Theo
Active Member
The New York Times embedded a journalist with some Internet trolls and this interesting article was the result: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/m...ner=permalink&exprod=permalink&pagewanted=all
An excerpt:
But read the whole thing. It's a good article.
And it's helpful in understanding the psychology of these sociopathic and amoral trolls. We've had a bunch of second-rate versions (the Belligerent Ghouls, Pauls, and so forth) of the trolls described in this article infesting SoLow for years. I think the article has them pegged: Liberal in what they do and conservative in what they accept from others.
Any thoughts on trolls? We've had some pretty cruel ones on SoLow, and some pretty funny ones.
(Sidenote: I'm aware that a certain moderator has engaged in a whispering campaign against me, defaming me as a "troll". Of course she's closer to a troll than I've ever been, and I've been fighting the trolls of SoLow long before she knew SoLow existed and long before SoLow decided to hire moderators to crack down on them. Please ignore these defamations and let us discuss these strange creatures, the Internet trolls, some of whom have made SoLow a very harsh web site. Or, perhaps you don't wanna, and that's fine too. Just thought this was a good article worth passing along.)
An excerpt:
Does free speech tend to move toward the truth or away from it? When does it evolve into a better collective understanding? When does it collapse into the Babel of trolling, the pointless and eristic game of talking the other guy into crying “uncle”? Is the effort to control what’s said always a form of censorship, or might certain rules be compatible with our notions of free speech?
One promising answer comes from the computer scientist Jon Postel, now known as “god of the Internet” for the influence he exercised over the emerging network. In 1981, he formulated what’s known as Postel’s Law: “Be conservative in what you do; be liberal in what you accept from others.” Originally intended to foster “interoperability,” the ability of multiple computer systems to understand one another, Postel’s Law is now recognized as having wider applications. To build a robust global network with no central authority, engineers were encouraged to write code that could “speak” as clearly as possible yet “listen” to the widest possible range of other speakers, including those who do not conform perfectly to the rules of the road. The human equivalent of this robustness is a combination of eloquence and tolerance — the spirit of good conversation. Trolls embody the opposite principle. They are liberal in what they do and conservative in what they construe as acceptable behavior from others. You, the troll says, are not worthy of my understanding; I, therefore, will do everything I can to confound you.
Why inflict anguish on a helpless stranger? It’s tempting to blame technology, which increases the range of our communications while dehumanizing the recipients. Cases like An Hero and Megan Meier presumably wouldn’t happen if the perpetrators had to deliver their messages in person. But while technology reduces the social barriers that keep us from bedeviling strangers, it does not explain the initial trolling impulse. This seems to spring from something ugly — a destructive human urge that many feel but few act upon, the ambient misanthropy that’s a frequent ingredient of art, politics and, most of all, jokes. There’s a lot of hate out there, and a lot to hate as well.
So far, despite all this discord, the Internet’s system of civil machines has proved more resilient than anyone imagined. As early as 1994, the head of the Internet Society warned that spam “will destroy the network.” The news media continually present the online world as a Wild West infested with villainous hackers, spammers and pedophiles. And yet the Internet is doing very well for a frontier town on the brink of anarchy. Its traffic is expected to quadruple by 2012. To say that trolls pose a threat to the Internet at this point is like saying that crows pose a threat to farming.
But read the whole thing. It's a good article.
And it's helpful in understanding the psychology of these sociopathic and amoral trolls. We've had a bunch of second-rate versions (the Belligerent Ghouls, Pauls, and so forth) of the trolls described in this article infesting SoLow for years. I think the article has them pegged: Liberal in what they do and conservative in what they accept from others.
Any thoughts on trolls? We've had some pretty cruel ones on SoLow, and some pretty funny ones.
(Sidenote: I'm aware that a certain moderator has engaged in a whispering campaign against me, defaming me as a "troll". Of course she's closer to a troll than I've ever been, and I've been fighting the trolls of SoLow long before she knew SoLow existed and long before SoLow decided to hire moderators to crack down on them. Please ignore these defamations and let us discuss these strange creatures, the Internet trolls, some of whom have made SoLow a very harsh web site. Or, perhaps you don't wanna, and that's fine too. Just thought this was a good article worth passing along.)