundreds of people will know you're a troll, giving you hundreds of references to take to a potential employer. Just make sure you don't ever accidentally post anything that actually contributes to the discussion.
Now that gives me a business idea...
The university of troll. A website where should you supply enough bogus posts, you get posted a certificate... of course you have to pay a course fee. $100 should do it.
The university of troll. A website where should you supply enough bogus posts, you get posted a certificate... of course you have to pay a course fee. $100 should do it.
devry ?
So apparently Paul can't keep trolling from happening on News.YC afterall.
But, as anewaccountname shows, at least the trolls here do it with style. Well played, anewaccountname.
But, as anewaccountname shows, at least the trolls here do it with style. Well played, anewaccountname.
Common sense speaks for itself. The article really isn't about stating empirical observations and citing sources. i find it to be a well-worded summary of the thought of me and probably many members of online communities.
Funny...
i feel like fox news has moved trolling to television. its a good thing i stopped watching tv years ago
... and with this post i register.
it's not clear to me that nastiness is more common at hacker forums. a certain kind is. but i've seen much nastier stuff on parenting forums (which i've been to a lot).
on parenting forums, you don't find so many jerks. when people are mean, they tend to be a bit more subtle (or passive aggressive) about it. but they make it emotional and personal, and i think that does a more effective job of actually hurting anyone.
on parenting forums, you don't find so many jerks. when people are mean, they tend to be a bit more subtle (or passive aggressive) about it. but they make it emotional and personal, and i think that does a more effective job of actually hurting anyone.
I suspect that this article is a direct consequence of Arc's sceptical reception on Slashdot, Digg, and Reddit.
Pretty typical paul graham post. He doesn't provide any evidence and he shows very little understanding of the problem. He doesn't even understand he is being trolled because he is wrong. No one cares about 4000 lines of macros for PLT Scheme. All of his arc hype led to some dumb macros. We listened to years of essays about how to program and what makes productive programmers only to find he takes R5RS and adds some macros. Wow. Amazing LISP revolution.
Paul you are being "trolled" because people disagree with you. You haven't seen real trolls.
Paul you are being "trolled" because people disagree with you. You haven't seen real trolls.
pfft, you're just bitter about the way arc was recieved
This is bad. Anyone should be able to say anything. That way everyone can see what is being said - good, bad, sad, left, right, or wrong.
Remember, a democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding whats for dinner.
Fuck lamb for dinner!
For those who aren't gun nuts, the parable goes:
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb prepared to contest the vote.
Here is a good example of a reasonable point poorly made. Seems off topic because not all the premises are stated, but in his meatspace, everybody can fill in the blanks with common knowledge. Also, in his world, everybody uses small, old, anglo-saxon words to add poetry to their speech, he may not realize (or care) that it offends some delicate sensibilities.
This is the graffitti of which PG spoke. And surprisingly, it is art. Not art in the beautiful sense, but art in the message sense. Imagine yourself in China and you wrote on the wall "Fuck Tiananmen". This is not pretty, but it is not spam.
I tend to down mod rude and aggressive people on here and I also up mod people who I think have been down modded unfairly.
I am not sure if I am alone with my way of thinking.