| Internet Troll |
Article Index for Internet |
Website Links For Internet |
Information AboutInternet Troll |
|
In Internet Terminology , a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an Online Discussion Forum , and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion (see Anonymous Internet Posting ). ETYMOLOGY The contemporary use of the term first appeared on Usenet groups in the late 1980s . It is widely thought to be a contraction of the phrase "trolling for suckers," itself derived from the Sport Fishing technique of Trolling . The latter can be compared with Trawling , of which it is a near Homophone . The word likely gained currency because of its apt second meaning, drawn from the " Troll s", which are portrayed in Scandinavia n Folklore , and children's tales, as often ugly, obnoxious creatures that are bent on Wickedness and mischief. The image of the troll under the bridge in the " Three Billy Goats Gruff " emphasizes the troll's negative reaction to outsiders intruding on its physical environment, particularly those who intend to graze in its domain without permission. '' JUSTICE KENNEDY : Well, is -- is the troll the scary thing under the bridge, or is it a fishing technique? {Link without Title}'' '' MR. PHILLIPS for '' EBay '' : For my clients, it's been the scary thing under the bridge [...]'' '' JUSTICE KENNEDY: I mean, is that what the troll is?'' '' MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I believe that's what it is, although [... maybe we should think of it more as Orks , now that we have a new generation[.]'' (From oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court , '' EBay V. MercExchange '', 29 March 2006.) VICIOUS CIRCLES For many people, the characterising feature of trolling is the perception of intent to disrupt a community in some way. Inflammatory, sarcastic, disruptive or humorous content is posted, meant to draw other users into engaging the troll in a fruitless confrontation. The greater the reaction from the community the more likely the user is to troll again, as the person develops beliefs that certain actions achieve his/her goal to cause chaos. This gives rise to the often repeated protocol in Internet culture: "Do not feed the trolls." Often, a person will post a sincere message about which he is emotionally sensitive. Skillful trolls know that an easy way to upset him is to falsely claim that he is a "troll." In forums where most users are similar to each other, outsiders may be perceived as trolls simply because they do not fit into the Social Norms of that group. It can sometimes be difficult to distinguish between a user who merely has different values, views, or ideas, and a user who is intentionally trolling. This can lead to genuinely hostile behavior, including Flame Wars . TROLL CULTURE The long history of trolling, and the strong support for Anonymous and Pseudonym ous discourse on the Internet, suggests that the story of the "anonymous troll" is only beginning, and is expected to continue developing in subtlety and sophistication . Whether there can be a "culture" consisting of people who do not know each other, except through a common experience of being bounced from Internet forums, is questionable, but some do claim it is possible and already occurring. There is strong evidence for this in the existence of forums that claim to exist specifically to support trolls and trolling, to exchange troll tips, and to identify targets that other trolls might fruitfully bait or debate. Trolling culture is best observed in trolls, who do not know each other, working together. Because the common methods of creating inflammatory posts are well known, and a subject of jokes in many places on the Internet, it is sometimes possible for a troll to identify another troll in action. A troll, trolling another troll, often creates massive amounts of pretend drama between them that are taken seriously by non-troll observers (especially if they take sides). The end result is that the two trolls can work together to force a conversation to go off topic, or center a forum's discussion around themselves, more effectively than on their own. TROLLING AS IDENTITY DECEPTION A common tactic that many trolls resort to is the strategy of using multiple usernames or pseudonyms that are ready to use just in case a debate or argument emerges. By using multiple usernames (called " Sock Puppets " in this context) and a variety of artificial personalities the troll would have the ability to protect his image in a community. However, many users with more than one computer often give each computer a different name and then use that name as the username when opening the same e-mail or newsgroup account on each of the different computers. This is also a common practice in computer repair shops and thrift stores that rebuild computers which likewise harbor no malice, ill will or evil intent. A troll would then also be able to increase his or her influence in an entire online community by simply using those other self serving nicks to increase the attention towards his or her most favored account. Online game communities that take tournament statistics and player rankings seriously are especially vulnerable to this type of trolling behavior. This is mainly due to the fact that since players take their rankings seriously, that some would resort to solidifying their reputations by creating self made threads designed to praise his favored account. Threads such as "most favorite players", "name your top ten players", etc. are suspected to be highly manipulated self-made threads designed to increase the influence and reputation of a specific username. Pre-history Prior to DejaNews 's archiving of Usenet , accounts of trolling were sketchy, there being little evidence to sort through. After that time, however, the huge archives were available for researchers. Perhaps the earliest, although poorly documented, case is the 1982 - 83 saga of AlexAndJoan from the CompuServe forums. Van Gelder, a reporter for Ms. Magazine , documented the incident in 1996 in an article for her publication. Alex (in Real Life a very shy 50 year old Psychiatrist from New York ) pretended to be a highly bombastic, anti-religious, post-car-accident, Wheelchair -bound, Mute woman named "Joan", "in order to better relate to his female patients". This went on for two years, and "Joan" had become a hugely detailed character, with an array of emotional relationships. These only began to fall apart after "Joan" coaxed an online friend of hers into an affair with Alex. :"''Even those who barely knew Joan felt implicated — and somehow betrayed — by Alex's deception. Many of us on-line like to believe that we're a Utopia n community of the future, and Alex's experiment proved to us all that technology is no shield against deceit. We lost our Innocence , if not our Faith .''" (Van Gelder, 1996, p.534) Trolling in the 1990s One early reference to "troll" found in the : :"''You are so far beyond being able to understand anything anyone here says that this is just converging on uselessness. The really sad part is that you really believe that you're winning. You are a shocking waste of natural resources — kindly re-integrate yourself into the Food-chain . Just go die in your sleep you mindless Flatulent troll."'' The more likely derivation can be found in the phrase, "trolling for newbies", popularized in the early 1990s in the Usenet group, ''alt.folklore.urban''. Commonly, what is meant is a relatively gentle inside joke by veteran users, presenting questions or topics that had been so overdone, only a new user would respond to them earnestly. Others expanded the term to include the practice of playing a seriously misinformed or deluded user, even in Newsgroup s where one was not a regular; these were often attempts at humor, rather than provocation. In such contexts, the noun, "troll", usually referred to an act of trolling, rather than to the author. New users of the internet now use the word where they actually mean " Flamebait ". IDENTITY In serious Literature , the practice was first documented by Judith Donath ( 1999 ), who used several Anecdotal examples from various Usenet newsgroups in her discussion. Donath's paper outlines the ambiguity of identity in a disembodied " Virtual Community " {Link without Title} : :"''In the physical world there is an inherent unity to the self, for the body provides a compelling and convenient definition of identity. The norm is: one body, one identity. ... The virtual world is different. It is composed of information rather than matter.''" Donath provides a concise overview of Identity Deception games which trade on the confusion between physical and Epistemic Community : :"''Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they — and the troll — understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group. Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become sensitized to trolling — where the rate of deception is high — many honestly naïve questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can be quite off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting is immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online reputation. USAGE The term ''troll'' is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as ''trolling'', while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument Ad Hominem . When appropriately applied to purposefully disruptive online behavior, the word ''troll'' economically converts an abstract code of online manners into a concrete image. Often, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives that may be incorrect. Regardless of the writer's motives, controversial posts are likely to attract a corrective or patronizing or outraged response by those who do not distinguish between real physical Community (where people are actually exposed to some shared risk of bodily harm by their actions), and Epistemic Community (based on a mere exchange of words and ideas). Customs of discourse, or Etiquette , originating in physical communities are often applied naively to online discourse by newcomers who are not used to the range of views expressed online, often anonymously. Hence, both users and posts are commonly, and sometimes inaccurately, labelled as ''trolls'' when their content upsets people — ironically, the accusatory labeling of a troll may be more disruptive than the original alleged offense itself. Also, people may be more inclined to use epithets like ''troll'' in online public discussion than they would be in person, because online forums may seem more impersonal. There is a quote on IMDb which says that the common troll does not understand the words 'opinion' and 'leave', meaning that it feels it has superior opinions and will not quit until reaching its own trolling satisfaction. Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her, because responding encourages a true troll to continue disruptive posts to that forum — hence the often-seen warning "Please do not feed the troll", for which ''PDNFTT'' is a common Initialism . Posting this warning publicly, in reply to a troll's behavior to discourage further replies, may discourage the troll. However, it can also have the reverse effect, becoming itself food for the troll. Therefore, when a forum participant sees an apparently innocent answer to a troll as potential troll food, it may be more prudent to deliver the "Please do not feed the troll" warning in a private message to the answerer (e.g., by Email , or to the answerer's Wiki ). TROLLING IN DIFFERENT INTERNET MEDIA Trolling takes distinct forms in different media; it started on newsgroups, and as the Internet has evolved, so has trolling.
PRISON TIME FOR TROLLING? On s and up to two years in Prison . Concern has been raised as to the Constitutional legality of the law, as critics allege that it infringes upon the First Amendment To The United States Constitution , which guarantees every U.S. Citizen the right to Free Speech . This does not necessarily affect all trolls; it makes illegal the common trolling tactic of posting links to Shock Site s containing obscene material. DEFENSIVE AND RECREATIONAL TROLLS In some Internet subcultures, notably Kibology , the words "troll" and "trolling" have taken on a different meaning. Instead of the aggressive invader and his (sic) loud, often abusive posts, the terms refer to someone more subtle, seeking to create a loud, indeed furious response, to a post that may be moderate and even reasonable in its tone, while pushing the victim's hot buttons. This treatment may be applied to invaders, especially Crank s such as Archimedes Plutonium or George Hammond (Scientific Proof of God, not the TV character) and the loud, obnoxious, self-centered kind of invader called trolls elsewhere. Trolling may also be done as a kind of practical joke among group members. Those who can see through such trolls quickly, and respond in kind, are held in high esteem, while those who fall for the trick may eventually be informed "YHBT"--You Have Been Trolled. The admiring response to a particularly subtle troll is "IHBT"--I Have Been Trolled. In addition to James Kibo Parry, the most esteemed practitioners on alt.religion. Kibology include Lisa Pea , Andrea Chen , and Sarah Cherlin . EXAMPLES One-shot trolls One-shot troll messages are intended to be disruptive, and tend to be very obvious to ensure that they will receive annoyed replies. Disruptive trolls
Attention-seeking trolls This class of trolls seeks to incite as many responses as possible and to absorb a disproportionate share of the collective Attention Span .
Other examples Some trolls may denounce a particular Religion in a religion newsgroup, though historically, this would have been called " Flamebait ". Like those who engage in Flaming , self-proclaimed or alleged Internet trolls sometimes resort to Innuendo or misdirection in the pursuit of their objective. It is possible to distinguish between comments that are flamebait and as a result of trolling: flames have the intent of being anti-social and offensive, while trolling comments are intended to provoke a reaction, though trolling comments may also be perceived as being anti-social, although that may not have been the intent of the author. A variant of the second variety ( Inflammatory messages) involves posting content obviously at odds with the (stated or unstated) focus of the group or forum; for example, posting Cat -meat recipes on a Pet lovers forum, posting Evolution ary theory on a Creationist forum (or vice versa), or posting messages about how all Dragon s are boring in the USENET group ''alt.fan.dragons''. Other examples include fans of TV shows, movies, music artists or videogames going onto forums of rival shows/movies/artists/games and flaming them; for example, Halo vs. other First-person Shooter s in videogame forums, and flame wars between The Simpsons , South Park , and/or Family Guy forums, three popular and similar-themed adult cartoons that occasionally take pot shots at each other in real life. The " Sock-puppet " troll enters a forum using several different identities. As provocative postings from one identity draw increasingly critical comment from other forum members, the troll enters the discussion under a second identity in support of the first. Alternatively, the troll may under the second identity criticise the first in order to develop credibility or esteem on the forum. (However, use of alternate IDs to identify a particular computer or the changing of a user ID after system crashes and other legitimate reasons for using more than one ID by the same person may not be intended as a deception.) . For instance, an anti- Fast Food flame bait might be cross-posted to healthy eating groups, Environmentalist groups, Animal Rights groups, as well as a totally off-topic Artificial Intelligence newsgroup. An example of a successful troll is the well-known "Oh how I envy American students" " award. MOTIVATION Self-proclaimed "trolls" may style themselves as Devil's Advocate s, Gadflies or Culture Jammers , challenging the dominant discourse and assumptions of forum discussions in an attempt to break the Status Quo of Groupthink — the belief system that prevails in their absence. Some critics claim that genuine "devil's advocates" generally identify themselves as such, out of respect for etiquette and courtesy, while trolls may dismiss etiquette and courtesy altogether. Most discussion of what motivates Internet trolls comes from other Internet users who claim to have observed trolling behavior. There is little scholarly literature to describe either the term or the phenomenon. The comments of accused trolls might be unreliable, since they may, in fact, be intending to stir controversy, rather than to advance understanding of the phenomenon. Likewise, accusers are often motivated by a desire to defend a particular Internet project, and references to an Internet user as a troll might not be based on the actual goals of the person so named. As a result, identifying the goals of Internet trolls is most often Speculative . Still, several basic goals have been attributed to Internet trolls, according to the type of disruption they are believed to be provoking. Further complicating the issue, many accusatory labelers fail to first question whether the alleged "troll" material actually is disruptive (a requisite component of trolling behavior) before being declared as such. Thus, many "trolls" are born of a second party's hasty inference of supposed intent, accurate or not. Proposed motivations for trolling:
, also known as Kevin Ealy, was an Internet troll and Slashdot Troll before his 2005 death.]]
It is difficult to gauge the motivations of trolls, since most of the justifications offered by alleged trolls for their behavior are nothing more than ruses concocted to continue whatever mischief they imagine themselves to have started. This is unfortunate because, as the above list supposes, there are legitimate reasons for engaging in the sort of actions for which trolling is known. Still, etiquette is simple and straightforward enough that most people can advance the aims professed by self-exculpatory trolls, without actually resorting to these methods. Since there is a wide spectrum of possible motivations for trolls, some of these functions being Benevolent and others, clearly Malevolent , to typecast users as trolls in the negative sense is often rash. Some users of Internet forums are considered to be "trollhunters", or "trollbaiters". They willingly enter into conflicts when trolls emerge. Often, trollhunters are as disruptive as trolls. A single troll-post may be ignored, but if ten trollhunters "pounce", following a troll, they will drive the thread off-topic. RESOLUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES In general, Popular Wisdom advises users to avoid feeding trolls, and to ignore temptations to respond. Responding to a troll inevitably drives discussion off-topic, to the dismay of bystanders, and supplies the troll with the craved attention. When trollhunters pounce on the trolls, ignorers reply with: "YHBT. YHL. HAND.", or "You have been trolled. You have lost. Have a nice day." However, since trollbaiters (like trolls) are often conflict-seekers themselves, the loss usually is not on the part of the trollhunter; rather, the losers are the other forum-users who would have preferred that the conflict does not emerge at all. Literature on Conflict Resolution suggests that labeling participants in Internet discussions as "trolls" can perpetuate the unwanted behaviors. A person rejected by a social group, both online and offline, may assume an Antagonistic role toward it, and seek to further annoy or anger members of the group. The "troll" label, often a sign of social Rejection , may therefore perpetuate trolling. Better results normally ensue when users take the Moderator role and describe more constructive behaviors in a non-judgmental, non-confrontational way. Trolls are excited by trollhunters, and frustrated by "ignorers", and neither of these emotions produce positive results for the forum. Engaging trolls results in "flame wars". Trolls frustrated by the "ignore strategy" may leave the forum (and either troll elsewhere, or become constructive users) or may become progressively more inflammatory until they get a response. Novice trolls may experience serious "troll's remorse", a feeling of great regret after losing their account (whether it be from an Internet service provider or from a website) as a consequence of their reckless trolling. There are those who argue that a lack of response to trolling can also inspire trolling, a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" result. Particularly fanatical or irrational commentators will respond to a forum that irks them largely independent of responses. Trolls also often continue to post, taking umbrage with peripheral arguments or arguments that were less well-founded, until their positions become untenable, then turning either to insults or moving to another topic. By this logic, relentless confrontation through argument of trolls (when such argument is to be found) can be vital. USEFULNESS OF TROLLING A major debate on the Internet is whether or not trolls perform any ''useful'' function. Because troll is such a broadly-applied term, if all definitions thereof are to be accepted, the answer must definitively be "yes and no". Users performing many useful, but controversial, functions are often decried as trolls, and in these cases, so-called trolling may actually benefit the forum in which it occurs. For example, the presence of a radical right-winger, described as a troll, may allow a conservative lurker to feel more comfortable expressing his or her viewpoints, which seem very moderate in contrast. On the other hand, if trollhunters mount a Flame War against this right-wing troll, the conservative bystander may feel ''less'' comfortable in expressing her views, to the detriment of the forum. As much as trolls claim to fight Groupthink , they may actually encourage it by solidifying opinion against them. Trolls can also, in some circumstances, be a source of genuine humour, which depends entirely upon whether the troll is a good or a bad troll. It is usually fairly easy to spot the difference between such actions: a bad troll resorts only to weak uncreative arguments, whereas a good troll will create a subtle set of arguments which draw people in, with cunning twists to provide a thread of Non Sequitur humour. Trolls may also provide a valuable service by making people question the validity of what is read both on the Internet, and from other sources. Trolls show that expressing any opinion is as easy as expressing an informed and considered opinion, and may get as much visibility. It has also been argued that Shock Jocks , and newspaper Columnist s, often track public opinions by trolling. John C. Dvorak , and Slashdot , have often been cited as examples. Even though useful content and productive users are sometimes decried as trolls, the consensus is that pure "trolling" benefits only the troll and trollhunters, and has no place in any forum. Most forums reject the claim that pure and intentional trolling serves any useful purpose. Some trolls have been known to try to troll threads into deletion, serving as a form of negative reinforcement to "newbies", but also helping at the same time to reduce the clutter of Spam threads on a large message board. In many cases, trolling can lead a forum administrator or moderator into implementing features to the site to prevent trolling. Although this could be regarded as improving the Website itself, it remains that the features would not have been needed, had the trolls not been there. BEHAVIORAL ISSUES Precise definitions of "troll" have been difficult because such definitions rely on assumptions about internal Motivation , which have been difficult to conclusively prove. Some behaviors, such as "name-calling" are not candidates for a "troll" classification unless their intent is to provoke a reaction, as "name-calling" could be considered more anti-social, perhaps falling under the classification of "flamer" instead. Some have suggested that instead of calling somebody a "troll", they should focus on specific behaviors that a group finds uncomfortable, and enforce behavioral rules to consistently and fairly prevent such behaviors. The idea is to focus on the undesirable behavior itself, rather than on the motivation for the behavior. If such behaviors cannot be identified, then perhaps the alleged troll should be tolerated out of fairness. Some call this, the "If you cannot identify it, then tolerate it" plan. A general consensus could be that a post intended to be upsetting or offensive is a Flame while a post attempting to incite these is trolling. ALTERNATIVE VIEWS While trolls and trolling are, by and large, considered a negative and undesirable presence on a forum, some claim a belief that trolling is inherently bad can have damaging consequences. The use of the word " Terrorist " is often cited as an example of stepping over the line. However, anything that is labeled with the word "terrorist" rallies a feeling of an "us versus them" Mentality , which is helpful both in ostracizing trollish behavior, and in strengthening the "need" for anti-troll tactics, thereby consolidating the Webmaster 's support. In most cases, the latter is an unexpected bonus in dealing with trolls. However, a pertinent question arises: "What if this is the only goal, and that the webmaster merely wishes to silence a variety of criticisms, ranging from poor moderation and too much Advertising , to restrictions on discussion topics?" Playing the "troll" card may therefore be the webmaster's weapon of choice. Many (perhaps most) people, labelled "trolls", are simply being called thus by someone else in the course of a religious, political or other ordinary type of dispute; in other words, they are labelled as one for acting as a Dissident or Heretic . To characterize systems administrators or moderators as "the troll who got there first" is not entirely inaccurate. Many debates between those with and without administrative or legal powers seem simply to resemble a heated personal argument. On the Internet in particular, the holding of technological powers (such as the power to ban users or block IP Address es) is not necessarily a sign of any superior political or Moral judgement. Similarly, one may be labeled a ''troll'' for simply disagreeing with someone, who is often the topic starter. As with similar pejorative labels, a group of people who are assigned the label can turn it around to create group identity, and the power to collectively resist. Individual outsiders using the label on someone become targets for a collective response. Insiders, however, may use the label without consequence, usually in a joking or disarming way. Internet trolls are not restricted to client side operations. Many Internet servers are known to operate in the capacity of an Internet troll by doing everything from not maintaining a warning on their home page to soliciting donations for a fictitious cause to "trolling" the Internet for email addresses and then sending out phishing emails which link back to a phishing data entry page on the web site. The system operators of such sites are often known as "trolls." Several Wiktionary system operators have been accused of "trolling" the Wiktionary looking for edits and user pages they do not like and then deleting the edits and user pages and indefinitely blocking the users access. Surprisingly enough the record more often than not backs these accusations up. SEE ALSO Specific trolling subcultures Related trolling terminology
Related terms EXTERNAL LINKS
Troll FAQs
|
|
|