8 ms·

I think a lot of people who actively moderate truly public forums/media channels understand this. Not doing anything is the worst thing you can do. At this poin

I think a lot of people who actively moderate truly public forums/media channels understand this. Not doing anything is the worst thing you can do. At this point in my online life, claiming that "if you ignore them they'll go away" paints you as a co-conspirator/pseudo-supporter or just foolishly naive in my mind. >there has always been a myth about the time and place where things were more innocent, when trolling was all in good fun. And it IS a myth. It's a do nothing attitude and it's easy to take when it doesn't affect you personally. Summed up perfectly by the very next statement in the article: >But what everyone really remembers about these proverbial times isn’t their purity. It’s how they didn’t see the big deal back then. They remember how they felt a sense of permission, a belief that it was all okay. But that was only true for those who were like them, who thought exactly like they did. It was refreshing to see this view point espoused on a rather large technology site.

herendin 8y ago
Ordinary users and commenters should ignore trolls, but administrators and moderators should not. They should use every underhand trick in the book, just as trolls do. Users only add fuel to the fire. Administrators can extinguish it.
- eesmith 8y ago
  I'm not sure how to interpret "ordinary users". I read several blogs with an actively enforced moderation system. However, they are still personal blogs, with a single moderator who can kick people off, and the moderator can't be there all the time. What I've seen is that there are long-time commenters who will reply to the abusive behavior of trolls, not taking the bait but calling out the abusive behavior for what it is. They cannot moderate, but as long-time users they are also not "ordinary." In the cases I'm thinking of, their responses don't seem to add fuel to the fire. Here's commentary from someone who deals with far more trolling than I (quoting from https://jezebel.com/dont-ignore-the-trolls-feed-them-until-they-explode-977453815 https://jezebel.com/dont-ignore-the-trolls-feed-them-until-t... ): > I feed trolls. Not always, not every troll, but when I feel like it—when I think it will make me feel better—I talk back. I talk back because the expectation is that when you tell a woman to shut up, she should shut up. I reject that. I talk back because it's fun, sometimes, to rip an abusive dummy to shreds with my friends. I talk back because my mental health is my priority—not some troll's personal satisfaction. I talk back because it emboldens other women to talk back online and in real life, and I talk back because women have told me that my responses give them a script for dealing with monsters in their own lives. And, most importantly, I talk back because internet trolls are not, in fact, monsters. They are human beings—and I don't believe that their attempts to dehumanize me can be counteracted by dehumanizing them. The only thing that fights dehumanization is increased humanization—of me, of them, of marginalized groups in general, of the internet as a whole.
notacoward 8y ago
People who weren't online in an earlier time should probably refrain from making statements about how it was different, just as people who weren't actually at a company, in a battle, etc. should refrain from making statements about how it was for the participants. It just makes them look ignorant and quick to judgment. From my own experience, trolling back in the Usenet was generally less serious back then. There was more of a tacit understanding that you were there voluntarily, that you could leave or even come back under another name. Trolling was usually transient, didn't spill over into people's real lives, and only worked because somebody chose to be invested in the subject matter. That doesn't make any of it OK, but it was different. As for the point about feeding or not feeding trolls, I think another commenter already made the important point that it's different for users vs. administrators. Users should ignore trolls, for all the reasons historically given. It does work. I've seen it hundreds of times, even when I was a moderator on a millions-of-posts political site. On the other hand, administrators need to take a more active approach. Back on Usenet, or even to a large extent on early web forums, there were no administrators. The approach for users was the only approach. Nowadays, when trolling has much more serious affects on people's lives and it's harder to get away, a more active approach is called for. The OP's basic thesis is right, if you make the distinction between what users should do vs. what administrators should do, but some of their and your facile generalizations about the past are still rather amusing. P.S. It should also be noted that there are legal issues affecting whether a site owner should be involved in moderating content, and those legal reasons change all the time, but that's a whole separate thread.
- kadenshep 8y ago
  I think your view point is directly addressed in the article. Are you saying I was not around during the time periods discussed? Also you have a rather lengthy response but most of it is just vague dismissals based on aggressive assumptions. Care to get into specifics?
  - eesmith 8y ago
    I concur. The author of the piece was there, which passes notacoward's (IMO too-)strict requirement that those who were not there should not talk about it. I also think the author's description of '"gatekeeper" behavior' is a good description of this view point. Going back to notacoward's comments, starting with "trolling back in the Usenet was generally less serious back then". 1993 is when one of my students tried to email me a death threat anonymously. Yes, I know email isn't Usenet. I bring it up because one of the negatives of looking through one's personal experience is that past often looks rosier than it was. So much of it is new, and you don't know what's happening with others. I think the author already addressed notacoward's comment with: > But what everyone really remembers about these proverbial times isn’t their purity. It’s how they didn’t see the big deal back then. They remember how they felt a sense of permission, a belief that it was all okay. But that was only true for those who were like them, who thought exactly like they did. All the while, someone else was getting stepped on and bullied while others laughed. The story of the internet has always been the same story: disaffected young men thinking their boorish and cruel behavior was justified or permissible. I think the author also addressed notacoward's comment "you could leave or even come back under another name" by quoting Quinn: “The internet was my home, and treating it like a magical alternate dimension where nothing of consequence happens was insulting. Telling a victim of a mob calling for their head online to not go online anymore is like telling someone who has a hate group camped in their yard to just not go outside.” Notacoward also proposes "administrators need to take a more active approach". This is also what the author proposes, saying: > “Don’t feed the trolls” also ignores an obvious method for addressing online abuse: skilled moderation and the willingness to kick people off platforms for violating rules about abuse. At one website I used to write for, everyone constantly remarked that we had the most amazing, thoughtful commenters. How did we achieve this? Easy: a one-strike policy. Notacoward wrote "but some of their and your facile generalizations about the past are still rather amusing." Would you care to point out some of those facile generalizations about the past? I started on BITNET with Listserv back in 1989, so I am also a member of the old-fogey/pre-Eternal September club. I didn't see anything which came close to an amusing generalization. And yes, I remember the trolls calling for "free speech" even back then, as cover to permit continued abusive behavior.

herendin 8y ago

Ordinary users and commenters should ignore trolls, but administrators and moderators should not. They should use every underhand trick in the book, just as trolls do. Users only add fuel to the fire. Administrators can extinguish it.

eesmith 8y ago
I'm not sure how to interpret "ordinary users". I read several blogs with an actively enforced moderation system. However, they are still personal blogs, with a single moderator who can kick people off, and the moderator can't be there all the time. What I've seen is that there are long-time commenters who will reply to the abusive behavior of trolls, not taking the bait but calling out the abusive behavior for what it is. They cannot moderate, but as long-time users they are also not "ordinary." In the cases I'm thinking of, their responses don't seem to add fuel to the fire. Here's commentary from someone who deals with far more trolling than I (quoting from https://jezebel.com/dont-ignore-the-trolls-feed-them-until-they-explode-977453815 https://jezebel.com/dont-ignore-the-trolls-feed-them-until-t... ): > I feed trolls. Not always, not every troll, but when I feel like it—when I think it will make me feel better—I talk back. I talk back because the expectation is that when you tell a woman to shut up, she should shut up. I reject that. I talk back because it's fun, sometimes, to rip an abusive dummy to shreds with my friends. I talk back because my mental health is my priority—not some troll's personal satisfaction. I talk back because it emboldens other women to talk back online and in real life, and I talk back because women have told me that my responses give them a script for dealing with monsters in their own lives. And, most importantly, I talk back because internet trolls are not, in fact, monsters. They are human beings—and I don't believe that their attempts to dehumanize me can be counteracted by dehumanizing them. The only thing that fights dehumanization is increased humanization—of me, of them, of marginalized groups in general, of the internet as a whole.

notacoward 8y ago

People who weren't online in an earlier time should probably refrain from making statements about how it was different, just as people who weren't actually at a company, in a battle, etc. should refrain from making statements about how it was for the participants. It just makes them look ignorant and quick to judgment. From my own experience, trolling back in the Usenet was generally less serious back then. There was more of a tacit understanding that you were there voluntarily, that you could leave or even come back under another name. Trolling was usually transient, didn't spill over into people's real lives, and only worked because somebody chose to be invested in the subject matter. That doesn't make any of it OK, but it was different. As for the point about feeding or not feeding trolls, I think another commenter already made the important point that it's different for users vs. administrators. Users should ignore trolls, for all the reasons historically given. It does work. I've seen it hundreds of times, even when I was a moderator on a millions-of-posts political site. On the other hand, administrators need to take a more active approach. Back on Usenet, or even to a large extent on early web forums, there were no administrators. The approach for users was the only approach. Nowadays, when trolling has much more serious affects on people's lives and it's harder to get away, a more active approach is called for. The OP's basic thesis is right, if you make the distinction between what users should do vs. what administrators should do, but some of their and your facile generalizations about the past are still rather amusing. P.S. It should also be noted that there are legal issues affecting whether a site owner should be involved in moderating content, and those legal reasons change all the time, but that's a whole separate thread.

kadenshep 8y ago
I think your view point is directly addressed in the article. Are you saying I was not around during the time periods discussed? Also you have a rather lengthy response but most of it is just vague dismissals based on aggressive assumptions. Care to get into specifics?
- eesmith 8y ago
  I concur. The author of the piece was there, which passes notacoward's (IMO too-)strict requirement that those who were not there should not talk about it. I also think the author's description of '"gatekeeper" behavior' is a good description of this view point. Going back to notacoward's comments, starting with "trolling back in the Usenet was generally less serious back then". 1993 is when one of my students tried to email me a death threat anonymously. Yes, I know email isn't Usenet. I bring it up because one of the negatives of looking through one's personal experience is that past often looks rosier than it was. So much of it is new, and you don't know what's happening with others. I think the author already addressed notacoward's comment with: > But what everyone really remembers about these proverbial times isn’t their purity. It’s how they didn’t see the big deal back then. They remember how they felt a sense of permission, a belief that it was all okay. But that was only true for those who were like them, who thought exactly like they did. All the while, someone else was getting stepped on and bullied while others laughed. The story of the internet has always been the same story: disaffected young men thinking their boorish and cruel behavior was justified or permissible. I think the author also addressed notacoward's comment "you could leave or even come back under another name" by quoting Quinn: “The internet was my home, and treating it like a magical alternate dimension where nothing of consequence happens was insulting. Telling a victim of a mob calling for their head online to not go online anymore is like telling someone who has a hate group camped in their yard to just not go outside.” Notacoward also proposes "administrators need to take a more active approach". This is also what the author proposes, saying: > “Don’t feed the trolls” also ignores an obvious method for addressing online abuse: skilled moderation and the willingness to kick people off platforms for violating rules about abuse. At one website I used to write for, everyone constantly remarked that we had the most amazing, thoughtful commenters. How did we achieve this? Easy: a one-strike policy. Notacoward wrote "but some of their and your facile generalizations about the past are still rather amusing." Would you care to point out some of those facile generalizations about the past? I started on BITNET with Listserv back in 1989, so I am also a member of the old-fogey/pre-Eternal September club. I didn't see anything which came close to an amusing generalization. And yes, I remember the trolls calling for "free speech" even back then, as cover to permit continued abusive behavior.