Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What I learned about internet "trolls".
LostLight
Veteran
During one of my life encounters, I was placed around some mentally disabled kids. It was then I discovered that they had taken advantage of a thing called the internet. Over time, I found out that some were very keen on youtube. They're still people, but they have the mentality of someone who is much younger. They listen to what they are told and believe it and preach it loyally. The comments I've seen posted by these guys made me realize then that many of the supposed trolls on the internet could be kids like these. Many people fight against trolls and respond with hateful speech.
My word of advice is simply "don't feed the troll". I certainly wouldn't want to find out I was yelling at someone with a disability. If you see a hateful comment, just let it pass. Hope I've helped shed a new light on the position of the internet trolls.
My word of advice is simply "don't feed the troll". I certainly wouldn't want to find out I was yelling at someone with a disability. If you see a hateful comment, just let it pass. Hope I've helped shed a new light on the position of the internet trolls.
0
Comments
It's definitely not a healthy behaviour.
I think, as with any label, it's difficult to apply with skill. There are people who are simply passionate about a subject (sometimes overly so--but "overly" is in the mind of the participant, and simple disinterest in a topic does not mean others are "overly" interested in it), people who are paid to post information in the interests of some hiring authority such as a company, political party, or government; people who just like a good debate; people who thrive on fighting, etc. etc. etc.
The challenge in using "troll" is that any time someone doesn't like a topic, they can accuse someone engaged in the topic of being a troll.
Often I think of trollish behavior as including the posting of the same cut-n-pastes, over and over, especially if it's occurring on multiple forums. The problem is that that is also the behavior of the paid poster (or perhaps we include paid posters in the "troll" category?)
I think, in the end, "troll" is very hard to use deftly, as a word, and though I certainly appreciate its humorous application and imagery, I think it probably runs the risk of misuse and has an unfortunate effect of stifling conversation. "Do not feed the troll" can also be a pretty un-Buddhist ethic (as in, "ignore this person - they're worthless"). At the same time, I do recognize that pure spam might be excepted from this. And I do recommend Trollhunter.
Does one address it, or not? Does one counter propaganda, or ignore it?
The answer, I think, is very subjective and depends on each reader's interest in (what they feel is) the disinformation; those not interested in that particular subject won't care about countering it one way or the other, whereas those interested will probably prefer to counter it, rather than let it hang out in cyberspace unopposed.
I still think it's dangerous use the label "troll" widely, because behind each poster is a real person, and every real person's opinion and feelings count.
If there is a true "troll," I would limit that label to someone who posts spam, nonsense characters, swear words with no context--someone who is absolutely, positively not trying to participate in a conversation.
There are definitely other problem-posters ("problem" being a subjective term, again!), but I think it's informative to use better labels--hired posters, for example, are not the same as juvenile F-bombers spraying forum-graffiti, or as spambots, etc.
Interestingly, my definition of true trolldom seems to match my definition for (the only) information I would ever personally delete--true spam, or floods of garbage-character posts, or the occasional juvenile F-bomber.
But I realize that in general "troll" seems to be used as a substitute for "people who's posts we don't like," or "people who are often annoying," and I think that's problematic, given its subjectivity.
Would love to hear others' thoughts on this! Someday cybersociologists and cyberlinguists will pen tome or two on this subject, to be sure
There are millions of people on the internet, and sometimes those angry or just downright stupid posts you see can very well be that of a child or a mentally disabled person. The experience fortified my belief that you shouldn't attack the people who make those comments; sometimes the people on the other end really don't know any better. They aren't always the ignorant monsters they make themselves out to be
It took me years to understand and realize, for example, that Ellen G. White (Adventist prophetess) did not receive her writings from God, but instead from other authors who came before her (!). Working out such knots of the mind is not easy, or quick. But with enough patience, the truth usually manages to break free. Well--"usually" might be a bit optimistic.
Well on this bridge anyway.
The best course, in my opinion, is to simply stay on topic or pursue your own interest in the topic and not let yourself get distracted.
An interesting aspect of trolling specific to Buddhism is the added dynamic of 'non-attachment'. It's not uncommon for people on Buddhist forums to deliberately try hooking others, to get a better sense of them. Online "Zen Masters" are particularly popular targets for this kind of activity. You might assume that it would be difficult to hook a Zen Master. Or you might assume that a Zen Master who is easily hooked is not a Zen Master.
I'm not sure I've seen any trolls on this site.
Sometimes they're a troll from the beginning; sometimes they become one.
The most memorable troll, for me, was one of these latter types... that came on and interacted relatively normally for a while, but then got nasty when others wouldn't confirm/affirm their wrong views. Instead of either adapting or leaving, they started causing problems for everyone instead.
I wouldn't name names, but there sure have been trolls.
This forum isn't exactly new either, so it's like sunspots over a course of time.
The necessary "adapting" is to follow staff direction. If admins and moderators have to step in and handle the situation, that means it's inappropriate for this environment. It's much the same as the police pulling you over at that point, except it's always a warning that you get. If you fail to heed the warning you may lose your license (not be allowed to participate on the forum).
Trolls come in different varieties, so I'll leave it there.
Just remember that whenever you claim someone is trolling you're saying that they have little or no real interest in the topic. If you're honest with yourself you'll find that this is hardly ever the case in a Buddhist forum.
There aren't many people that are permanently banned. Some are banned temporarily. Considering the large number of visitors to this forum, it's positively miniscule... probably nothing compared to other forums. We're generally a very nice bunch here, very accepting, but there are still things which are inappropriate. Members are not privy to a great deal of what actually is going on as far as moderation is concerned, including the interactions between staff and members (which generally resolves the situation without any further action necessary). There's not much to see because it's handled. This forum is kept as nice as it is, as friendly and open and non-discriminatory, because of the hard work of the administration and the moderators.
Religion is something that can be very deeply felt so tensions can run high when discussing it. If that tension leads to some rude comments it's not trolling. In fact it can be the very opposite, because the subject is felt to be very important. By publicly calling someone a troll who is in this situation you are attacking the person rather than what they are saying, which is an ad hominem fallacy. You'e invalidating what they've said by claiming that their only purpose is to get a rise out of others and upset them, and that they have no real interest in the subject.
Maybe an example with help. I saw a post the other day in the articles section that looked like a good example of a troll. In the RV Living – A step toward a minimalist lifestyle article someone posted this comment: This person did not seem at all interested in discussing the issue or even trying to understand.
There's a difference.
A troll will stick to topic, but persistently argue, labour the point, insist they're right and use patronising, belittling and provocative remarks to maintain an engagement of discussion between themselves and other members.
the best way to deal with a troll is firstly to report them, and secondly, treat them to the attention they deserve.
Ignore them.
It's amazing how short a discussion is when only one person is discussing....
There is a line. There are some people who think they haven't crossed it, or that it should be "moved"... but this is a private forum, as I've said, and we are here to enforce it. If you don't like it... well I'm sorry about that. But I think you're really talking about different situations than I am. You'll just have to trust that the staff knows what they're doing to keep this place clean.
It's easy to get philosophical about who's really a troll, about their intentions, but in practice it's about their behavior and inability to change that behavior when it's not appropriate for this forum (in particular).
Two moderators in fact, and you. It's all good.
I've given you the bird's eye-view on moderation (that includes "trolls"), basically.
That being said, and said plenty enough, I bid you adieu.....