9 ms·

If we define "troll" as anyone who posts inflammatory, bad faith, needlessly aggressive, insulting, false, or otherwise unproductive content, then the entire cl

If we define "troll" as anyone who posts inflammatory, bad faith, needlessly aggressive, insulting, false, or otherwise unproductive content, then the entire class of authors of the genre of news article decrying trolling and harassment are themselves trolls. >Of course, this is already happening, just out of sight of most of us Why would they consider that to be such a big problem, if it's not bothering those who are wont to be bothered? The true motivation for these comments is clear, but remains unsaid: what "trolls" are posting is outside the control of these would-be authorities. The technology community must pick between enabling universal surveillance and censorship, or protecting the privacy of the vulnerable, including those who hold minority opinions and express themselves in ways that could be deemed "unpleasant".

Goronmon 10y ago
If we define "troll" as anyone who posts inflammatory, bad faith, needlessly aggressive, insulting, false, or otherwise unproductive content, then the entire class of authors of the genre of news article decrying trolling and harassment are themselves trolls. Isn't that a bit of a tautology? "If I expand the definition of the word 'troll' to include 'authors decrying trolling' then authors who decry trolling become 'trolls' themselves." It's not an exceedingly convincing statement to me personally. Though you've used one of the adjectives I think best describes the nature of 'trolling' and that's "bad faith". Personally, I feel the most useful definition of 'troll' is someone who argues/antagonizes/insults others not because they are trying to make a point or start a conversation, but merely to provoke a negative response.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Isn't that a bit of a tautology? "If I expand the definition of the word 'troll' to include 'authors decrying trolling' then authors who decry trolling become 'trolls' themselves." No, it's not tautological. The parent doesn't propose to "expand the definition of the word 'troll' to include 'authors decrying trolling'". He proposes defining trolls as "as anyone who posts inflammatory, bad faith, needlessly aggressive, insulting, false, or otherwise unproductive content". Which is as (or close) to how it has always been defined, and how the authors of TFA use it. So what the parent suggests is not some "expansion of the definition of trolling", much less one to include "those who complain about trolling", and in no sense a tautology.
  - Goronmon 10y ago
    The parent doesn't propose to "expand the definition of the word 'troll' to include 'authors decrying trolling'". He proposes defining trolls as "as anyone who posts inflammatory, bad faith, needlessly aggressive, insulting, false, or otherwise unproductive content". If you assume that the word troll does not mean "anyone who posts inflammatory, bad faith, needlessly aggressive, insulting, false, or otherwise unproductive content" then someone claiming it does is pretty clearly expanding the definition of the word. Which is as (or close) to how it has always been defined, and how the authors of TFA use it. I actually disagree with both of these assertions. Sometimes people expand the word troll to encompass too large a group, but that doesn't necessarily change the definition and I definitely don't see how the article uses it in that manner. Though, I can definitely understand the desire to expand the definition of the word 'troll' into usefulness. It does make it easier to dismiss other's complaints.
    - ruleabidinguser 10y ago
      Most of these authors label people who are not trolls, btu rather just disagree with them.
    - weberc2 10y ago
      > If you assume that the word troll does not mean "anyone who posts inflammatory, bad faith, needlessly aggressive, insulting, false, or otherwise unproductive content" then someone claiming it does is pretty clearly expanding the definition of the word. I don't think the OP is advocating for any particular definition, but pointing out that the authors of these articles seem to be using a definition of "troll" (whether or not it's expanded is irrelevant) which would encompass said authors.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    That's why "flame war". There's positive feedback.
- tunap 10y ago
  Yes, trolls=keyboard kowboys/girls=flame-baiters. Astro-turfers, shills and disingenious actors are an entirely separate class. And, they are winning.
- mirimir 10y ago
  In the trolling game, there's the concept of triggering the "inner troll" of one's opponent. So they start trolling too, rather like a puppet. Puppet count is part of scoring.
- waterhouse 10y ago
  It would be possible for "authors decrying trolling" to do so in a way that isn't "inflammatory, bad faith, needlessly aggressive, insulting, false, or otherwise unproductive". So it's not a tautology unless you insert an empirical assertion that every single one of the "authors decrying trolling" is exhibiting one or more of the abovementioned qualities. And that assertion sounds like a substantial point, not logically empty at all.
MR4D 10y ago
I think it's more of a signal to noise problem. We've had that issue before in society (e.g. the Middle Ages), when information flow was not constructive, and therefore not _additive_. The net result was that society moved sideways, not forward. Contrast that with Victorian England, where large parts of society had "manners", which allowed for information to be constructive, and society (technology, etc) could evolve. When the signal-to-noise ratio gets low enough, people leave groups, and progress cannot occur at any reasonable rate.
- Banthum 10y ago
  Regarding manners, it really depends on what those manners are. Chinese medieval society was very orderly and mannered; there were clear standards of behavior (at least for the elites). But the manners in question were conservative and did not encourage innovation, so they did not advance rapidly and ended up far behind Europe despite having a head start. The enforced homogeneity of thought and thus destroyed opportunities to advance or get past their own biases. Read about the Imperial exam system for some reference on how this was achieved, and note that Chinese geography has the most fertile regions highly centralized. In the west we developed this system of manners based on freedom, where we let people do things we think are wrong, as long as they're not hurting us. This permits intellectual diversity, which means that when the mainstream experts have it wrong, at least someone else can come and knock them over with reality. Rationalism, not authority. Objective evidence, not subjective feelings. My main worry is that the modern mainstream morality seems to be all about intensive efforts to homogenize thought, opinion, and policy as widely as possible, to exalt collective justice over individual rights, and to privilege subjective "lived experience" over objective evidence. Freedom of conscience and freedom of speech seem to be "out" these days and it's gonna create some real unpleasant results. It already is. --- (Slightly off topic as well: It's kind of a myth that society didn't move forward through the Middle Ages. While western medieval society remained in the Malthusian trap up until the 1800's, in other ways it did advance continuously over that time. For example, studies of documents signed reveal that literacy increased continuously from the 1200s all the way until it hit nearly 99% in ~1900. Similarly, studies of recorded ages reveal that most people didn't know their age in 1200, but more and more people knew it up until the present day. (You can tell this because people who don't know their age tend to round it to end in a 0 or 5, so you can count the over-representation of this in the data, or even by just looking at tombstones). Something was changing through the whole medieval era. And there are other markers (e.g. interest rates went down continuously, rationalism advanced, etc etc).)
erikpukinskis 10y ago
I disagree with your list. You put "bad faith" posts as one of the things a troll might do, but I think trolling must always be bad faith. I post aggressively, insulting, inflammatory content with some regularity (not proud of it), but it's never bad faith. I'm never doing it "for the lulz". I don't necessarily think I'm any better than a troll in those moments, but it's not trolling. It's only trolling if you think what you're posting is funny.
M_Grey 10y ago
>The technology community must pick between enabling universal surveillance and censorship, or protecting the privacy of the vulnerable, including those who hold minority opinions and express themselves in ways that could be deemed "unpleasant". They chose a long time ago. A lot of the issues that are slowly coming to the surface for most people (police/surveillance state, endless war driven by military-industrial complex and politics, climate disaster, etc...) are old issues. They're finally surfacing because most of them are so far beyond criticality that they're actually detonating in our midst. These choices have been made again and again by the few people who really bother to engage with these issues, and we lost. This is what losing all of these battles over decades looks like when the bill starts coming due.
- tomjen3 10y ago
  I don't believe it is a choice made once, but a series of choices. When Drupal threw out one of their leaders, because he was into BDSM, they made exactly the choice you suggest we don't. It was not made by some mysterious “other”, it was not made by “them”, it was a choice made by a few named people. It's a choice we all make every day, is the sum of those choices that make the world we live in. If you want to change the world we live in, act accordingly and convince others to act accordingly.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    Most people simply lack the ability to understand reality to any reasonable approximation, and are too easily led by pathos. For them, it's not what you say, but who you are. People like those on HN are a tiny minority, and that's the reality.
hypertexthero 10y ago
Interesting definition of a troll in a recent New Yorker [article][1]: > …young, understimulated men whose main goal is to be the chaos they wish to see in the world. [1]: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/03/trolls-protest-shia-labeoufs-anti-trump-protest-art http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/03/trolls-protest-...

Goronmon 10y ago

If we define "troll" as anyone who posts inflammatory, bad faith, needlessly aggressive, insulting, false, or otherwise unproductive content, then the entire class of authors of the genre of news article decrying trolling and harassment are themselves trolls. Isn't that a bit of a tautology? "If I expand the definition of the word 'troll' to include 'authors decrying trolling' then authors who decry trolling become 'trolls' themselves." It's not an exceedingly convincing statement to me personally. Though you've used one of the adjectives I think best describes the nature of 'trolling' and that's "bad faith". Personally, I feel the most useful definition of 'troll' is someone who argues/antagonizes/insults others not because they are trying to make a point or start a conversation, but merely to provoke a negative response.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
coldtea 10y ago
>Isn't that a bit of a tautology? "If I expand the definition of the word 'troll' to include 'authors decrying trolling' then authors who decry trolling become 'trolls' themselves." No, it's not tautological. The parent doesn't propose to "expand the definition of the word 'troll' to include 'authors decrying trolling'". He proposes defining trolls as "as anyone who posts inflammatory, bad faith, needlessly aggressive, insulting, false, or otherwise unproductive content". Which is as (or close) to how it has always been defined, and how the authors of TFA use it. So what the parent suggests is not some "expansion of the definition of trolling", much less one to include "those who complain about trolling", and in no sense a tautology.
- Goronmon 10y ago
  The parent doesn't propose to "expand the definition of the word 'troll' to include 'authors decrying trolling'". He proposes defining trolls as "as anyone who posts inflammatory, bad faith, needlessly aggressive, insulting, false, or otherwise unproductive content". If you assume that the word troll does not mean "anyone who posts inflammatory, bad faith, needlessly aggressive, insulting, false, or otherwise unproductive content" then someone claiming it does is pretty clearly expanding the definition of the word. Which is as (or close) to how it has always been defined, and how the authors of TFA use it. I actually disagree with both of these assertions. Sometimes people expand the word troll to encompass too large a group, but that doesn't necessarily change the definition and I definitely don't see how the article uses it in that manner. Though, I can definitely understand the desire to expand the definition of the word 'troll' into usefulness. It does make it easier to dismiss other's complaints.
  - ruleabidinguser 10y ago
    Most of these authors label people who are not trolls, btu rather just disagree with them.
  - weberc2 10y ago
    > If you assume that the word troll does not mean "anyone who posts inflammatory, bad faith, needlessly aggressive, insulting, false, or otherwise unproductive content" then someone claiming it does is pretty clearly expanding the definition of the word. I don't think the OP is advocating for any particular definition, but pointing out that the authors of these articles seem to be using a definition of "troll" (whether or not it's expanded is irrelevant) which would encompass said authors.
- mirimir 10y ago
  That's why "flame war". There's positive feedback.
tunap 10y ago
Yes, trolls=keyboard kowboys/girls=flame-baiters. Astro-turfers, shills and disingenious actors are an entirely separate class. And, they are winning.
mirimir 10y ago
In the trolling game, there's the concept of triggering the "inner troll" of one's opponent. So they start trolling too, rather like a puppet. Puppet count is part of scoring.
waterhouse 10y ago
It would be possible for "authors decrying trolling" to do so in a way that isn't "inflammatory, bad faith, needlessly aggressive, insulting, false, or otherwise unproductive". So it's not a tautology unless you insert an empirical assertion that every single one of the "authors decrying trolling" is exhibiting one or more of the abovementioned qualities. And that assertion sounds like a substantial point, not logically empty at all.

MR4D 10y ago

I think it's more of a signal to noise problem. We've had that issue before in society (e.g. the Middle Ages), when information flow was not constructive, and therefore not _additive_. The net result was that society moved sideways, not forward. Contrast that with Victorian England, where large parts of society had "manners", which allowed for information to be constructive, and society (technology, etc) could evolve. When the signal-to-noise ratio gets low enough, people leave groups, and progress cannot occur at any reasonable rate.

Banthum 10y ago
Regarding manners, it really depends on what those manners are. Chinese medieval society was very orderly and mannered; there were clear standards of behavior (at least for the elites). But the manners in question were conservative and did not encourage innovation, so they did not advance rapidly and ended up far behind Europe despite having a head start. The enforced homogeneity of thought and thus destroyed opportunities to advance or get past their own biases. Read about the Imperial exam system for some reference on how this was achieved, and note that Chinese geography has the most fertile regions highly centralized. In the west we developed this system of manners based on freedom, where we let people do things we think are wrong, as long as they're not hurting us. This permits intellectual diversity, which means that when the mainstream experts have it wrong, at least someone else can come and knock them over with reality. Rationalism, not authority. Objective evidence, not subjective feelings. My main worry is that the modern mainstream morality seems to be all about intensive efforts to homogenize thought, opinion, and policy as widely as possible, to exalt collective justice over individual rights, and to privilege subjective "lived experience" over objective evidence. Freedom of conscience and freedom of speech seem to be "out" these days and it's gonna create some real unpleasant results. It already is. --- (Slightly off topic as well: It's kind of a myth that society didn't move forward through the Middle Ages. While western medieval society remained in the Malthusian trap up until the 1800's, in other ways it did advance continuously over that time. For example, studies of documents signed reveal that literacy increased continuously from the 1200s all the way until it hit nearly 99% in ~1900. Similarly, studies of recorded ages reveal that most people didn't know their age in 1200, but more and more people knew it up until the present day. (You can tell this because people who don't know their age tend to round it to end in a 0 or 5, so you can count the over-representation of this in the data, or even by just looking at tombstones). Something was changing through the whole medieval era. And there are other markers (e.g. interest rates went down continuously, rationalism advanced, etc etc).)

erikpukinskis 10y ago

I disagree with your list. You put "bad faith" posts as one of the things a troll might do, but I think trolling must always be bad faith. I post aggressively, insulting, inflammatory content with some regularity (not proud of it), but it's never bad faith. I'm never doing it "for the lulz". I don't necessarily think I'm any better than a troll in those moments, but it's not trolling. It's only trolling if you think what you're posting is funny.

M_Grey 10y ago

>The technology community must pick between enabling universal surveillance and censorship, or protecting the privacy of the vulnerable, including those who hold minority opinions and express themselves in ways that could be deemed "unpleasant". They chose a long time ago. A lot of the issues that are slowly coming to the surface for most people (police/surveillance state, endless war driven by military-industrial complex and politics, climate disaster, etc...) are old issues. They're finally surfacing because most of them are so far beyond criticality that they're actually detonating in our midst. These choices have been made again and again by the few people who really bother to engage with these issues, and we lost. This is what losing all of these battles over decades looks like when the bill starts coming due.

tomjen3 10y ago
I don't believe it is a choice made once, but a series of choices. When Drupal threw out one of their leaders, because he was into BDSM, they made exactly the choice you suggest we don't. It was not made by some mysterious “other”, it was not made by “them”, it was a choice made by a few named people. It's a choice we all make every day, is the sum of those choices that make the world we live in. If you want to change the world we live in, act accordingly and convince others to act accordingly.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  Most people simply lack the ability to understand reality to any reasonable approximation, and are too easily led by pathos. For them, it's not what you say, but who you are. People like those on HN are a tiny minority, and that's the reality.

hypertexthero 10y ago

Interesting definition of a troll in a recent New Yorker [article][1]: > …young, understimulated men whose main goal is to be the chaos they wish to see in the world. [1]: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/03/trolls-protest-shia-labeoufs-anti-trump-protest-art http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/03/trolls-protest-...