13 September 2012

In defence of trolls. Because someone has to

| johnboy
Join the conversation
74
trolls

This is a fight I’d largely have preferred to stay out of, but having been dragged onto Mark Parton’s show to answer for my crimes this morning it seems I’m in it, so I may as well lay out my thinking.

The Daily Telegraph is rolling out a bandwagon, in their words to “Stop the trolls”, in my words to entrench privilege and ensure only the big end of town may be heard.

First, let’s understand our terms.

Urban Dictionary has this to say:

The art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue. Trolling does not mean just making rude remarks: Shouting swear words at someone doesn’t count as trolling; it’s just flaming, and isn’t funny. Spam isn’t trolling either; it pisses people off, but it’s lame.

The most essential part of trolling is convincing your victim that either a) truly believe in what you are saying, no matter how outrageous, or b) give your victim malicious instructions, under the guise of help.

Trolling requires decieving; any trolling that doesn’t involve decieving someone isn’t trolling at all; it’s just stupid. As such, your victim must not know that you are trolling; if he does, you are an unsuccesful troll.

When Jeremy Clarkson says something outre on Top Gear and gets in all the world’s papers he is trolling.

When John Howard would say something innocuous to middle Australia and get dirty hippies to throw eggs at him he was trolling.

Both of them did very well out of it.

One could say that the ancient role of Devil’s advocate is a form of trolling.

On the other hand people are often simply stupid, ignorant, mean spirited, or just arseholes.

They’re arseholes in person, they’re arseholes online. Pseudo anonymity might let them show off their inner arsehole in ways they normally wouldn’t. But it doesn’t make them less arseholes, just more easily identified.

Not all arseholes are arseholes all the time. One of you out there might be so saintly that you’ve never upset anyone ever, but not many.

If we’re going to outlaw being an arsehole it’s going to be a bugger of a job finding anyone to staff the prisons.

On the subject of incivility. The correspondence of Sir Thomas More (a martyred saint of the Catholic Church) and Martin Luther (Founder of the Lutheran Church) is famous for their foul language.

Incivility in the written word has not been invented by thoughtless fools on Twitter.

But what we’re seeing from the Telegraph is people who are already rich, famous, and the friends of powerful people attempting to ensure only flattering things may be written about them.

The great and good already have extensive recourse to the courts when people say things about them they do not like, now they want pre-emption?

When they’re finished policing Twitter, Facebook, the rest of the internet, why stop there?

That strikes me as far more disgusting than any troll.

And so we come to what Voltaire didn’t say:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Also I’d like it if you could stop; trolling, being ignorant, mean spirited, stupid, or just an arsehole.

But I don’t think we should lock you up for any of those things.


UPDATE: 13/09/12 09:19: It occurs to me having raised Sir Thomas More his speech in “A Man For All Seasons” is highly relevant:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

Join the conversation

74
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

LSWCHP said :

There’s another aspect of this widespread “tosser on the internet” thing that I’ve always wondered about.

When people repeatedly behave like complete tools in a public forum, how do they perceive their own actions? Are they cold bloodedly and with full awareness sitting down and typing some bile while thinking “I am being a tool, and I do it because I love pissing people off heh heh heh”, or are they thinking as they type their bile “I am the one true remaining bastion of civilisation!. Everything I write regarding blacks/whites/atheists/muslims/gays/straights/etc is THE TRUTH, and The Reality is That Everybody Else is A Tool But Meeeee!!!!!!!!”.

It seems to me that those in the first category must be deranged in one way, and those in the second category must also deranged, but just in a different way. Either way, they’re deranged, and such people aren’t worth contending with. To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, they’re not even wrong.

I totally agree with half of what you say. From now on the second deranged version of me (I can assure you there are only two), shall be known as Yorick Hunt for twice the fun…
Be alarmed if we agree with each other and/or are seen in the same room together.

I can never be sure whether it’s Jackie ‘Oh’ or Jackie ‘Zero’…?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

You still do not seem to know what trolling means.

understood… you win the internet…

Conan of Cooma9:35 am 13 Sep 12

Mr Evil said :

As an American comedian once said, “I’m as asshole; and I’m proud of it”.

American is a little general, isn’t it?

Pretty sure he’s from the US of A. Denis Leary, that is.

LSWCHP said :

It seems to me that those in the first category must be deranged in one way, and those in the second category must also deranged, but just in a different way. Either way, they’re deranged, and such people aren’t worth contending with. To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, they’re not even wrong.

The first category are psychopaths, the second category usually find religion sooner or later.

p1 said :

Gerry-Built said :

…Just saying that neither *contributes* anything to a conversation and/or the exchange of views lol cats… which, afterall, is what social media should be about, right?

Fixed that for you.

Gerry-Built said :

…Just saying that neither *contributes* anything to a conversation and/or the exchange of views lol cats… which, afterall, is what social media should be about, right?

I thought this was worth looking at again with the traditional gatekeepers still pushing the anti-troll line to silence us all:

http://youtu.be/PDBiLT3LASk

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd6:46 am 13 Sep 12

Gerry-Built said :

kea said :

He didn’t dismiss what JB said.. he’s just saying example A and example B are both crappy and do not contribute to a robust discussion..

yes – precisely… sorry if my verbose wordage scrambled my message… basically being a shit-stirrer pretty much just makes you shit and wouldn’t it be nice if everyone could just be civil toward each other.

Is that clear to the “what-trolling-really-*is*”-crowd?

You still do not seem to know what trolling means.

There’s another aspect of this widespread “tosser on the internet” thing that I’ve always wondered about.

When people repeatedly behave like complete tools in a public forum, how do they perceive their own actions? Are they cold bloodedly and with full awareness sitting down and typing some bile while thinking “I am being a tool, and I do it because I love pissing people off heh heh heh”, or are they thinking as they type their bile “I am the one true remaining bastion of civilisation!. Everything I write regarding blacks/whites/atheists/muslims/gays/straights/etc is THE TRUTH, and The Reality is That Everybody Else is A Tool But Meeeee!!!!!!!!”.

It seems to me that those in the first category must be deranged in one way, and those in the second category must also deranged, but just in a different way. Either way, they’re deranged, and such people aren’t worth contending with. To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, they’re not even wrong.

Tetranitrate11:18 pm 12 Sep 12

Trolls?

True story, when I was a kid I went around Norway. Let’s say I was not exactly confident that trolls didn’t exist.

I saw a movie about that actually…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLEo7H9tqSM

Jethro said :

frank2112 said :

I think I’ve worked it out now. The telegraph is trying to stop the trolls because it doesn’t like the competition.

Did anyone else find the header story about Kyle and Jackie-O being ‘O So Naughty’ a bit ‘O So Ironic’, given the anti-troll campaign being promoted on the bulk of the page?

Oh yeah, I’m glad I’m not the only one. 🙂

I was reading a website devoted to strategic analysis a while ago and came upon a very good piece of advice. In short it was ‘Whenever someone communicates with you, ask yourself what they seek to gain by the communication”.

It seems that JB has asked himself the question in this case, and come up with an eminently sensible strategic analysis of the motivation behind the headline.

These clowns deserve a flogging.

Good to see the Telegraph getting behind a ‘real’ issue for a change……

They see me trollin’, they hatin’…..

As an American comedian once said, “I’m as asshole; and I’m proud of it”.

I suppose, to me, there’s a significant difference between teasing others quite gently, and commenting on an issue on-line just to upset others, or to draw out a strong emotional response. Trolling is incredibly tedious when it replaces genuine discourse. It has the effect of making people less likely to comment openly on issues important to them, just in case they’re being trolled and end up looking like the site’s idiot cousin. And aggressive trolling is just like the unpleasant individual who tells appalling jokes, but prefaces them with ‘I’m not racist but’ or ‘Women are great, but’. People take stupid positions under the guise of trolling, which means that they are just taking stupid positions. The motivation is almost irrelevant. It’s the words that count.

Personally, I am generally more polite on-line than in person, because what I write here or elsewhere is permanent, whereas comments in pubs, for example, to people’s faces, are necessarily made in a situation where there is a certain openness and reciprocity and ability to read emotion (unless you’re socially incompetent like the joker described above).

It is a very fine line, I think, between certain types of bullying and trolling. But ideally, this would be self-regulated, due to people’s own desire not to be hideous. (Yeah, right…) One of the main reasons I won’t use Twitter or give myself visage book is that it is totally open to any abuse.

Where’s HenryBG by the way? I’d love to hear his opinions on this, but I’m afraid his goats have abandoned him and are seeking a new love.

As to the Telegraph taking this position: Pot. Kettle. Black. Or as they might put it: STOP THE BLACK KETTLES TAKING JOBS FROM AUSSIE PENSIONER POTS!

frank2112 said :

I think I’ve worked it out now. The telegraph is trying to stop the trolls because it doesn’t like the competition.

Did anyone else find the header story about Kyle and Jackie-O being ‘O So Naughty’ a bit ‘O So Ironic’, given the anti-troll campaign being promoted on the bulk of the page?

kea said :

He didn’t dismiss what JB said.. he’s just saying example A and example B are both crappy and do not contribute to a robust discussion..

yes – precisely… sorry if my verbose wordage scrambled my message… basically being a shit-stirrer pretty much just makes you shit and wouldn’t it be nice if everyone could just be civil toward each other. Is that clear to the “what-trolling-really-*is*”-crowd?

frank2112 said :

I think I’ve worked it out now. The telegraph is trying to stop the trolls because it doesn’t like the competition.

Nailed it.

Gantz said :

You begin your post by dismissing JB’s and the Telegrpahs descriptions of ‘trolling’ and state they are not accurate, I was eagerly awaiting the section where you explain and define it….

I wasn’t dismissing either as a definition… Just saying that neither *contributes* anything to a conversation and/or exchange of views… which, afterall, is what social media should be about, right?

I think I’ve worked it out now. The telegraph is trying to stop the trolls because it doesn’t like the competition.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd7:30 pm 12 Sep 12

Jethro said :

A good troll can be likened to satire. It’s sending up the out-there opinions and, done well, it can be difficult to tell if the person is for real or not. Sasha Baron Cohen has essentially built a career out of being a troll.

Usually it can be quite funny spotting a good troll. Other times it can be fun trying to work out if someone is a troll.

Online bullying and intimidation is a separate issue and the two things shouldn’t be conflated or lumped in the same box.

Qft

farnarkler said :

It doesn’t sound as if the messages to Farah and Dugan incited racial hatred or physically threatened them so I doubt the police could arrest the originator of the tweets. Nasty as the messages might have been, what law has been broken?

Exactly. There’s a big difference between communication that is illegal and communication that is just in bad taste.

A good troll can be likened to satire. It’s sending up the out-there opinions and, done well, it can be difficult to tell if the person is for real or not. Sasha Baron Cohen has essentially built a career out of being a troll.

Usually it can be quite funny spotting a good troll. Other times it can be fun trying to work out if someone is a troll.

Online bullying and intimidation is a separate issue and the two things shouldn’t be conflated or lumped in the same box.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

You do not seem to understand the meaning of trolling either.

So enlighten us.

It doesn’t sound as if the messages to Farah and Dugan incited racial hatred or physically threatened them so I doubt the police could arrest the originator of the tweets. Nasty as the messages might have been, what law has been broken?

milkman said :

So, other than threats, is trolling actually illegal?

Trolling is a blanket term, so it’s impossible to say it is illegal.

Contrary to popular belief, a threat is actually not automatically illegal because following on from the logic applied by the courts to threats over the phone, the key factor of imminence is often in doubt.

There are a number of circumstances where ‘trolling’ may attract criminal or civil liability, where it breaches discrimination laws or is in contempt of legal proceedings or slanders someone.

So, other than threats, is trolling actually illegal?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd5:51 pm 12 Sep 12

Grail said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

You do not seem to understand the meaning of trolling.

You need to read the post again. This time, engage your brain and read past the first sentence. Try to understand what the post is saying, then form your response in that context.

The short version for the attention starved: arguing about the difference between trolling and bullying is pointless: the deeper issue is that so many people behave destructively towards others for the sake of looking cool to their mates. This behaviour is not conducive to a stable society.

It is easier to destroy than to build. People who troll and bully are essentially lazy.

You do not seem to understand the meaning of trolling either.

colourful sydney racing identity5:19 pm 12 Sep 12

‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’
Yet you moderate me everytime I call MiseryMan a c*** 😉

[Ed – I defend your right to say it. Not your right to say it here]

The more I think about this, the more I think this is a concerted drive to frame the “internets” as different from the rest of the world.

Bullying, harassment, abuse, defamation, discrimination, etc are all illegal to do over the phone, in person, by post, etc (as I said before). It is even illegal to do via a major tabloid paper. So why are we embroiled in a debate about the fact that it is happening on twitter?

All this does is build a case for why the internet is “different”, why filtering, retaining browsing histories, etc should be pursued even though people would never for a second consider similar observation and recording of their phone calls, or the opening and photocopying of their mail.

Blah, JBs excellent rant OP has me fired up.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

You do not seem to understand the meaning of trolling.

You need to read the post again. This time, engage your brain and read past the first sentence. Try to understand what the post is saying, then form your response in that context.

The short version for the attention starved: arguing about the difference between trolling and bullying is pointless: the deeper issue is that so many people behave destructively towards others for the sake of looking cool to their mates. This behaviour is not conducive to a stable society.

It is easier to destroy than to build. People who troll and bully are essentially lazy.

Gantz said :

So, Gerry, were you going to enlighten all as to what ‘trolling’ actually is?

You need to read Gerry’s post again.

Someone said something mean to me on the internet. Boo fu*king hoo. The first-world can be so harsh sometimes.

A well known person, makes a nice easy way for all the general public to comtact them and they are then surprised that not everyone thinks that they shit roses, and are even more surprised that there are people out there willing to tell them that?

How delusional can a person be?

Gantz said :

Gerry-Built said :

Neither what JB quoted above (“trolling is convincing your victim that either a) truly believe in what you are saying, no matter how outrageous, or b) give your victim malicious instructions, under the guise of help”) nor what The Daily Telegraph believes is Trolling contributes to “robust discussion”.

People who have to “take the piss”, belittle or simply respond in a mean-spirited manner are simply bullying. It isn’t enough to say that “if you can’t take it; you shouldn’t be in it”. As human beings, we have a responsibility toward each and every other person on this planet, to contribute what we can. When we contribute toward something, we feel connected to it – and perhaps if everyone could just be a little nicer toward each other, we’d all feel a little better in our drive to work, sharing the road; on social media, participating in conversations (you know, socialising) and in our workplaces and communities we’d all feel that we are part of something bigger. Unfortunately; some idiots derive pleasure from getting one over somebody/everybody else… It makes them feel clever or superior… Which is sad, really; when they could put that effort into actually feeling more connected to those around them; even complete strangers…

Trolling doesn’t mean you are clever or superior – it just means your an arsehole with little regard for others…

So, Gerry, were you going to enlighten all as to what ‘trolling’ actually is?

You begin your post by dismissing JB’s and the Telegrpahs descriptions of ‘trolling’ and state they are not accurate, I was eagerly awaiting the section where you explain and define it….

You let me down.

He didn’t dismiss what JB said.. he’s just saying example A and example B are both crappy and do not contribute to a robust discussion..

TheDancingDjinn5:01 pm 12 Sep 12

muntychops said :

Jim Jones said :

OMG someone said something nasty to a CELEBRITY!

BAN ALL SOCIAL MEDIA NOW!!!

Something nasty to a celebrity is one thing. Writing vile comments about his mother who died of cancer only months ago, is another thing entirely.

This is only because the 2 people effected were celebrities. First a 40 year old woman has to be rushed to hospital? i have no idea why and now some fully grown adult man has a cry because someone made fun of his mother, who just by chance is no longer alive. Go on Facebook and see the pages no one gives a shit about because the victims are not famous.
The page made by an adult, directed at a 6 yr old little girl who suffers from progeria, the page is there to remind her how ugly she is and how they hope she dies.
The page that says they love cancer because people die from it.
The page that says that sex with children is a wonderful thing.

None of the people who these are directed at are ever helped, Facebook wont remove the hatred page of the little girl, i wonder why… maybe she should play for the tigers or maybe be a 40 yr old drag queen on a model show. This is only because the “poor adult victim” a celebrity, they care not for anyone effected by this only if a celebrity is effected. poor things those celebrities.

Holden Caulfield4:29 pm 12 Sep 12

Telegraph says let’s stop trolls by trolling to gather support.

The internet wins.

I agree people should be nicer to each other, but given our economic system is inherently adversarial and individualistic, can we really blame individuals for being the way we encourage them to be?

Our very existence as a first world nation is insulting to most of the planet, we are directly responsible for perpetuating inequality. And then we have the gall to call cyber bullying unacceptable? We are the world’s bullies, our trolling traps billions of people in national debt traps, endless wars and viciously exploits the most vulnerable. To think insulting the dead mother of some minor celebrity is worse than the industrial scale bullying of all humanity, is the worst kind of double standard.

What massive ego and twisted priorities it must take to think Facebook trolls are even worth discussing. How hard is it to ignore the haters? We have bigger problems than angry people on the internet, if you can’t handle some harsh words from strangers, I hate to think how you’d handle the real world.

muntychops said :

Jim Jones said :

OMG someone said something nasty to a CELEBRITY!

BAN ALL SOCIAL MEDIA NOW!!!

Something nasty to a celebrity is one thing. Writing vile comments about his mother who died of cancer only months ago, is another thing entirely.

As opposed to him saying that Julia Gillard deserved a noose for her birthday which was just his way of spreading teh lolz.

Using the internet to attack other people with vitriol has been happening since the internet started. Not being face to face with people, and probably not even knowing them has unleashed the inner nasty of many people. The web really unleashed the beast, fairly non-computer-literate people were able to interact with many others, and it’s still increasing. We’re seeing a lot of people who think that an argument is a fight.

Twitter is really interesting, as it’s brought yet a bigger group of people into one space, and enabled famous people and non-famous people to interact 1:1, with no moderators, no intervention by anyone. So it’s fascinating to see this burgeoning rudeness burgeon even more. Plus you have the mentally unstable with a much louder voice than they used to have. Those people standing in Civic shouting things now have Twitter.

So, what’s been happening ever since the internet started is now hitting the walls of Fame, and Fame don’t like it. So suddenly there’s calls for it to be controlled, laws to be passed, the police to Do Something.

There’s always been laws that could be employed: defamation, and using a carriage service to harass or menace. The latter could be utilised in the cases that have led to the current furore and if the carriage service one is inadequate, beef it up a bit.

Gerry-Built said :

Neither what JB quoted above (“trolling is convincing your victim that either a) truly believe in what you are saying, no matter how outrageous, or b) give your victim malicious instructions, under the guise of help”) nor what The Daily Telegraph believes is Trolling contributes to “robust discussion”.

People who have to “take the piss”, belittle or simply respond in a mean-spirited manner are simply bullying. It isn’t enough to say that “if you can’t take it; you shouldn’t be in it”. As human beings, we have a responsibility toward each and every other person on this planet, to contribute what we can. When we contribute toward something, we feel connected to it – and perhaps if everyone could just be a little nicer toward each other, we’d all feel a little better in our drive to work, sharing the road; on social media, participating in conversations (you know, socialising) and in our workplaces and communities we’d all feel that we are part of something bigger. Unfortunately; some idiots derive pleasure from getting one over somebody/everybody else… It makes them feel clever or superior… Which is sad, really; when they could put that effort into actually feeling more connected to those around them; even complete strangers…

Trolling doesn’t mean you are clever or superior – it just means your an arsehole with little regard for others…

So, Gerry, were you going to enlighten all as to what ‘trolling’ actually is?

You begin your post by dismissing JB’s and the Telegrpahs descriptions of ‘trolling’ and state they are not accurate, I was eagerly awaiting the section where you explain and define it….

You let me down.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd4:12 pm 12 Sep 12

muntychops said :

Jim Jones said :

OMG someone said something nasty to a CELEBRITY!

BAN ALL SOCIAL MEDIA NOW!!!

Something nasty to a celebrity is one thing. Writing vile comments about his mother who died of cancer only months ago, is another thing entirely.

Being dead doesnt mean people cant say mean stuff about you. Its no better or worse than just insulting him.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd4:11 pm 12 Sep 12

Gerry-Built said :

Neither what JB quoted above (“trolling is convincing your victim that either a) truly believe in what you are saying, no matter how outrageous, or b) give your victim malicious instructions, under the guise of help”) nor what The Daily Telegraph believes is Trolling contributes to “robust discussion”.

People who have to “take the piss”, belittle or simply respond in a mean-spirited manner are simply bullying. It isn’t enough to say that “if you can’t take it; you shouldn’t be in it”. As human beings, we have a responsibility toward each and every other person on this planet, to contribute what we can. When we contribute toward something, we feel connected to it – and perhaps if everyone could just be a little nicer toward each other, we’d all feel a little better in our drive to work, sharing the road; on social media, participating in conversations (you know, socialising) and in our workplaces and communities we’d all feel that we are part of something bigger. Unfortunately; some idiots derive pleasure from getting one over somebody/everybody else… It makes them feel clever or superior… Which is sad, really; when they could put that effort into actually feeling more connected to those around them; even complete strangers…

Trolling doesn’t mean you are clever or superior – it just means your an arsehole with little regard for others…

You do not seem to understand the meaning of trolling.

Neither what JB quoted above (“trolling is convincing your victim that either a) truly believe in what you are saying, no matter how outrageous, or b) give your victim malicious instructions, under the guise of help”) nor what The Daily Telegraph believes is Trolling contributes to “robust discussion”. People who have to “take the piss”, belittle or simply respond in a mean-spirited manner are simply bullying. It isn’t enough to say that “if you can’t take it; you shouldn’t be in it”. As human beings, we have a responsibility toward each and every other person on this planet, to contribute what we can. When we contribute toward something, we feel connected to it – and perhaps if everyone could just be a little nicer toward each other, we’d all feel a little better in our drive to work, sharing the road; on social media, participating in conversations (you know, socialising) and in our workplaces and communities we’d all feel that we are part of something bigger. Unfortunately; some idiots derive pleasure from getting one over somebody/everybody else… It makes them feel clever or superior… Which is sad, really; when they could put that effort into actually feeling more connected to those around them; even complete strangers…

Trolling doesn’t mean you are clever or superior – it just means your an arsehole with little regard for others…

Jim Jones said :

OMG someone said something nasty to a CELEBRITY!

BAN ALL SOCIAL MEDIA NOW!!!

Something nasty to a celebrity is one thing. Writing vile comments about his mother who died of cancer only months ago, is another thing entirely.

If a person says something mean to me on-line they should be sent to jail just like what would happen if they said it in real life.

OMG someone said something nasty to a CELEBRITY!

BAN ALL SOCIAL MEDIA NOW!!!

They know there is a difference, they are intentionally conflating the terms so they can frame the argument in a light which suits their agenda.

While “Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity” is often touted, in the case of vested interests, or where you are the victim, it is often wiser to take the reverse stance. “Never attribute to stupidity that which is more likely to be malice”. The media is not stupid, they understand psychology, economics and politics better than most of their audience. In this case they clearly stand to gain from willfull ignorance.

There are parallels with George W Bush here, while often considered merely stupid, there is a distinct divide between pre-presidential speeches, where he was often cogent and knowledgeable, and post presidential, where he appears to lose 50 IQ points. Given the abundant motive and opportunity, it seems likely the apparent stupidity was actually a thin veil over malice.

The media are perfectly capable of great intellect, so when they deliberately resort to stupidity, it seems fair to assume their ulterior motives are at play.

Felix the Cat said :

If Trolls/Trolling becomes outlawed then RA will have to shut down.

As a long time reader 1st time poster, I couldn’t agree more

Its clear to me that mass media doesn’t actually know what trolling is. I’m sure ACA or TT will do a piece on it one night “Do you know when your child is being trolled?” 🙂

Of course its the gullible that fall for trolls. The nigerian scam was in effect a troll to make money. Many people troll cause its fun, when trolling persists and is targeted at a person, then that could then be considered bullying.

But thats as close asd I can link trolling and bullying. A lot of trolls try to get a piece of misinformation requoted and then it becomes almost real, more people start to believe the misinformation. Hang on thats what the mass media do 🙂

If the cops can’t even strip EXIF, they have no chance of stopping someone with a spoofed Mac address running through someone else’s wifi. Its an arms race which can’t be won and shouldn’t be fought, it will only lead to radicalisation.

Well said JB.

Whilst being online runs the risks of being flamed, or falling victim to a good troll, not to mention stumbling upon general harassment (often misogynistic) from time to time. These things happen everywhere and for the TerrorGraph to say it wants to set the standard, is just stunning hypocrisy, especially as some of their commenters make flame of the week winners here appear to be sober sane people.

It is important that people see this for what it is, a cynical attempt to divert attention from the many and myriad failings of the dead tree press.

Thank you for saying it.

Lazy I said :

I don’t know what the Government or the Police are going to do about it, they would need to purchase a modem-reverser to backtrace the troll’s IPs which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The US Government has already developed quite sophisticated “troll-sniffing” software that allows them to not only trace IP addresses, but remotely activate the user’s web cam to photograph the offender. A smart cookie system can also be deployed to do the same with mobile devices, and additionally track the user’s movements for rapid police response to troll attacks. Basically the offender can be identified within seconds, photographed and police dispatched instantaniously.

So the days of the modem-reverser (and trolls) are numbered.

Lazy I said :

I don’t know what the Government or the Police are going to do about it, they would need to purchase a modem-reverser to backtrace the troll’s IPs which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I’ll just get a Trace Buster Buster Buster

Big shock that the mass media can’t get the simple stuff right, much less the difficult stuff. This is why I get most of my news riot here (see what I did there?).

Not to defend bullies, but … I am fairly amused by no-talent publicity whores getting bitten on the bum by an unimpressed public. Who’d’ve thunk the whole world wouldn’t line up to heap praise upon them and bask in the warm glow of their mediocrity?

If we put aside, for a moment, the terrograph’s miss-understanding of the term troll, and accept that what they actually mean is bullying, harassment, insults, etc – then the question is – why stop at twitter and face book? Why not make this behaviour illegal by post, on the phone or in person as well?

Wait, what?

People seem to have an idea that they have a right to not be offended, there is no such right, and if there were I would have most of Parliament up on charges. Individuals are wholly responsible for their own reactions, the real problem is that our society is largely illiterate when it comes to debating techniques and logical reasoning. This means most people can not even detect ad hominim attacks and respond accordingly, instead they fall for the troll. If the general populace were not such easy marks, they wouldn’t have a problem with s***ty trolls.

The media also has a vested interrst. In our society we pay for the right to become propaganda, the mainstream media lives off ad revenue, and are doubtless aware that identified users are more profitable than anonymous users. Google and Facebook both make their money off knowing who you are, anonymity is a threat to their business model.

Moreover, we know Google, Facebook and the media are selling our information to governments who also have a vested interest in knowing who we are.

Ultimately trolling is a moderation issue, most people have very little life experience of unmoderated situations, this is especially hard on people with a big ego.

The internet is mostly unmoderated and that is its greatest strength, but middle aged housewives on Facebook are expecting a closely gaurded play pen. The media seems to suggest we moderate the entire internet, perhaps a better solution is to give them a childproof walled off section to blunder about in unsullied.

Personally I think the offended parties should take a spoonful of concrete and realise the world doesn’t revolve around their hurt feelings. There are plenty of people I’d rather not hear from, but if we started censoring unpopular opinions, I’d soon be out of a bridge to live under.

Conan of Cooma1:57 pm 12 Sep 12

You can’t stop trolls. They’re too big and too many.

I saw that movie Troll Hunter. We don’t stand a chance.

Interesting that West/Tigers player Farrer tweeted about giving the PM a noose for her birthday.

I don’t know what the Government or the Police are going to do about it, they would need to purchase a modem-reverser to backtrace the troll’s IPs which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The medium through which the message is delivered should be irrelevant – so if these proposed “freedom from being offended” rules are brought in, they should apply equally to newspapers.

I’m sure the Daily Telegraph would love that!

I believe the old-world phrase that gives context to the GIFT (Greater Internet F***wad Theory) is ‘give someone a mask and they’ll show you their true face’.

Online, we’re all anonymous, but the degree of personal restraint varies.

But internet trolling is related to both the method of fishing and ‘under a bridge’ troll.

SnapperJack said :

The News Ltd papers have always had a problem with the Internet. When it first began in the early 1990s their newspapers ran campaigns to get it either banned or heavily censored, calling it “a new delivery service for explicit pornography”.

Just a little ironic

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmoss/falcon_details.show_tm_details?p_tm_number=984744&p_search_no=1&p_ExtDisp=D&p_detail=DETAILED&p_rec_no=3&p_rec_all=3

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmoss/falcon_details.show_tm_details?p_tm_number=984609&p_search_no=1&p_ExtDisp=D&p_detail=DETAILED&p_rec_no=1&p_rec_all=3

… and just to make it a little more interesting, one prominent “victim” of rude twitters seems surprised some people can’t take a joke.

The coverage is ridiculous, blown out of all proportion. Facebook and Twitter have been completely mainstream for what, 7 or 8 years, but we’ve only just worked out you can use these mediums to say outrageous and disgusting things to people you wouldn’t ordinarily have access to???

It’s attention seeking, plain and simple. Publicising the fact despicable comments have upset high profile people only means the “troll” wins. You deal with it by ignoring it, blocking the person, deleting the comment etc.

Beggars in Civic have abused me for no real reason. It’s unpleasant but I’ve never considered taking them to court over it – I’ve ignored it – got plenty of bigger things to worry about – so why should it be any different online??

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd1:05 pm 12 Sep 12

Henry82 said :

If he can’t take the heat, then don’t have twitter. People who had mean things to say existed before social media, just there was usually a secretary in the way.

agreed. No one is forcing anybody to sign upto twitter, or to continue reading if you dont like what is being said.

And where does it stop? when will the police start knocking on my door for calling a polotician a halwit in the comments here?

Eloquently stated, jb…

The News Ltd papers have always had a problem with the Internet. When it first began in the early 1990s their newspapers ran campaigns to get it either banned or heavily censored, calling it “a new delivery service for explicit pornography”.

When News Ltd tabloids such as the Telegraph start moral crusades such as this they take emotive terms and interchange them with other less threatening language thus making it all seem very scary and threatening. When home video first began, an urban myth went around that there were “snuff movies” where people were murdered on screen. Movies such as this were tagged “video nasties”. When the Hawke government introduced the X rating for non-violent erotica in 1984, the Sunday Telegraph began an hysterical campaign with the front page banner headline “OUTLAW THE VIDEO NASTIES”. Within a few weeks X rated videos were banned in every state and territory except the ACT, bans which remain in place to this day.

The fact is that Rupert Murdoch has described himself as “a born-again Catholic” and when it comes to issues such as this, both his – and his newspaper’s – reputation precedes itself.

I don’t quite follow this. The crux of the issue as I see it, is that the Daily Telegraph is using the terms ‘Trolls’ and ‘Bullies’ interchangeably, which they shouldn’t. The article read as though they were against what you’d usually call cyber bullying (i.e. abuse, intimidation, harassment through electronic forms) which is not something most people would support.

Trolling is completely different, and if done right, is quite a skilled art form.

Felix the Cat12:39 pm 12 Sep 12

If Trolls/Trolling becomes outlawed then RA will have to shut down.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd12:39 pm 12 Sep 12

Most people do not even know the meaning of word troll.

they should more be focused on the repreenisble human trash that frequents you tube comments. Litterally the bottom of the interwebs.

If he can’t take the heat, then don’t have twitter. People who had mean things to say existed before social media, just there was usually a secretary in the way.

Yep, pretty-much agree

Context matters. What I write on a forum and what I write with a byline, elicit very different reactions even when they say the same thing.

Were Andrew Bolt merely voicing his views on Twitter, it’s likely he would be on the receiving end of News Ltds latest campaign, rather than enjoying the protection that comes from working for the Murdoch lavisthan.

I’m inclined to use some choice words to describe Jack Waterford whose trolling, um, I mean journalism in part drove one public servant to suicide.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.