Trolls Revealed

A masterpiece of an article in this week’s upcoming NY Times Magazine about trolls on the Internet. Bravo, Mr. Schwartz. I’ll read anything you write now. I don’t want to go into why I think it’s so damn brilliant … but I will say this: it goes further into the conversation than most “oh woe is me there are bad people on the Internet” conversations go. Here’s just one example from the article:

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.

I get sick of the “well, on the Internet you’re anonymous and so you can say anything” argument because, hey, I’m part of that, I’m sitting at my computer, safe and sound, and no one can “get” me, I COULD go onto sites and stir up shit, and call people names, but I DON’T. Why? What is it in some people that enjoy disturbing the peace? I haven’t had “trolls” to that degree, although I’ve had a couple of stalkers – and a couple of folks who do the driveby “You’re a stupid C***” comment. These people ARE trolls, make no mistake … but my site is small enough that I just delete, ban, and move on. But what is it in someone that would read a post like this and feel the need to say, “You’re a stupid c***” in response? THAT’S what interests me. That’s what intrigues me. What button was pushed? What in my tone brought out such rage? What in my post disturbed that individual to such a degree that he HAD to lash out, and get personal? It was NOT random. It was a personal attack. Now of course I know where he is from, I have his IP address on file, and yes, he is anonymous. If I told that story out in public, would he, standing in a group with me in a public place, say, “You’re such a stupid c***.” Probably not. But there’s more to it than that … and that’s, ultimately, what Schwartz’s article is about. I’ve said it before: those who come up with easy answers in such matters I look at with suspicion – I consider them to be part of the problem, and they don’t want to really look.

It’s been a long time since I’ve read something so fascinating, gripping, something that upset me as I read it, but that I needed to continue.

Well DONE. Read the whole thing.

This entry was posted in Personal and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Trolls Revealed

  1. Doina says:

    Yes, I’ve read that article, too, and felt the same. I couldn’t stop reading. Frankly, I cannot live without Internet now, but am well aware of whatever (or whomever) is lurking in those unfathomable depths of the cyberworld. Some time ago, I’ve read an article (actually there were some comments on TV) about a site of gossip (can’t remember now its name), where anybody can write anything (mostly bad things, and apparently most untrue) about anybody, smearing innocent people, what the heck, under the cover of anonymity — which, in my opinion, is the coward’s old adage. I found this kind of “smearing” at the Ivy-League university where I work, here in NY. Shivers crawled up my skin reading some posts.
    In any case, I’m glad that you posted your comments on this article.
    Respects,
    Doina

  2. Emily says:

    It’s an interesting point you bring up about what provokes that kind of behavior. I mean, I had a guy practically bite my head off for saying I didn’t like a TV show once. A TV show! How can something like that be so important that you would personally attack someone in a vile and rude way? This guy – I’ve thought a lot about his motivations, as much as I hate the psychological profile based strictly on the output on a blog, and I’ve pretty much concluded that he’s not only a complete misogynist*, but that he’s somewhat lacking in fulfillment somewhere else important in his life.**

    *I hate it when women reflexively blame all criticism directed at them as “misogyny,” but in this guy’s case, it’s based on other interactions with him, not just this one instance.

    **I read a great psychological study in some medical journal once about how people who don’t really have much going on in their life that rely heavily on television for entertainment will often come to view characters on the shows they regularly watch as they would real-life friends (that reminds me of the “Nena” story Alex told us at Hollywood Park). I think the two combined resulted in his reaction. The bitch talked back after insulting his friends. Lemme at her.

  3. Rob says:

    They all seem to share a Quixotic idea that they somehow do good. Your approach is also good. In my opinion, it is best to not even acknowledge them.

  4. red says:

    I remember that incident with the guy and the TV show on your blog, Emily. To me, it’s the condescension that makes the misogynist. You can be obnoxious in your disagreement, and a jagoff – but when you drip with “there there dear, you just haven’t thought out the issues” condescension – damn straight it’s misogyny! That guy had a problem with women and that’s all there is to it! I get a lot of that on my blog.

    And hahahahaha about the “Nena” thing Alex told us about.

    “Why did you break up with Jeffrey??”
    “Uhm, I didn’t. Nena did. The character I play on TV.”
    “You are such a bitch.”
    “Uhm, no, I’m not. Nena is. The character I play on TV.”

    LIke – what??

    My friend Keith at House Next Door recently had a troll onslaught when he dared to find flaws in Dark Knight. His essay was well thought out, eloquent, and not at all like, “Anyone who likes this movie is an asshole” – He mentioned his issues with it. He’s a film reviewer. 450 comments later – with anonymous people calling him a “faggot” and saying they wished him dead – he got death threats, people who emailed him saying they knew his address now and he had better watch his back, etc. etc. It was terrifying. Great job, fanboys, for living up to the bad stereotype. It wasn’t about disagreement – it was about trying to intimidate Keith into silence.

    I’ve never had to deal with something like that – although when I dared to criticize Pajamas Media on its disastrous launch, a couple of the typical bulldogs came racing over to tell me why I was wrong.

    Hahahaha I was like, “Nope. I’m not wrong. You guys are such partisan bulldogs you’d defend anything. I am NOT wrong that your launch was a big ol’ mess – uhm, fucked-up URL anyone? So YOU’RE defensive and you’re defending a sloppy launch. That’s YOUR problem.”

    But their impulse was to intimidate – they showed up wihtin MINUTES of me posting – so they obviously were checking Technorati obsessively to see what people were saying. These were not people who had ever commented on my site before. So they all came racing over babbling about how stupid I was, and how I needed “to give it time”.

    No. You’re a company now. What other company in the history of the planet has been “given time” to work out the kinks? This is a tough world, boys. I have no obligation to Pajamas Media – I don’t care one way or another. Also, it was ironic (and typical) that these bulldog guys were the ones calling liberals “pussies” and “pansies” left and right – yet they came shrieking over to any site who criticized them like fainting Victorian dowagers. The whole thing was retarded.

  5. red says:

    Rob – yes, I was fascinated by that element of it … that they wanted to “save” people.

    Speaking of The Dark Knight, a lot of that article reminded me of Heath Ledger as the Joker – someone who revels in chaos. That’s all. They cannot be negotiated with, or tamed … because the POINT is to wreak havoc.

  6. JFH says:

    I am an “accidental” troll, as you well know Sheila… I have been banned (twice?) here for making comments that did not fit within the tenor of this blog. This is primarily because I also comment on political blogs where the discussion is a bit more coarse. Things I have learned as a highly opinionated person that likes a wide variety of blogs on the internet:

    1) Sarcasm NEVER works in comments. In the most obvious sarcasm is probably going to be misunderstood by 1 out of 5 people.

    2) Never argue with a REAL troll. They aren’t able to engage in a real discussion, and they always are going to believe that they are smarter than you.

    3) Never comment when angry (I have a specific example, but don’t want to get banned again ;)…)

    4) Even if you KNOW you’re right, couch the argument in a way that you are willing to listen to the other side of the argument… You’ll find that what you “KNOW” may actually change.

  7. red says:

    Well, what always puzzled me about you is that you often seem irritated by what I write about – and you seem puzzled as to where you actually are – you mistake my blog for other places. I request of people that they be flexible, and know how to segue. That’s all. That’s what I consider to be a good conversation.

    This blog is about me, my personality, films, books, and actors. Your bitchy comments about actors have been so out of place … You seem genuinely annoyed that anyone would take acting seriously, and think there are so many other things that are more important. While that might be true, that’s not the focus of my blog and your continued comments about your irritation at actors is baffling. You haven’t been commenting so much lately; I’m talking about when you were commenting more, and every comment was some kind of power struggle. Life’s too short.

    On a site like mine, which does not purport to be important (except to me, and to those who get it and like to hang out here) – the question “why are we talking about this” or “I find this entire topic annoying” is irrelevant, and rude. It is an attempt to dominate.

    You don’t do that so much – but you did seem irritated by my focus. I don’t get it. I don’t read sites where the primary topic irritates me. Maybe you’re a glutton for punishment. Who knows.

  8. red says:

    Oh, and if it’s any consolation – you’re not the only one. I had many regulars finally stop reading me, because they didn’t know where they were. I’d write about Mystic River and all I’d get back would be diatribes about Sean Penn’s politics. These were regulars who had turned into trolls. I eventually got a handle on that element, though … but if there’s one thing I’ve learned as a blogger with a semi-large following:

    I do feel that it is up to me to police my own comments section and make sure it is the kind of place I want to hang out. Crowds tend to descend into anarchy very quickly … and there are many blogs where I only read the posts and never go into the comments because everyone posting there is so divisive, ignorant, and mean. That COULD happen here – and so I have made it a priority to not let that happen.

    I’ve had good results. Yes, many people no longer feel comfortable here, because I don’t let them rant about the politics of actors when I want to talk about the WORK of the actor – but it’s no great loss to me. Those people didn’t ADD anything to the conversation – not how I see it anyway. And so now, the core group of people really seem to like it here, and not wish I was doing something else … or wish I would give THEM a platform for their malarkey.

    Now – when I write about a movie – people talk about the movie. It’s fun.

  9. red says:

    And hon, yes, I agree with all of your rules about commenting – if you’re mainly talking about political sites where “issues” are raised, controversial issues and the like … but again, I see no reason to be angry at my site, or to feel the need to argue in such a way here … If you want to argue the merits of a movie, cool beans, let’s do it. But you seem to be stuck in political-blog mode, even in your thinking … There’s no need to get all angry and positional here – UNLESS you are so irritated by my blog topic that you splutter at what ISN’T being said. That’s what I felt with you sometimes. Why isn’t she saying what I WANT HER TO SAY about the MSM and the evils of liberal leftie Hollywood …??

    Well, because I don’t agree with much of that rhetoric, first of all (if I never hear the term ‘MSM’ again, I will die a happy woman) – and second of all, it’s just not that type of blog.

    So I’m just saying: your rules also show that perhaps you don’t know quite where you are when you comment here. Just something to think about.

  10. Don’t feed the trolls

    I ran across this article on trolls (Long, but an excellent read) by the New York Times’ Mattathias Schwartz via Sheila. I’m fortunate that this place is obscure enough that it hasn’t become an issue here but I have dealt…

  11. Troll Bookmarks

    Bookmarked your page with keywords troll!

Comments are closed.