Internet troll

From Wikinfo

Jump to: navigation, search


On the Internet, a troll is a person who posts messages that create controversy or an angry response without adding content to the discussion, often intentionally, merely as a ludibrium. Though technically different from flaming, which is an unmistakable direct personal attack, trolls often resort to innuendo or misdirection in the pursuit of their objective, which is to create controversy for its own sake, discredit those with whom they disagree, or sabotage discussion by creating an intimidating atmosphere.

Contents

Origins

Originally this term applied to people who were intentionally posting flamebait, by analogy with the fishing technique of trolling: metaphorically, these people were dragging a conversational lure through the group, hoping for a response. The concept of "this person is trolling our newsgroup" became shortened to "this person is a troll", and picked up the association of the monster trolls of folklore. Note that this is a highly subjective term, as everyone is affected differently by the nature of the term deemed a "troll".

Trolling does not maintain its earlier meaning of posting messages specifically in order to elicit a particular response, usually anger or argument. The most common form, troll, usually refers to someone who induces general controversy, not necessarily a particular response.

Sometimes people use this to discredit an opposing position in an argument. By asserting that one's opponents are trolls, one is asserting that they are only maintaining their position in order to feed the flames, and that their position is actually indefensible. To demonstrate that someone is a troll in this sense therefore carries a far more difficult burden of proof than is required merely to show that someone has posted messages that have the effect of creating controversy.

In any case, merely asserting that someone is a troll without providing the appropriate evidence amounts to an ad hominem argument, and is itself thus usually indefensible. Many views that have met with opposition and even the ridicule of experts have subsequently been found to be justified, so the label "troll" used this way is actually more likely to indicate a correct but controversial position. Moreover, the definition of "troll" given in the introduction is disputed: some hold that controversy, per se, is for its own sake: controversy never leads to anything because it has no beginning or end, it starts from no premises and leads to no conclusion.

The role of Internet trolls is also disputed, some viewing them as playing some role in the limiting of groupthink, and the prevention of forming any kind of false consciousness by acting as devil's advocate. One proposed explanation, in light of what was said earlier about "ad hominem" labeling, is that everyone labels the others' behaviour that's not suitable to their consciousness as "controversy" or "trolling". Consequently, for instance, someone who believed that Wikipedia collaborators did not form any kind of 'community' but were instead a 'cabal' would be likely to be labeled as a troll by people who take the Wikipedia seriously. For Richard Nixon the Watergate scandal was a controversy. That's why he took it so seriously.

Internet trolling can usually be effectively dealt with by simply responding to the substantive issues rather than name calling.

Identity trolling

In academic literature, the practice was first documented by Judith Donath (1999), who used several anecdotal examples from various Usenet newsgroups in her discussion. Donath's paper outlines the ambiguity of identity in a disembodied "virtual community":[1]

In the physical world there is an inherent unity to the self, for the body provides a compelling and convenient definition of identity. The norm is: one body, one identity. ... The virtual world is different. It is composed of information rather than matter.

Donath provides a concise overview of identity deception games which trade on the confusion between physical and epistemic community:

Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they — and the troll — understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group.

Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become sensitized to trolling — where the rate of deception is high — many honestly naïve questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can be quite off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting is immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online reputation." (Donath, 1999, p. 45)[1]

Types of trolls

By their behaviour, there are several kinds of trolls.

Concern troll

A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose point of view is opposed to the one that the user's sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.[2]

For example, in 2006 a top staffer for then-Congressman Charlie Bass (R-NH) was caught posing as a "concerned" supporter of Bass's opponent, Democrat Paul Hodes, on several liberal New Hampshire blogs, using the pseudonyms "IndieNH" or "IndyNH." "IndyNH" expressed concern that Democrats might just be wasting their time or money on Hodes, because Bass was unbeatable.[3]

A recently declassified World War II manual on sabotage recommends such techniques to derail any effective action: "Advocate 'caution.' Be 'reasonable' and urge your fellow-conferees to be 'reasonable' and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on... Be worried about the propriety of any decision — raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon." OSS Simple Sabotage Manual, pdf

Although the term "concern troll" originated in discussions of online behavior, it now sees increasing use to describe similar behaviors that take place offline.

For example, James Wolcott in Vanity Fair [4] accused a conservative Daily News columnist of "concern troll" behavior in his efforts to downplay the Mark Foley scandal. Wolcott links what he calls concern trolls to Saul Alinsky's "Do-Nothings," giving a long quote from Alinsky on the Do-Nothing's method and effects:

These Do-Nothings profess a commitment to social change for ideals of justice, equality, and opportunity, and then abstain from and discourage all effective action for change. They are known by their brand, 'I agree with your ends but not your means.'

In a more recent example, The Hill published an op-ed piece titled "Dems: Ignore 'Concern Trolls'." Again, the concern trolls in question were not Internet participants; they were Republicans offering public advice and warnings to the Democrats. The author defines "concern trolling" as "offering a poisoned apple in the form of advice to political opponents that, if taken, would harm the recipient." [5]

Motivation

Internet trolls tend to have inferiority complexes and difficulty with authority. Unable to confront their troubles offline, these sociopaths turn their efforts to an Internet environment. The environment allows them the luxury of complete or relative anonymity. The environment also prevents other users from responding with physical violence or intimidation.

The internal sense of inferiority held by Internet trolls stems from lack of power in their own lives.

A troll will sometimes engage in behavior described as trolling to target a particular individual, or because they have concluded there is no normal or rational forum for more legitimate discourse. In other situations, the person accused of trolling may simply be attempting to spread joviality or using a form of humor, such as satire, which can lead others to mistake the behavior for trolling. A alleged troll's target may be chosen randomly, though it is would seem unlikely that a person who describes themself as an Internet troll would attack something they appreciate. Many other reasons may also exist.

Examples

Common types of troll messages or activities:

  • off topic messages – "Can anyone help me make a webpage?" "No, this is a music forum."
  • inflammatory messages – "You are an idiot for including this type of message in your list."
  • messages containing an obvious flaw or error – "I think 2001: A Space Odyssey is Roman Polanski's best movie."
  • absurdly naive or politically controversial messages -- "I think George W. Bush is the best President ever"
  • posting an outrageous argument deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error.
  • unable to walk away from an argument.
  • makes loud claims to be on the defensive, but the claims are a guise for their aggressive maneuvers.
  • passive aggressive name calling, in which no names are mentioned, but are implied.

An example of a troll message in the newer sense would be one that denounces a particular religion in a religion newsgroup -- though historically, this would have been called "flamebait".

A variant of the second variety (inflammatory messages) involves posting content obviously severely contradictory to the focus of the group or forum- for example, posting cat meat recipes on a pet lovers forum, posting evolutionary theory on a creationist forum, or posting messages about how all dragons are boring in the USENET group alt.fan.dragons.

Cross posting is a popular method of choice by Usenet trolls: a cross-posted article can be discussed simultaneously in several unrelated and/or opposing newsgroups; this is likely to result in a flame war. For instance, an anti-Fast food flame bait might be cross posted to healthy eating groups, environmentalist groups, animal rights groups, as well as a totally off-topic Artificial Intelligence newsgroup.

All of these would be virtually guaranteed, in most online forums, to earn a corrective or patronizing or outraged response by those who mistake an online forum for a physical community, where people are actually exposed to some danger of bodily harm by each other's errors. Customs of discourse, or etiquette, that originated in such physical communities, are often applied naively by newcomers who are not used to the extreme range of views that people are often comfortable expressing online, especially anonymously.

An example of a successful troll is the well-known "Oh how I envy American students" USENET thread which got 3000+ followups.

Usage

The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument fallacy ad hominem.

Often, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives. Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online, rather than physical, communities. Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her, because responding tends to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts — hence the often-seen warning: "Please do not feed the trolls".[6]

Frequently, someone who has been labelled a troll by a group may seek to redeem their reputation by discrediting their opponents, for example by claiming that other members of the group are closed-minded, conspirators, or trolls themselves.

Recently, many websites have openly welcomed and encouraged trolling amongst their members.[7]

Dealing with trolls

There is some generally-accepted wisdom about dealing with Internet trolls: "Don't feed the trolls, that will only encourage them." That is, do not respond to them, that is the attention they desire. Or, at best, one will be drawn into dialogues that waste your time. Somebody who does respond to them is likely to hear "YHBT. YHL. HAND." from other members of the group, which means "You have been trolled. You have lost. Have a nice day."

Related articles

Specific trolling subcultures

Notable troll examples

Miscellaneous

See also

External links and further reading


References

Retrieved from "http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Internet_troll"
Personal tools
In other languages