4 ms·
Trolling isn't relevant to the article. Propaganda != trolling. The title a clever pun, but the usage of "troll" in this context is troubling. The word "troll"
by kerkeslager 9y ago
Trolling isn't relevant to the article. Propaganda != trolling. The title a clever pun, but the usage of "troll" in this context is troubling.
The word "troll" is being used to equate annoying comments online with political propaganda. The problem with this is that trolls feed off attention and go away when ignored ("Don't feed the trolls" works just as well as it ever did) while propaganda is doesn't go away when ignored, because the people spreading propaganda aren't doing it to sway opinion.
This is dangerous for two reasons:
1. Actual trolls are being vilified more than is justified. Not only is this counterproductive (vilification is attention, which is what they want) but it turns the word "troll" into a weapon, where you can call anyone who says something you don't like a troll. Organizations have been quick to seize problems with trolling as justification for policies that hamper free speech. Ironically, when you take away a troll's free speech, they become a martyr for the people who actually believe the terrible things the troll was just saying for attention (see Reddit's crackdown on trolling leading to the cesspool that is Voat).
2. Propagandists are being made to seem less threatening. If you equate internet trolls with highly funded, intelligent, and motivated people, you're going to underestimate your opponent. Calling the likes of Trump or Russian propagandists trolls and pretending he AND his campaign are just unintelligent, childish, or mentally ill, is a grave mistake. Insidiously, using the word "troll" to describe propagandists is a form of propaganda, which masks the power these groups have.
For these reasons you should be deeply suspicious of anyone who uses the word "troll" to describe people who hold any sort of power instead of random kids on the internet.
EDIT: I'd also like to add that bullying, stalking, doxxing, sexual harassment, and other behaviors directed at hurting a specific individual are also not trolling. Lumping these behaviors in with trolling again has the effect of vilifying trolls and downplaying the harmfulness of these behaviors.
- anigbrowl 9y agoDisagree. This presents an antiquated and naive view of trolling as harmless banter that begs rather than illuminates the question. For context, my working definition of trolling is 'malicious shitposting.' Where shitposting is 'posting nonsensical or absurd content for general amusement' trolls do it specifically to rile up people for the entertainment of the troll's peers. This has absolutely become weaponized in recent years and there is a significant overlap with propaganda, like it or not.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- kerkeslager 9y ago> This presents an antiquated and naive view of trolling as harmless banter that begs rather than illuminates the question. It's unclear what you're disagreeing with. Are you disagreeing with my definition of the word "troll"? Or are you accusing me of not thinking trolling is harmful? Note that I do think trolling is harmful. It's just not "manipulating a presidential election" harmful or "hiding a genocide" harmful. And when you refer to manipulating a presidential election or hiding a genocide as trolling, you're downplaying the gravity of those very serious problems. > For context, my working definition of trolling is 'malicious shitposting.' Where shitposting is 'posting nonsensical or absurd content for general amusement' trolls do it specifically to rile up people for the entertainment of the troll's peers. This has absolutely become weaponized in recent years and there is a significant overlap with propaganda, like it or not. Can you point out an example, preferably from the article, where one of the people described was doing this? Were Israeli Defense Forces posting to entertain their peers, or were they posting to affect view of their conflict with Palestinians? Was the Kremlin disrupting Ukranian relief efforts and spreading misinformation for the entertainment of their peers? Do you think that the IDF or the Kremlin were just posting nonsensical or absurd content, or were they posting content carefully crafted to support a narrative? Please explain how either of these so-called-trolls fits your definition. If you really are concerned about the behaviors you describe as "weaponized", why would you insist on describing them with a word you assume people associate with "harmless banter"? That seems like an inept usage of the English language to achieve your goals. Referring to propaganda as trolling definitely does not communicate the gravity of the problem.
- anigbrowl 9y agoI think my comment is quite clear.
- kerkeslager 9y agoYour comment is not clear on how the groups mentioned in the article fit your definition of trolls. The only thing clear from your previous post is that you didn't think your definition through to its logical conclusion.