5 ms·

The real problem is that bytes are effectively free. Here I am, using up your bytes right now. Using up the bytes on Hacker news. The only limit is my own ti

The real problem is that bytes are effectively free. Here I am, using up your bytes right now. Using up the bytes on Hacker news. The only limit is my own time, effort, and energy. You think this means that we're all equal; we all have equal access to sharing bytes. But the problem is that trolls have infinite time and energy to post bytes. They have significantly more power and influence than you do because of that simple fact. Trolls could, if they wanted, completely bring down hacker news with just endless content and it would be near impossible to stop. I've had to deal with real determined trolls on some of my own sites that simply have infinite time to post, to write code to post, to obfuscate themselves -- a single troll can shout out dozens to hundreds of other people. This is why the trolls are winning.

czep 10y ago
What are some good tips for controlling or at least mitigating trolling on sites that depend on user generated content? Moderation, flagging, downvoting, IP address rate limits, keyword blacklisting, are these effective?
- cf 10y ago
  Anil Dash actually wrote a great article about this. The short summary is you need real humans doing the moderating. All the tooling you create should be about enhancing those humans. http://anildash.com/2011/07/if-your-websites-full-of-assholes-its-your-fault.html http://anildash.com/2011/07/if-your-websites-full-of-asshole...
- wvenable 10y ago
  I banned an entire country once -- not the best way to go but after all other mitigations failed it was the last choice available. And it wasn't China or Russia. It's almost impossible to give everyone the same number of bytes of work with -- if you can solve that problem you've solved it all.
kordless 10y ago
It is an irrational belief that trolls have infinite time and energy. This is, in fact, the very idea of irrationality, who's concept indicates additional work must be done to determine outcome of choice, either by individual or by group. Note that I did not disagree with your assertions here, but simply seek to restate them in slightly different terms so they may be visualized by others more effectively. Trolls may encapsulate irrational ideas, which may be visualized as memes, inside multiple illogical statements which may be designed to directly conflict with each other's truths. Evaluating one of these statements as a "truth" may cause the other statement to evaluate to false. Trolls may utilize statements in which evaluation of truth is not desirable to the entity visualizing the truth. Any attempt by the recipient to evaluate truth or non-truth of these statements may lead to additional work being conducted to achieve a desirable outcome, such as "winning an argument". Additionally, these "double bind" memes, or internal visualizations, may effectively spread the irrationality to other actors if they are constructed correctly. These viral memes take root and spread when the new irrational actor posts more irrationality in the form of similar or modified logic patterns. This process, manifests as a viral meme (or what I hypothesize as an entity): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc Trolls remove choice from individuals and groups by causing the individual and groups to work against each other. The only way to prevent this is to educate people on the concept of double bind statements, their use in removing choice for others, and the possibility that these concepts may spread virally, on their own accord, in a population which may or may not be conscious. My primary suggestion for combat trolls in a quick and easy way is to simply not visualize removal of choice for another in your own internal frame. In other words, visualize choice for yourself in the future if you must, but avoid visualizing the actions of others! Stating your refusal to be illogical, or irrational, is usually enough to send the trolls scurrying away. Note: A double bind and a double BLIND are two different concepts. Double binding someone has been likened to "crazy making" due to its effect of blocking decision making processes from occurring in a given entity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind
- YCode 10y ago
  Some examples would help illustrate your points.
anjc 10y ago
Please give me my bytes back.

czep 10y ago

What are some good tips for controlling or at least mitigating trolling on sites that depend on user generated content? Moderation, flagging, downvoting, IP address rate limits, keyword blacklisting, are these effective?

cf 10y ago
Anil Dash actually wrote a great article about this. The short summary is you need real humans doing the moderating. All the tooling you create should be about enhancing those humans. http://anildash.com/2011/07/if-your-websites-full-of-assholes-its-your-fault.html http://anildash.com/2011/07/if-your-websites-full-of-asshole...
wvenable 10y ago
I banned an entire country once -- not the best way to go but after all other mitigations failed it was the last choice available. And it wasn't China or Russia. It's almost impossible to give everyone the same number of bytes of work with -- if you can solve that problem you've solved it all.

kordless 10y ago

It is an irrational belief that trolls have infinite time and energy. This is, in fact, the very idea of irrationality, who's concept indicates additional work must be done to determine outcome of choice, either by individual or by group. Note that I did not disagree with your assertions here, but simply seek to restate them in slightly different terms so they may be visualized by others more effectively. Trolls may encapsulate irrational ideas, which may be visualized as memes, inside multiple illogical statements which may be designed to directly conflict with each other's truths. Evaluating one of these statements as a "truth" may cause the other statement to evaluate to false. Trolls may utilize statements in which evaluation of truth is not desirable to the entity visualizing the truth. Any attempt by the recipient to evaluate truth or non-truth of these statements may lead to additional work being conducted to achieve a desirable outcome, such as "winning an argument". Additionally, these "double bind" memes, or internal visualizations, may effectively spread the irrationality to other actors if they are constructed correctly. These viral memes take root and spread when the new irrational actor posts more irrationality in the form of similar or modified logic patterns. This process, manifests as a viral meme (or what I hypothesize as an entity): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc Trolls remove choice from individuals and groups by causing the individual and groups to work against each other. The only way to prevent this is to educate people on the concept of double bind statements, their use in removing choice for others, and the possibility that these concepts may spread virally, on their own accord, in a population which may or may not be conscious. My primary suggestion for combat trolls in a quick and easy way is to simply not visualize removal of choice for another in your own internal frame. In other words, visualize choice for yourself in the future if you must, but avoid visualizing the actions of others! Stating your refusal to be illogical, or irrational, is usually enough to send the trolls scurrying away. Note: A double bind and a double BLIND are two different concepts. Double binding someone has been likened to "crazy making" due to its effect of blocking decision making processes from occurring in a given entity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind

YCode 10y ago
Some examples would help illustrate your points.

anjc 10y ago

Please give me my bytes back.