8 ms·

Poisoning a conversation is a thing. And if you've participated in online discussions I don't see how you can honestly say it doesn't exist. You're implying th

by guelo 9y ago

Poisoning a conversation is a thing. And if you've participated in online discussions I don't see how you can honestly say it doesn't exist. You're implying that in every thread where a troll shows up to derail the conversation we all have to stop what we're doing and give thoughtful responses to the troll to show them the error of their ways. But then the only possible conversation is debates with trolls. But that gives too much power to the trolls. Sometimes you just have to shut the trolls up so you can talk about what you want to talk about.

derefr 9y ago
No, the parent was simply saying that “trolling” (or, having a bad opinion) doesn’t imply a character flaw, and that we shouldn’t use language that makes that implication, lest we start to think of people who have bad opinions as irredeemable. People can do wrong without being fundamentally bad, broken people. If we treated, say, driving a car the way people treat Internet discourse, you would be dragged out of your car and stoned to death the first time you cut someone off. Yes, sure, ignore posts that seem like trolling. Filter or block them, even. But perhaps you could give the people behind those posts a second chance, before writing them off for life for one post.
- crpatino 9y ago
  You know, nobody has been actually linched for either trolling or reckless driving. Maybe some were killed, if they crossed the wrong kind of victim, but that's the risk you assume when being a jerk. On the other hand, I would fully support a law that would give a temporary suspension on people's driving licenses if there was a reliable way to tell that they have an habit of cutting other drivers off. And to make it a permanent ban on operating any kind of vehicle if you were a reincident. Again, it would be greatly inconvenient for them, but there must be some point when the rights of the public superseed the rights of individual assholes.
jessaustin 9y ago
Implying dishonesty is toxic! Oh haha well done...
kerkeslager 9y ago
> Poisoning a conversation is a thing. And if you've participated in online discussions I don't see how you can honestly say it doesn't exist. "Poisioning a conversation" is a bad metaphor that conflates two different things which do exist, but need to be dealt with in two different ways: 1. Baiting: trying to say something horrible to anger people for their own entertainment. The proper response to this is simply to ignore it: if you aren't entertaining the baiter gets bored. 2. People saying things they actually believe, even when those things are genuinely terrible. Responding to these people prevents their beliefs from going unchallenged, and is the only way we can possibly hope to change those beliefs. If it were just group 1, you could just ban those people and that would be fine. But the problem with that is that sometimes people are actually in group 2, and engaging those people and correcting them is part of arriving at shared values in a functioning society. The tendency to accuse people who are genuinely expressing their (awful) opinions of simply baiting so that you can ban them is problematic for open discussion. > Sometimes you just have to shut the trolls up so you can talk about what you want to talk about. Contrary to what you're saying, I think it's very possible to have conversations about what you want to talk about while letting these people say what they want: isn't this what comment trees exist for? On Reddit and HN, person A and person B want to have a conversation, person C can say whatever they want, and it doesn't affect the continuity of A and B's conversation as long as A and B respond directly to each other's posts, and not to C's posts. Every platform I know of supports private messages. Underlying what you're saying is an assumption I'd like you to reconsider: why is it that you think that a public conversation in a forum where anyone can respond should only be about what you want it to be about?
- projektir 9y ago
  It's not a bad metaphor. If your community is ignoring trolls instead of banning them, it's effectively sending the message that the trolls are very welcome. I've never observed that a no-moderation community is free of trolls, and ignoring trolls often results in them just taking over because they just start talking to each other and everyone else leaves. These things are caused poison because even a small amount can cause serious problems if left unchecked, and the effect creeps out across an area (how many people are hit) like poison spreading. I think what you're missing is that a very large amount of people simply do not enjoy a certain style of discourse to the point that they'll opt out of a community that doesn't ban that discourse. You may not like it, you may think those people are weak or something, but the rest of us want to talk to them, and we want them to feel welcome.
hnuser1234 9y ago
Is it not easier to ignore trolls and let them realize they will not get attention that way, even without being censored? And if they are not ignored, then perhaps they are more than the simple trolls we imagine them to be?

by guelo 9y ago

derefr 9y ago

No, the parent was simply saying that “trolling” (or, having a bad opinion) doesn’t imply a character flaw, and that we shouldn’t use language that makes that implication, lest we start to think of people who have bad opinions as irredeemable. People can do wrong without being fundamentally bad, broken people. If we treated, say, driving a car the way people treat Internet discourse, you would be dragged out of your car and stoned to death the first time you cut someone off. Yes, sure, ignore posts that seem like trolling. Filter or block them, even. But perhaps you could give the people behind those posts a second chance, before writing them off for life for one post.

crpatino 9y ago
You know, nobody has been actually linched for either trolling or reckless driving. Maybe some were killed, if they crossed the wrong kind of victim, but that's the risk you assume when being a jerk. On the other hand, I would fully support a law that would give a temporary suspension on people's driving licenses if there was a reliable way to tell that they have an habit of cutting other drivers off. And to make it a permanent ban on operating any kind of vehicle if you were a reincident. Again, it would be greatly inconvenient for them, but there must be some point when the rights of the public superseed the rights of individual assholes.

jessaustin 9y ago

Implying dishonesty is toxic! Oh haha well done...

kerkeslager 9y ago

> Poisoning a conversation is a thing. And if you've participated in online discussions I don't see how you can honestly say it doesn't exist. "Poisioning a conversation" is a bad metaphor that conflates two different things which do exist, but need to be dealt with in two different ways: 1. Baiting: trying to say something horrible to anger people for their own entertainment. The proper response to this is simply to ignore it: if you aren't entertaining the baiter gets bored. 2. People saying things they actually believe, even when those things are genuinely terrible. Responding to these people prevents their beliefs from going unchallenged, and is the only way we can possibly hope to change those beliefs. If it were just group 1, you could just ban those people and that would be fine. But the problem with that is that sometimes people are actually in group 2, and engaging those people and correcting them is part of arriving at shared values in a functioning society. The tendency to accuse people who are genuinely expressing their (awful) opinions of simply baiting so that you can ban them is problematic for open discussion. > Sometimes you just have to shut the trolls up so you can talk about what you want to talk about. Contrary to what you're saying, I think it's very possible to have conversations about what you want to talk about while letting these people say what they want: isn't this what comment trees exist for? On Reddit and HN, person A and person B want to have a conversation, person C can say whatever they want, and it doesn't affect the continuity of A and B's conversation as long as A and B respond directly to each other's posts, and not to C's posts. Every platform I know of supports private messages. Underlying what you're saying is an assumption I'd like you to reconsider: why is it that you think that a public conversation in a forum where anyone can respond should only be about what you want it to be about?

projektir 9y ago
It's not a bad metaphor. If your community is ignoring trolls instead of banning them, it's effectively sending the message that the trolls are very welcome. I've never observed that a no-moderation community is free of trolls, and ignoring trolls often results in them just taking over because they just start talking to each other and everyone else leaves. These things are caused poison because even a small amount can cause serious problems if left unchecked, and the effect creeps out across an area (how many people are hit) like poison spreading. I think what you're missing is that a very large amount of people simply do not enjoy a certain style of discourse to the point that they'll opt out of a community that doesn't ban that discourse. You may not like it, you may think those people are weak or something, but the rest of us want to talk to them, and we want them to feel welcome.

hnuser1234 9y ago

Is it not easier to ignore trolls and let them realize they will not get attention that way, even without being censored? And if they are not ignored, then perhaps they are more than the simple trolls we imagine them to be?