3 ms·

So far, a vast majority of replies here on HN comment on the paper's definition of trolling but do not engage with the author's subsequent recommendations. I'd

• xpe 4y ago
  > Don’t fight fire with fire. Respond with outward indifference and strict no tolerance. Let’s work together to dismantle the power of the troll and take back the internet from their influence. Society and legal standards have a long history about zero tolerance responses. I find it problematic to see zero tolerance recommended. Why? First, some interpretation must happen before a comment gets categorized as trolling.* Second, this interpretation ranges from clear-cut to murky. Third, in cases of clear trolling, the troll might range from being (a) a first timer to a long-time troller; and (b) unwilling or unwilling to change. I'd suggest that any interventions around trolling account for these variations above. Zero tolerance has a way of also being "one size fits all" which can create additional unnecessary problems. For example, if unfairly used, it can become a convenient blunt attack for a wide range of interpersonal disagreements. * As mentioned at the top of this thread, I'm taking the author's definition of trolling.