4 ms·

The definition of an internet troll has been tainted badly. Everyone thinks it means going on twitter or facebook or reddit and being an ass hole. That is what

The definition of an internet troll has been tainted badly. Everyone thinks it means going on twitter or facebook or reddit and being an ass hole. That is what used to be called "flaming" in old internet jargon, but now a days it should be ushered under the umbrella term of "shitposting". Instead, it has been related to trolling, I feel like because primarily many people don't understand what a true internet troll is. A troll is simply someone who infiltrates a social group by ingratiating themselves into the group by some manner, and then works to decisively split the group in two with inner political turmoil before "disappearing". This entire scheme is much easier to perform online with relative anonymity where none of the other cues that humans might use to sniff out a troll in their group are present, such as reading body language or by hearing antagonistic speech patterns. A clever and witty actor with a strong grasp of the target language can manipulate peer groups and break a social group apart rather effectively. This is more difficult in real life although there is precedent for real human social trolls: the Khans of Mongolia used them to great affect in towns and villages they planned to raid. Sometimes the Mongols didn't even need to fight when they got to the town. Anyways, I don't really have any objection to the article per say, but its a pet peeve of mine. Know your internet jargon m8s!

romanovcode 9y ago
I think your interpretation of "internet troll" is way too narrow and therefore not correct. IMO troll is someone on the internet who just want's to trigger some emotional response from other peers (usually negative). That's it.
- owlninja 9y ago
  Agreed, that is a very tight definition that I've never heard of. I just remember it always being used for someone saying things they didn't really believe just to get a group of people riled up.
- russdpale 9y ago
  It is an older, but I believe more correct definition of the word. It is a small, insignificant quibble, but I think it is important. What else do we call a "classical" internet troll? A Russian?
Terr_ 9y ago
While I agree that the definition is been tainted, I think your interpretation of trolls as some kind of stealthy infiltrator is a little too narrow. To recycle a post I made about 6 years ago attempting to address the same problem: _________ 1. Trolling always means the user is, in some way, not sincere or not honest in their interactions 1a. Either they do not believe what they are saying, or else they are saying it only because they have an ulterior motive/goal which is not obvious or apparent. 1b. No matter how moronic, argumentative, or misinformed a person might be, they cannot be a troll if they are trying to be honest and their motives are straightforward. 1c. As you leave the context of internet forums and discussions, the words "sincere" and "honest" get trickier to apply. For example, if you are playing a strategy game, the enemy is not "trolling" when they trick you about what kind of army they are building, because that kind of thing doesn't represent a breach of trust.. 2. Trolling is always about triggering or goading victims into a reaction 2a. Causing injury or offense to another person is not--on its own--trolling. If a pickpocket steals your wallet and runs away, he did not "troll" you, because he doesn't care about how you react, he just wants to escape with your cash. 2b. If a fast-food employee secretly spits in your hamburger, they are not "trolling" unless they expected you to notice...Or unless they start dropping little hints afterwards to prompt you for a reaction. Major asshole, yes, troll, no. 2c. 99% of the time the troll is seeking a reaction with an emotional component. "Negative" reactions such as rage, frustration, or annoyance are especially common. 2d. Not-so-negative reactions can be used, but are less common. For example, an atheist troll might say encouraging things to make a fundamentalist-Christian community enter into a celebratory circle-jerk. 3. Trolling is not the same as humor, trolling can incorporate humor, but only in a "mean-spirited" way 3a. Many people seem to get confused by this, since jokes and humor often fall under both #1 and #2 above, being attempts to use insincere words to cause an emotional reaction. 3b. Trolls are never laughing "with" their victims. They are always laughing "at" their victims. 3c. Trolls may sometimes try to get you to laugh, but if they do it is only because there is some "larger joke" which you are the butt of. P.S. When people troll badly, I prefer not to call them trolls. This is sort of like how someone who burned a meal isn't "a cook". Sure, they technically did the "act of cooking", but it seems like calling them "a cook" wrongly implies that they are good at it.

romanovcode 9y ago

I think your interpretation of "internet troll" is way too narrow and therefore not correct. IMO troll is someone on the internet who just want's to trigger some emotional response from other peers (usually negative). That's it.

owlninja 9y ago
Agreed, that is a very tight definition that I've never heard of. I just remember it always being used for someone saying things they didn't really believe just to get a group of people riled up.
russdpale 9y ago
It is an older, but I believe more correct definition of the word. It is a small, insignificant quibble, but I think it is important. What else do we call a "classical" internet troll? A Russian?

Terr_ 9y ago

While I agree that the definition is been tainted, I think your interpretation of trolls as some kind of stealthy infiltrator is a little too narrow. To recycle a post I made about 6 years ago attempting to address the same problem: _________ 1. Trolling always means the user is, in some way, not sincere or not honest in their interactions 1a. Either they do not believe what they are saying, or else they are saying it only because they have an ulterior motive/goal which is not obvious or apparent. 1b. No matter how moronic, argumentative, or misinformed a person might be, they cannot be a troll if they are trying to be honest and their motives are straightforward. 1c. As you leave the context of internet forums and discussions, the words "sincere" and "honest" get trickier to apply. For example, if you are playing a strategy game, the enemy is not "trolling" when they trick you about what kind of army they are building, because that kind of thing doesn't represent a breach of trust.. 2. Trolling is always about triggering or goading victims into a reaction 2a. Causing injury or offense to another person is not--on its own--trolling. If a pickpocket steals your wallet and runs away, he did not "troll" you, because he doesn't care about how you react, he just wants to escape with your cash. 2b. If a fast-food employee secretly spits in your hamburger, they are not "trolling" unless they expected you to notice...Or unless they start dropping little hints afterwards to prompt you for a reaction. Major asshole, yes, troll, no. 2c. 99% of the time the troll is seeking a reaction with an emotional component. "Negative" reactions such as rage, frustration, or annoyance are especially common. 2d. Not-so-negative reactions can be used, but are less common. For example, an atheist troll might say encouraging things to make a fundamentalist-Christian community enter into a celebratory circle-jerk. 3. Trolling is not the same as humor, trolling can incorporate humor, but only in a "mean-spirited" way 3a. Many people seem to get confused by this, since jokes and humor often fall under both #1 and #2 above, being attempts to use insincere words to cause an emotional reaction. 3b. Trolls are never laughing "with" their victims. They are always laughing "at" their victims. 3c. Trolls may sometimes try to get you to laugh, but if they do it is only because there is some "larger joke" which you are the butt of. P.S. When people troll badly, I prefer not to call them trolls. This is sort of like how someone who burned a meal isn't "a cook". Sure, they technically did the "act of cooking", but it seems like calling them "a cook" wrongly implies that they are good at it.