3 ms·

Sometimes he argues things he believes and tries to make a point from silliness. Other times he's just a dick saying messed up things that he finds a funny. Ei

Sometimes he argues things he believes and tries to make a point from silliness. Other times he's just a dick saying messed up things that he finds a funny. Either way he's just a guy flesh and bones and he doesn't say things online he doesn't say in person. He's just a dude at the end of the day. > Personally, my hopes have always been that we would continue to build on ideas of society that flourished post enlightenment I shared this view for quite some time. But rationality can only get you so far. So weird stuff can out of the enlightenment, i.e. fascism and communism, and they were underpinned by rational thought but were totally messed up. > One is constructive, the other nihilistic at best and actively destructive at worst. I'm not defending a troll here. I'm just saying don't attribute to malice that which you can explain with trolling. In that case, just silly trolling has the potential to destabilize a system, then it's not very robust. Also, I would say that this is only possible on the internet. Anyone can tell when someone is just messing around vs. trying to subvert people. It's the difference between being an asshole and trying to start a cult. On the internet, you can accidentally start a cult. In real life you cant. What does that say about the internet?

yesenadam 7y ago
> I'm not defending a troll here. That's not the impression I got, at all. That's exactly what it seems you are doing, repeatedly, on this page. On top of it, you seem to be saying that if a troll does damage, it's the system's fault, not the troll's. > I'm just saying don't attribute to malice that which you can explain with trolling. In that case, just silly trolling has the potential to destabilize a system, then it's not very robust. Trolls are just cool dudes people take too seriously, you say. (That's those peoples' fault.) And if you do something with bad effects, you are excused if you thought it was funny. Why do you think trolling and acts of malice are two separate things?
- nradov 7y ago
  Defense of trolls is neither here nor there. The trolls will be with us forever. They are simply a fact of life now, like gravity. Given that reality, how can we make our systems more robust against trolling?
  - phs318u 7y ago
    Nonsense. Because they've been around for a decade or so (in numbers), they'll be with us forever? That's like saying, hey why police crime, criminals are a fact of life, they'll be with us forever. How do we make society more robust against crime? Answer: we do it by cracking down on criminals. Trolling is not victimless.
    - gjs278 6y ago
      trolling is victimless. if you are a victim of trolling you deserve it.
    - nradov 7y ago
      You must be new here. Usenet was already full of trolls in the 1990's. Trolling is shitty behavior and not to be condoned. But legally there is no victim unless they are specifically libelling or advocating violence against someone. I certainly wouldn't want law enforcement to chase trolls, because that would be a 1st Amendment violation and a waste of tax money.
  - searchableguy 7y ago
    Idk. If someone said something insane like vaccines cause autism in most kids who take it to troll and some parents believed that. Who needs to change more here? Seriously, someone who is a parent who has probably gone through formal education or heck at least primary school will know that those statements are insane. I of course want troll to stop but I don't see how you can just ignore the people who fall for that stuff. It seems we as a society have done something wrong for people to take trolls seriously.
- oldsklgdfth 7y ago
  > That's exactly what it seems you are doing, repeatedly, on this page. I don't think that's the case. My answers are not snarky. My overall points is that the internet as a platform, as a means of communications, has a tendency to promote heated, emotional conversations. In contract to rational, logical debates that reach conclusions of a sort. I think this is because the internet is primarily a visual medium. By that I mean it that information is portrayed and accompanied by pictures over text. In addition to that, it is a high speed medium. This has the consequence of leaving little time for processing information. The comparison I hold in my mind is a video essay vs. an article or books. An article is just text, there is little to attract your attention other than that (maybe the typeset matters). But a video essay provides a series of shots, that constantly change to draw your attention, the persons appearance, or the images displayed all factor into how you feel, rather than just the information. DISCLAIMER: Trolling is bad!
jnbiche 7y ago
> I'm not defending a troll here. But that's exactly what you're doing. > In that case, just silly trolling has the potential to destabilize a system, then it's not very robust. Just because we live in a non-robust system at the moment, doesn't mean it's wise to destroy it, or let it be destroyed. I've lived and worked in failed states, and I can assure you that the alternative is assuredly to a non-robust but at least functioning state is much, much worse. > Also, I would say that this is only possible on the internet. Yes, and for most of us, our political life is primarily lived on the Internet these days, for better or worse. > What does that say about the internet? Perhaps the only thing you've said so far I agree with. Yes, I've gone from an Internet utopian to an Internet dystopian in 10 short years.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  I don't think that "non-robust" is the right way to look at it. Nor do I think that Facebook, Google, etc. have a large number of employees devoted to evil or that third party bad actors are fully responsible. I think what has happened is that the infrastructure is now based on algorithms that reward trolling and disinformation beyond the ability of anyone to stop. It's kind of like a gray goo scenario of the mental space of internet users that we're too anesthetized to really fight.
cycomanic 7y ago
So how would that friend feel if someone forwards Screenshots of the trolling to his wife, children and possibly employer, that would be funny wouldn't it?
doktrin 7y ago
Trolling is malicious, just normalized and give a cutesy name.

yesenadam 7y ago

> I'm not defending a troll here. That's not the impression I got, at all. That's exactly what it seems you are doing, repeatedly, on this page. On top of it, you seem to be saying that if a troll does damage, it's the system's fault, not the troll's. > I'm just saying don't attribute to malice that which you can explain with trolling. In that case, just silly trolling has the potential to destabilize a system, then it's not very robust. Trolls are just cool dudes people take too seriously, you say. (That's those peoples' fault.) And if you do something with bad effects, you are excused if you thought it was funny. Why do you think trolling and acts of malice are two separate things?

nradov 7y ago
Defense of trolls is neither here nor there. The trolls will be with us forever. They are simply a fact of life now, like gravity. Given that reality, how can we make our systems more robust against trolling?
- phs318u 7y ago
  Nonsense. Because they've been around for a decade or so (in numbers), they'll be with us forever? That's like saying, hey why police crime, criminals are a fact of life, they'll be with us forever. How do we make society more robust against crime? Answer: we do it by cracking down on criminals. Trolling is not victimless.
  - gjs278 6y ago
    trolling is victimless. if you are a victim of trolling you deserve it.
  - nradov 7y ago
    You must be new here. Usenet was already full of trolls in the 1990's. Trolling is shitty behavior and not to be condoned. But legally there is no victim unless they are specifically libelling or advocating violence against someone. I certainly wouldn't want law enforcement to chase trolls, because that would be a 1st Amendment violation and a waste of tax money.
- searchableguy 7y ago
  Idk. If someone said something insane like vaccines cause autism in most kids who take it to troll and some parents believed that. Who needs to change more here? Seriously, someone who is a parent who has probably gone through formal education or heck at least primary school will know that those statements are insane. I of course want troll to stop but I don't see how you can just ignore the people who fall for that stuff. It seems we as a society have done something wrong for people to take trolls seriously.
oldsklgdfth 7y ago
> That's exactly what it seems you are doing, repeatedly, on this page. I don't think that's the case. My answers are not snarky. My overall points is that the internet as a platform, as a means of communications, has a tendency to promote heated, emotional conversations. In contract to rational, logical debates that reach conclusions of a sort. I think this is because the internet is primarily a visual medium. By that I mean it that information is portrayed and accompanied by pictures over text. In addition to that, it is a high speed medium. This has the consequence of leaving little time for processing information. The comparison I hold in my mind is a video essay vs. an article or books. An article is just text, there is little to attract your attention other than that (maybe the typeset matters). But a video essay provides a series of shots, that constantly change to draw your attention, the persons appearance, or the images displayed all factor into how you feel, rather than just the information. DISCLAIMER: Trolling is bad!

jnbiche 7y ago

> I'm not defending a troll here. But that's exactly what you're doing. > In that case, just silly trolling has the potential to destabilize a system, then it's not very robust. Just because we live in a non-robust system at the moment, doesn't mean it's wise to destroy it, or let it be destroyed. I've lived and worked in failed states, and I can assure you that the alternative is assuredly to a non-robust but at least functioning state is much, much worse. > Also, I would say that this is only possible on the internet. Yes, and for most of us, our political life is primarily lived on the Internet these days, for better or worse. > What does that say about the internet? Perhaps the only thing you've said so far I agree with. Yes, I've gone from an Internet utopian to an Internet dystopian in 10 short years.

perl4ever 7y ago
I don't think that "non-robust" is the right way to look at it. Nor do I think that Facebook, Google, etc. have a large number of employees devoted to evil or that third party bad actors are fully responsible. I think what has happened is that the infrastructure is now based on algorithms that reward trolling and disinformation beyond the ability of anyone to stop. It's kind of like a gray goo scenario of the mental space of internet users that we're too anesthetized to really fight.

cycomanic 7y ago

So how would that friend feel if someone forwards Screenshots of the trolling to his wife, children and possibly employer, that would be funny wouldn't it?

doktrin 7y ago

Trolling is malicious, just normalized and give a cutesy name.