Pauline Gaines wonders what makes some commenters feel they have the right to rip a blogger into teeny-tiny pieces.
Originally appeared at Perils of Divorced Pauline
I belong to a group of mom bloggers and it is not uncommon for one of us to Facebook the rest of us and ask for “nice comments” on a post to offset the vitriol being vomited upon the comment section by trolls.
Not sure what trolls are? They’re those shadowy internet lurkers who visit blogs seemingly with the sole intention of shredding the blogger. They take issue with the content, the POV, the writing style, sometimes even the gender of the writer. From a mere 1000 words or so, they assign twisted personality traits to the blogger and use the anonymity of the commenting forum to eviscerate a stranger.
They especially love to attack bloggers for expressing strong opinions on, God forbid, their own blogs! Here’s a love note Elizabeth Aquino received on her blog, a moon, worn as if it had been a shell:
“Elizabeth, I’m not in a position to judge your ‘niceness.’ But from your articles I can discern very clearly that you are a self-obsessed, self-absorbed, self-interested, narrow minded person. That is, if the case doesn’t assist Elizabeth in some way or improve Elizabeth’s lot in some fashion, Elizabeth isn’t interested in it. “
It’s worth mentioning that, despite her self-absorption and narrow-mindedness, Elizabeth raises three kids, one of whom has a severe seizure disorder.
An example from my own blogging life: in response to my essay that ran in Salon in March 2011, various trolls diagnosed me with an “Axis II personality disorder,” accused me of being a “divorced vaginate” and a “horrible mother” and urged me to get “non-supportive, challenging therapy.”
I’m confident about my writing, and I know, after a few cyber-public floggings, to brace myself before I scan the comment thread, but still. Watching people who don’t even know you stomp all over your integrity can leave you feeling like a frail kid cornered by schoolyard bullies.
What is it about cyberspace that makes some commenters feel they have the right to rip a blogger into teeny-tiny pieces? I’m not talking about those engaging in critical thinking, or respectfully disagreeing, or inviting civil dialogue. I’m all for that.
I’m talking about rabid, mad-dog commenters who hurl vicious, sadistic barbs at bloggers. Or trolls who stand atop their high, sanctimonious horses issuing judgments — judgments like these, received by my friend Jenny Heitz on her hilariously spot-on Beyond the Brochure post “Perfect Mommy Syndrome.”
“Sounds to me like you’re feeling guilty about your choices after seeing parents who might be making better ones. Maybe if you were confident in the way you’re parenting your children, you wouldn’t even notice what everyone else is doing…. A little soul-searching might be in order to figure out what the REAL issue is.”
Now, even if you did have some “soul-searching” to do, would snide spitballs spur your motivation?
The Psychology of Cyberspace
John Suler, a psychology professor at Rider University, has written extensively about the psychology of cyberspace in his online book called just that: Psychology of Cyberspace. Drawing from psychoanalytic theory and other psychological orientations, Suler breaks down the reasons why cyberspace invites conflict and what kinds of people and circumstances stir the maelstrom.
Suler believes that cyberspace is a “psychological extension” of a person’s internal landscape. Hours spent online trigger unfinished business and subconscious processes “that can alter sensory experience and can even create a dream-like state of mind.”
Suler has some interesting theories linking certain personality types with certain online behaviors. For instance:
- Do antisocial personalities exploit the wild west quality of the internet in order to hack?
- Do narcissists use the internet to gather throngs of admirers?
- Do dissociative people use the internet to create multiple online personalities?
- Do compulsives use the internet as a means to gain control over their lives?
- Do histrionic people see the internet as a forum for theatrical displays in order to get attention?
I’m a PhD or two short of being able to to grasp fully the more nuanced concepts of Suler’s theories — stuff about transferring unfinished business with parents on to the computer itself, which is then exacerbated by transferring unfinished business onto blog posts — but I think I can adequately convey a few of his basic ideas.
The Disinhibition Effect
Online, people feel less inhibited and more able to express themselves. This can lead to “benign disinhibition,” in which people display acts of generosity, for example, sending prayers or even donations to those afflicted by terminal illnesses.
But the kind of disinhibition I’m exploring in this post is the toxic kind, what Suler refers to as “simply a blind catharsis, an acting out of unsavory needs and wishes without any personal growth at all.”
My blogging friend Lori Day, perhaps one of the most genteel and refined voices in the blogosphere, shares two of the particularly egregious comments she has received: “Lori, you c**nt,” and “wake up from your gynocentric stupor.”
I ask you: does calling a woman a c**t invite conversation or shut it down?
How Does Calling a Blogger a C**nt Happen?
The “you don’t know me” quality of the internet allows people to dissociate, to separate their words from who they are. “When acting out hostile feelings,” writes Suler, “the person doesn’t have to take responsibility for those actions. In fact, people might even convince themselves that those behaviors ‘aren’t me at all.’”
I Can’t Tell My Boss To Go F**k himself, So I’ll Tell You
Suler explains that the internet levels the playing field. Regardless of social status, race, and gender, everyone has a voice. It’s not easy standing up to an authority figure, and if you want to keep your job, you’d better mince your words. But online, says Suler, authority is “minimized. People are much more willing to speak out or misbehave.” Combine this with someone who grew up silenced by an oppressive or abusive parent, and the potential for unbridled trolliness soars.
Of course, if you want your insults to be taken seriously, be sure to check your spelling. My blogger friend William Quincey Belle devoted a post to the troll who responded to one of his posts with “Youran idiot.”
Personality Types
Suler states that certain personality types vary in their tendencies towards inhibition or expression. “People with histrionic styles tend to be very open and emotional. Compulsive people are more restrained.” Suler explains that the disinhibition effect interacts with personality variables, creating an online behavior pattern that is more exaggerated than one’s offline behavior.
The type well known to all of us who hang out on blog comment threads is the “oppositional personality.” These are the people who take issue with virtually anything that is written. “They struggle with underlying feelings of hostility that can be expressed passively or indirectly, via the act of disagreeing,” writes Suler. “They may also need to oppose others as a way to firm up their somewhat fragile identity or to boost self-esteem by proving themselves right and others mistaken.”
May I give you an example? From a Beyond the Brochure mommy troll to another commenter (when trolls are not sated after chomping on the writer, they go after their fellow commenters):
“How much did you research your CHOICE to inject toxins in your child’s blood veins? Trust me I know WAY MORE on the topic than you do! So yeah, I am a better parent if I took the time to research fully and not just take doctors (who are human and failable — um, that would be fallible, Madam Troll– and many are just as ignorant and ill informed as many parents they are leading on) on their word seeing as they have the pharmaceutical reps in their back pocket! ?And what do you know about homeschool? Except that you would be a terrible homeschooling parent.??Get a life lady, you have no clue about the world around you!”
Oh, what fun to be on the Hot Lunch Committee with her!
Dangerous Trolls
Suler states that oppositional types are drawn to the “intellectually contentious atmosphere” of online discussion. And in a chaotic, unmonitored environment where it’s impossible to read facial expressions or hear tone-of-voice, oppositional tendencies may ramp up.
While insult-hurlers are merely obnoxious, trolls who threaten may actually be sociopathic. I was stunned to read an article in The Guardian reporting on women writers who routinely receive rape and death threats from commenters. Several female journalists have gone public with the outrageous threats they have received in an attempt to get online discussion moderators to establish stricter commenting policies and boot those who are being abusive.
So How Do We All Just Get Along?
Psychotherapist Kali Munro offers tips to resolve conflict online. Here are some of them:
Don’t respond right away
Squelch that urge to fire back a response setting the troll straight. Wait 24 hours before responding.
Read the post again later
Sometimes your first reaction is colored by how you’re feeling at the time. Read it later and see if it could have been written with a different tone from the one you originally heard.
Choose whether or not you want to respond
If the post is inflammatory and the person appears to be a bully, the best strategy is to ignore him/her.
Use “I statements”
Anyone who’s been in couples therapy knows how to do this one: “I feel vs. “You did blahblah…”
Choose your words carefully
Because the person can’t see you and must rely entirely on what you’ve written, choose your words carefully. Imagine how the other person might “hear” what you say.
Start and end your post with validating statements
This one doesn’t need explaining.
My New Commenting Policy
While I cannot control the comment threads on other sites that run my pieces, I can control them on my site, Perils of Divorced Pauline, and writing this post has spurred me to do just that. So here are my guidelines:
1. This blog contains subject matter related to divorce and custody issues, two hot-button topics that may trigger some people. If you feel that divorce is just plain wrong, and that all divorced people are low-life vermin, you are kindly invited to go elsewhere.
2. Please keep your comments civil. Respectful disagreement and intelligent debate are fine, but remarks that are abusive and accusatory are not, and will be deleted.
3. Spelling and punctuation corrections are welcome.
One thing about my Perils of Divorced Pauline commenters: they are a smart, articulate, and well-mannered lot. I value all of you, my wonderful blogging and commenting community, more than I can say. I don’t think I’ve had to deep-six a comment yet.
But you never know who may be lying in wait…
About Pauline Gaines
I’m not sure how to describe the tone of what I’m reading here, but at least of it comes across as “entitlement.”
You do realize that when you blog, you’re not just writing in a journal, right? You’re publishing–announcing your opinions for the whole world to see, and inviting commentary and criticism. Yes, some trolls are simply tiresome and repetitive noisemakers, and some are even dangerously unstable.
But that’s not the same as saying “I want only positive and thoughtful comments.” You only get that with a closed community, not a blog. Expecting only favorable feedback from an open publication to humanity at large is a sure path to disappointment, as any author can tell you.
Yes, the entitlement of your average blogger. This is a group that self-selects for big egos and a belief that what they have to say is more important than what anyone else has to say. They also tend to be educated at more ‘prestigious’ schools, and often have some level of authority in their own lives. They think they get to keep that authority online, and generally dislike finding out that they don’t.
I think there’s a real problem in the recent shift of what the word ‘troll’ means. Historically, a troll was someone who shows up just to disrupt the conversation, not to contribute to it at all and never to take part in it. They would restart hashed-out and well-known arguments. They’d bring up controversies that have nothing to do with the site mission. They would, in general, not be on-topic at all. Today, the people who get called ‘trolls’ are generally just disagreeing with the dominant viewpoint on a website, they aren’t actually there to disrupt the conversation. They’re just there to offer a differing viewpoint. And even then, 90% of them will just say their piece and leave.
Did either of you actually read the article? The kinds of posts and comments that end up hurled at the authors of blog posts everywhere is incredible — maybe your semantic argument that “trolls” intentionally do this to derail topics or what have you are right. But there’s not really another word for people that read an article on-line and make extreme value judgements about authors.
It’s not really “entitlement” to request that you not be threatened with physical violence by total strangers for voicing your opinion on home schooling.
Yes. Hence why I threw some of the stuff he mentioned back in his face.
Did you read the post? Because it’s not titled ‘I’m Only Talking About My Friends Here’. It’s titled ‘Is Your Blog Stalked By Trolls?’ and then uses the example of his friend’s blog to offer wider advice.
I’m having a hard time believing you read the post since you twice referred to the author as he or him and the author is clearly a women who, more than once, mentions her status as a woman, a mommy, etc.
Your troll act would improve if you read the article.
Did we read the same essay? I’ll be damned if I can find that sentiment expressed in her piece. Looking at her commenting policy I get the impression that she’s going to delete ad hominems and other abusive comments, but comments that otherwise disagree with her point of view expressed without personal attacks are welcome.
Sure, it’s not a private journal, it’s a blog. But all the same she can make any commenting policy she wants, even if it’s one that only allows positive, supportive comments that contain at least one reference to a butterfly, flower, or baby turtle. Or are you saying that because it’s the internet, we should just expect trolls? Should she simply expect someone to call her a cunt as happened to Lori Day? Should she not have a commenting policy? Was there something specific in her commenting policy to which you objected?
I agree with Nick. I didn’t see entitlement at all. Look at this site. Lots of people disagree, but very few trolls get through the cracks of the great moderation. Trolls are people who act in cruel, miserable ways–not people with differing opinions. In the divorce example, a troll isn’t someone with a differing opinion on the way divorce should be handled, but rather someone who seeks out divorce blogs to tell divorcees that they’re sluts going to hell. I remember the incident of a simple food blogger who got comments that her toddler daughter should be raped. Another got called a ‘fucking ugly whore who thinks she’s hot’ and had her property threatened. These were…FOOD bloggers. You must have to have a pretty tough skin to be to be a blogger who deals with more controversial issues.
I have a simple solution to your question: And no I am not kidding.
Over the next 2 months, instead of blogging, go to the main drag of whatever town or city you live in. And whatever you were going to blog, say it outloud. Do it over and over again to simulate your words on a blog being permanent. See what kind of reaction you will get.
When you blog , you are really and truely shouting from the rooftop. Except people to challenge you on what you say.
Recently I have been reading rabble.ca and specifically the feminism area. I have been told by multiple friends what the area was like but I had to experience for myself. I wonder if your blog (which I haven’t read) is like that area. Do you come off as someone who has all the answers and everyone else who doesn’t agree with you is wrong? That is what rabble is like. essentially a huge circle jerk.
John, if you went out to a public corner and started speaking, you might be left alone. You might also be arrested for public disturbance. Because while it’s a public space people are not allowed to attack each other. A blog can be publicly viewed but it is also a private domain run by the owner. Sort of like a business on that street.
I could come into the store I don’t like and start yelling at the owner about I hate his food/product and being all kinds of nasty. He’d be well within his rights to call the cops and bar me from the property.
If you were out on a street corner ranting, no, no one would have the right to attack you, or create a public disturbance by ranting back, but they would be within their rights to fling insults and expletive s at you on their way past.
And in a business? I see blogging more like…getting a little business spot. You purchase a domain (some are free), you advertise (or not) and you are purchasing your own internet access. If someone comes to visit and causes problems, I think you have the right to ask them to leave.
Agreed! Also: insults tend to shut down meaningful dialogue, not open it up. Although if the intent is to shut down a blogger, then I guess the insults are effective.
Julie, you analogy would be 100% correct if the blog was honest about comments.
Some are. If you go to Feministe they openly state that they will delete any comments that oppose feminism. It’s unquestionably a form of censorship, but certainly one they are within their right to exercise.
The problem is that very many blogs are inherently dishonest about comments. They say they want to “start discussions” and “see some dialogue” but all they really want is an endless stream of sycophantic praise.
To take your analogy a step further, this is like someone opening a clothing store, and then taking offense when a customer asks to see the clothes.
If you want to throw out comments you don’t agree with, that’s fine, but be honest about it, and stop pretending that you are actually interested in discourse.
I think the issue is in the tone of the comments, not whether or not differing opinions are allowed. This post is not about censoring, it’s about taking a stand against normalizing comments that are abusive and insulting and degrading. Bloggers should not be expected to tolerate abuse. Period.
If you take out the “tolerate” part – should bloggers expect to receive abusive comments? The answer has to be “yes”, because it goes with the territory. The part about tolerating it is optional, however. I think blogs and sites have every right to decide how much abuse they will or won’t tolerate, and to moderate accordingly. That may range from disallowing comments altogether, to enforcing a clear comment policy as neutrally as possible, to deleting and banning at the whim of the site owner as suits their fancy.
I think there’s a misconception on the part of both site operators and commenters that the Internet is or should be a free speech zone. It’s not, and shouldn’t be. It’s free enough that anybody can make their own site or blog to host *their* kind of speech, but I’ve got no qualms with moderating or even censoring content to maintain the tone or level of discourse on your own site. (That’s general “you”, not just Pauline.) I think a commenter is way out of line if all they say is “you’re a c**t”, but it’s easier to ignore or delete or ban than to persuade such commenters they should stop because bloggers are people, too.
Bingo. So well said, Marcus.
Pauline,
I think my real issue has to do with how the idea of “abuse” is defined.
On the one hand, sure, a comment that includes no content beyond saying “The author is an [expletive]” is abusive, and there should be no expectation that a comment like that, which really does not add to discussion, would ever be posted.
The problem is that very many sites (and I would include this one) expand their definition of “abuse” to encompass rational arguments which the author disagrees with.
In a recent thread here, the editors posted as an example of an “abusive” comment one where the commenter argued that throwing around labels like “racist” and “sexist” was an attempt to shut down conversation.
It’s hard to see that an argument like that really fits in the same category as a comment that serves only to deliver a content-free insult. It is not, however, hard to see that the editors would like authors to continue labeling their opponents as racist and/or sexist, and so an allegation that those are shutdown words is not welcome.
This is the kind of definition creep that many find irksome. Go ahead and censor the profanity, no one will really blame you for it. But when you start to censor reasoned argument because it is “abusive”…then you’ve headed down another path entirely.
This is really interesting. I think for me that’s where tone comes in. Have you ever lived or dealt with someone that could make a mundane sentence feel like a dagger? And then, when you confront them about it, they accuse you of being “too sensitive?”
So I see some of these comments like that. Embedded sarcasm, passive aggressiveness, sniping. And if this was a person I was dealing with in real life and they were treating me a) badly with their tone and words, and b) blaming me for having feelings I’d find that at minimum emotionally manipulative.
So when it happens online, I also think it is, at minimum, manipulative and designed to arouse a reaction in the blog writer.
At best that writer can move on and do their daily work. At worst, if they are receiving many emails a day digging in, it causes wear and tear. Which I think is the point of that particular kind of troll.
“Why are you picking on me?”
“What can’t you take it?”
Well, why should someone have to “take it” in real life at work, let’s stay or on their blog. Delete and ban, if people are being manipulative and unkind. No one can see into the discourse at that point anyway, and to allow the comments means that lurkers may feel even less inclined to comment.
If you are trying to build community, trust, open communication and actual dialogue, you do need moderation not only from the ones actually moderating, but from the community itself calling out the mean stuff and re-railing the conversation.
YES! Brilliant, Julie! And the internet tends to intensify tone, since you can’t read someone’s face and body language. I also think the “you’re too sensitive” stance of some commenters can be victim-shaming. I hesitate to use the word victim, but I think you know what I mean…
Yeah, I do. It’s akin to gaslighting and both genders do it. I actually have the most personal experience with women behaving that way to me and so I can identify the dynamic. I see it the majority of comments I see that have to do with politics, especially polemic issues. There will be dialogue, then a derail, then an attempt to re-reail, then sniping, then complaints about sniping then passive aggressive tone about being sensitive, which effectively rerails.
Thing is it’s hard not to respond, isn’t it! We either a) want to clarify and understand or b) argue!
Julie,
Because of my background (law school) and my social circle (also law school), I cannot really understand where you are coming from. I expect the things I say to be attacked, so it doesn’t really bother me when it happens.
The biggest issue here, and maybe I’m not clear, goes to whether a blog is going to be a place of discourse or an echo-chamber.
It really seems like many blogs out there claim to want the former while actually promoting the latter.
I do not believe that echo chambers are good environments, virtual or otherwise. If someone is going to set one up, it’s important to me that they are clear about it, so that we can all see what is actually going on. When someone claims to be “fostering discussion” but they are actually just forcing agreement, we all lose.
Neither do I. But I also don’t believe actual dialogue happens in well between a group of people if there are folks yelling into the group all the time. Same thing goes for an online space. I’ve seen many conversations and arguments here that were great for dialogue. People disagreeing. People actively disagreeing! Information exchanged. And I’ve also seen people take pot shots, manipulate, twist words, derail and get in the way. I prefer the former even if I am in disagreement with the person I’m conversing with.
And I do think the law school thing gives you a completely different perspective…I’m not a lawyer, but someone who seeks conflict mediation, communication as connection, more than sparring. So we might have very different POVs.
Sometimes I feel like the comment threads on various blogs feel a bit like the “Town Hall” meetings held to discuss health care. There were a number of people who had come out to voice their opinions, pro and con, and then there were a handful who decided the most effective strategy was to shout down everyone. They called it “spirited” debate. I call it assholery.
Fortunately no blog commenter can shout another down, but they can make it tedious to engage with them or poison a discussion such that no one really wants to engage. The type to which I’m referring doesn’t say, “I disagree” or “I read what you wrote as saying <> which I think is terrible, is that what you meant?” Instead they lead with how awful <> is, how your saying something show that you’re just a shill for <> (oftentimes <> is completely irrelevant) and then proceed to tell you how awful <> is again and because you support <> you’re awful too.
Now I know I’m awesome, and I’ve upgraded the defensive shields on my ego to the latest adamantium alloy which has proven quite impenetrable thus far. But I can’t help but be saddened when the discussions turns sour due to those who only know how to engage in “attack mode.” Hell, sometimes they attack even when you are agreeing with them; they’re just too blinded by hurt and rage to stop and acknowledge common ground. Or they don’t care and are in it for the sport; it’s this special group on which we adorn the ad hominem troll.
Mike, you’ve touched on a nuanced issue. One person’s definition of abuse can be another person’s definition of spirited dialogue. I do think, in general, that labels shut down conversation. While “racist” and “sexist” are certainly not in the same camp as “c**t,” they do reduce the writer to a polarized image.
Mike, you are absolutely spot on.
The distinction between calling someone a “c**t” and simply pointing out that words like “racist” and “sexist” can be used to shut down discussion is as clear as night and day.
Name calling is abusive, pointing out the way words are being used most definitely is not, it’s a valid observation.
Which specific thread were you referring to? This is a very interesting matter and I’d like to investigate further.
A blog is more akin to opening up a storefront, booth, or stand, where people can chose whether or not to come and look at what you’re saying. It’s not like a city square where everyone has to walk by. Say a booth a at a college fair. If you don’t agree with what my booth is trying to champion (say, gay marriage), you can come in and say that. Drop off a few of your own flyers. On the other hand, if you start getting in my face and calling me a faggot, threatening to rape/harass me or find my house, or slinging unrelated personal insults in my face, you’re out of line.
I don’t believe that a blogger’s choice to publish justifies an “anything goes” policy with comments. There are way too many abusive comments out there, to the point where bloggers receive death and rape threats. Differing opinions can and should be expressed respectfully. If someone really finds a writer’s work distasteful, or an entire publication distasteful, that person can choose not to read the writer/publication at all.
If someone resorts to personal attacks they are leaving themselves exposed, there is nothing stopping you from calling them out on their behaviour and explaining why it is unacceptable. Of course they probably won’t listen but they are revealing a serious inadequacy in their point of view if they feel compelled to sink to such a pathetic level.
It cuts both ways, I’ve noticed a tendency to be over sensitive and take things personally that were not meant that way. After years of facilitating classroom debates I’ve developed a pretty thick skin and I sometimes forget people can feel attacked due to their perception.
I wonder if culture enters into it, as an Aussie I prefer directness but maybe some misinterpret this and take it to heart, that’s not my intention. I’ve got skin like a tiger tank but I should remember that not everyone else does. There’s nothing stopping you from confronting them about personalising, as tiresome as it is. Death threats, however, are nothing short of ludicrous and is surely the lowest an argument can sink to.
When a troll desires evoking negative reactions and stirring up shit, the best thing to do is ignore, delete, and never feed them the attention they crave. It’s very easy to type some random words knowing it will cause discomfort to someone else, much harder to actually say them face to face. Any attention given to them will simply reward their bad behaviour, they want you to waste time replying, they want you to get mad or upset and leaving a blog would simply show that they won. It’s just a form of bullying but you can take measures to prevent it.
I think the really important question is why do these people feel the need to harm others? Maybe a society that cares for each other more, stops bullying in childhood especially would go along way to stopping trolling. Many of the people I’ve seen troll fit a stereotype of the bullied kid in school and online they can dish it out like it was given to them. Don’t put a band-aid over the wound, stop the injury from happening in the first place….
Aside from just not having the time and being in the midst of a pretty major personal crises, one of the reasons I’ve stepped back from writing is because sometimes I find the anonymity of the internet makes people forget that there is a person on the other side of that screen, reading the comments. Productive conversation breaks down because they’re too busy hurling (thinly veiled) insults to actually focus on real issues or productive arguing. It’s pretty exhausting.
Also, I appreciate that this article has a productive tone – not just how being stalked by trolls is a pretty uncomfortable experience, but your inclusion of things we can do, reminders of how to handle those situations, provides insight in moving forward more productively with these individuals. Sometimes I just lack the patience.
Fact is, there’s lots of assholes out there. Heck, I’m an asshole from time to time and I think that if most of you were honest, you’d admit you are one too from time to time.
It’s fun, it’s free and it can lead to great one liners.
But for serious, reasoned debate, without good moderation (a fine and high art), it’s basically impossible on the Net. The best discussions I’ve ever found on a variety of contentious, seriously and high level issues (the ones where the most drooling morons come out of the woodwork) is at the http://www.theoildrum.com . The best, most informative, most mind expanding discussions on the web. NOWHERE has as many quality debates and discussions as this site. NOWHERE (sorry Tom, GMP while decent, isn’t nearly as good <didya see that?
).
And what passes for political debate these days is almost entirely like the internet. Filled with assholes and morons. And the internet on politics? OMG!!!! Talk about a poop flinging contest between monkeys. It's pointless. In fact, for these issues, the best political dicussions I've found are where groups critisize themselves. Everyone at least thinks they're on the same team and thus some kind of debate actually occurs.
Also, try and find elitist web sites (e.g. lawyer forums or forums of alumni from a school of higher learning). Elites, in my experience, tend not to troll as moronically as others. They still troll, but far more cleverly and must less disruptively. And they get called on it every time and scolded for being assholes. It's most refreshing! Then the discussion carries on.
Anyways…
DEATH TO THE TROLLS!!!!
LONG LIVE THE TROLL SLAYERS!!!
The Wet One
Meh. I find it hard to be hurt by what some idiot has to say about my posts, especially if the threats start. Reason being? They’re not really threats, the people making them are in no position to carry them out and, in all probability, don’t intend to either.
Its easy to write a dramatic opinion piece about the commentators who “threatened to set him on fire,” or “promised to burglarise her home,” but weighty language aside, neither thing was ever going to happen.
The reaction to all of this which is going on at the moment reminds me alot of a scene from 12 angry men. The jurors are sitting in the deliberation room discussing whether or not the fact that a boy screamed “I’m going to kill you” to his father is evidence that he did murder him. One juror in particular is adamant that the words are only ever used as a genuine threat up until he uses them himself in anger. People say things all the time that they don’t mean. If we were to take everyone as literally as anti-troll legislation has been lately then the world would be a very scary and hate-filled place.
I like the 12 Angry Men analogy. Reading what you wrote makes me want to watch the film again, I have only fuzzy memories of it. Whether or not trolls actually intend to make good on their threats — and I would say 99% of them don’t — it still doesn’t justify their obnoxious, degrading, childish remarks. I think Julie has done a great job explaining how the subtle things — sarcasm, passive-aggressive sniping, various forms of verbal and tonal manipulation — can go a long way towards undermining constructive dialogue. Clearly, as evidenced by the comments on this thread, people have varying tolerances for varying levels of argumnet. Anyone who’s interested in learning more about troll psychology should really read John Suler’s work, which you can see by clicking on the links in this piece. The fact that we can’t see each other adds to the polarization and misunderstanding.
I wouldn’t justify it (depending on the context) but I don’t think we need to go as far as criminal prosecution. Given how many tools bloggers and owners of FB pages and youtube channels have at their disposal I’d be inclined to say that we have the power to deal with trolls at a community level.
I might make exceptions for trolls who actually know the poster and still threaten them though, especially if they do so repeatedly, it’s alot more credible dangerwise than a complete stranger saying they want to burn your house down.
“Meh. I find it hard to be hurt by what some idiot has to say about my posts, especially if the threats start. Reason being? They’re not really threats, the people making them are in no position to carry them out and, in all probability, don’t intend to either.”
Yes, Peter. But you don’t live in the US. That puts you a long way away from some of our posters. When someone starts screaming at me online that I need to shut up and stop posting my ideas and I Google them and see that they are located an hour away from my home, I begin to think about my kids. I begin to wonder if even the smallest possible risk of that person throwing a rock through my window is worth it. Thoughts like, why would I post anymore do come to mind. Is this worth it? Etc.
This chills speech. It creates a degree of real anxiety and your (fairly rational) suggestion that they aren’t going to do anything, doesn’t really give me much comfort. Unless maybe you’re suggesting I can pack up my whole family and can come stay at your house. LOL
If you like
It’s a bit cramped though.
If an individual constantly made threats specifically against me and had the means to carry them out I’d begin to take them seriously. But if it’s a once off tirade from an angry stranger… I’m not inclined to worry.
I also don’t make my actual street address easily available online, although I appreciate that there’s some who may have to for some reason or other.
The Internet has opened up a world of writing possibilities for people, whether as bloggers or commenters. So people have access now whereas before they didn’t (well, they could write horrible things to the newspapers/magazines or leave threatening voicemails, but those would never go anywhere). But media outlets monitor comments carefully. All bloggers must also do the same and not take it personally — how can you; people do not know you and they are seeing your writing through their own filters. It says more about them than the blogger (although, true, some bloggers are truly self-absorbed and oblivious!)
It is a mistake to consider people labelled as trolls as at a distance and benign. I no longer use the term Troll – It is most appropriate to use the term “Netopath”.
The advice derived from “Psychotherapist Kali Munro offers tips to resolve conflict online”, has some value, but unfortunately is also way off the mark when it comes to dealing with Reality. It has evidently instilled in some a false sense of security – and that makes it bad advice.
That the OP was “stunned” by the article in the Guardian “Women bloggers call for a stop to ‘hateful’ trolling by misogynist men – Anonymous trolls regularly threaten female writers with rape”, indicates that matters are being judged by a standard that is out of sync with reality. If that piece was stunning – reality will be too much to cope with!
Some make the mistake of seeing the emotive word rape and think it is about rape. It Is Not! It is about Cyber abuse – harassment – stalking and Sociopathic/Netopathic behaviour.
The issue of on-line harassment, stalking and abuse is a growing area of interest and high level of concern – and is now belatedly featuring in mainline media. It has recently features on BBC3 UK, where a well known personality (Richard Bacon) has been addressing matters – including years of cyber abuse and threat against himself and his family.
The full programme is available on YouTube – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RknMFQC10PM
It is well worth watching in full as it does not shy away form the realities and seriousness of the issues.
Some may watch the programme and find the content and findings to be irrational – hard to grasp – even unreal. That is common, as so many people believe that all other people are rational and share common patterns and traits such as empathy. As the program shows, some lack such traits and are even most convincing and cool liars even when faced with a camera crew and all the evidence against them. When the content is considered it is very real and alarming.
The damage reported is real (you can’t get more real than a child committing suicide to escape the abuse) The effects are real ( you can see that in the faces, voices and lives of the victims ) and the concern of professionals is real, as Richard Bacon found out when advised to call in the police to deal with his mystery stalker and even the precautions that had to be taken to protect the identity of a committed professional Troll Hunter – who was instrumental in the conviction of “Colm Coss” – sentenced to 18 weeks in prison – and then back-on line and back to his old ways. Just Google his name “Colm Coss” if you don’t believe the reality.
The BBC3 program covers many areas, including the patterns of retribution up to and including risk of injury and death, when Netopaths are dealt with. Given that it is relatively easy to make false and dangerous accusations against others via the net, many are aware that injury and even death are real possibilities. It can all sound dark and mysterious, like some 1950′s B movie about spies. If only it was that simple and even entertaining.
The term Troll is evocative, and has been about since the earliest days of the Internet – and before the net was public – that was Web0 – there was no world wide web. I remember it well from the old days of ARPANET – the advent of email and many news groups … and all that in the 1970′s and 80′s.
I have to say that then it was relatively benign – as it was possible to see exactly who was saying what. You could trace them as access was a Privilege and not a Right. Also, as most people had access to the net thorough Business, Government and Academic institutions it was possible to trace people and it did have an aire of humour. Even then there were those who where highly socially aberrant and who were denied access to the Internet. It was relatively easy to achieve, though very rarely required.
That changed with the arrival of the World Wide Web (Web1) and public access to the Net (Circa 1992). Ever since then, there has been an exponential growth of access and with it anti-social behaviour that goes far beyond anything covered by the term “Troll”.
The advent of Web2 (2004) saw a shift of control from the person to servers/systems and an opening up of information – a loss of control by the individual. With the advent of WEB 3 (2009) and mass social networking ( sites feeding content from one venue to another ) there has been an explosion in online abuse and anti-social behaviour that is both psychologically and criminally significant! The loss of control over personal information and how others can access and abuse it is a seismic social shift that is still to be addressed. Far too many people have still to play catch up with their own browser and its power. They see personal convenience and yet fail to grasp how that convenience empowers abusers and access to information.
The developments of Web3 and the interoperability of sites and content has created a mass opportunity for netopathic activity. For some there is no surprise in the explosion of Abuse and Antisocial outpourings – and the real damage that has resulted.
The term Netopath ( Internet/Network using Sociopath) describes the conduct far better than Troll. The conduct that goes beyond humour ( even poor quality humour ), is personally abusive and threatening in any way is not a Troll. It is A Netopath.
A joke that is in bad taste is one thing – a Joke that only the most depraved and aberrant of minds would find funny is Netopathic. Lack of empathy and no socially normal limits is always significant.
It is hard to define Pornography – but people know it when they see it. In the same way, it is hard to make a hard distinction between a Troll and a Netopath – but when you see it you know it. Trolls are noted for being inflammatory and even humorous (even if others don’t agree with the humour). Netopaths operate with very different motivations which are psychologically motivated by power.
Netopaths do not only make nasty and inflammatory comment – some run very widely known and recognised Blogs, websites and high value resourced web-sites where they collect supporters (Willing Victims) who act as lieutenants and are readily manipulated and aimed at others. They cover all areas from politics to porn, from supposed support groups to hate sites. They operate across all areas of the net and use multiple venues – both public and private – to play out their needs and motivations.
Some will use highly emotive issues to gather supporters around them. They then play upon emotion and ignore social rules and conventions. Sites and individuals which promote emotion over evidence and reaction over rational presentation of facts all too often have a netopath running them. Notoriety and power are the motivations. Anyone who highlights the underlying patterns is an automatic enemy and treated as such – anyone who questions the lack of reality is also targeted and removed.
Multiple studies of interpersonal violence have shown that Psychological Abuse is frequently more damaging than physical abuse – Many survivors of DV/IPV report that they found the physical abuse/violence easier to cope with than the Psychological.
People who have been mugged report a particular level of violation. Those who have been burglarised and who have had their personal life and space ransacked often report a high level of distress than if it had been physical violence. The impact of being abused in your own home should never be underestimated.
Anyone who uses the Internet to enter another person’s life – environment – home and commits any form of abuse, upto and inciting others publicly or privately to do so, should be considered sociopathic/netopatic. The degree of aberration is not relevant – that it occurs at all is the marker.
The profile of the conduct and behaviour is the key.
Some mistakenly advocate that abusers are benign and represent little to no threat. That is a gross error and fails to address the nature of the Psychological abuse that occurs and is most definably aimed at the targets.
Saying that using the net/web has the inevitable consequence of abuse is the same as saying that being verbally abused in the street, the workplace or any public venue is just as acceptable when it is not – and is even subject to Legal/Criminal sanction.
There are ongoing debates as to the level of Sociopathy in the general population. Estimates run from 1% to 5% and even higher. Whatever the figures, it is clear that Socioapthic use of the Internet is a reality that no-one can avoid – Netopaths are real.
Only this morning I was told by one person that they had never encountered a Sociopath/Netopath before, whilst having to address the specific conduct of a “Long Term Threatening and Malicious Troll” (their words. Not mine). I pointed out that this was the first time they had been “aware” that they were dealing with a Sociopath/Netopath. That was not the same thing.
Given their work and large net presence linked to that work, they were then able to rapidly identify a number of others who were not as Obviously Violent or Threatening in the language and communication used. After 2 hours of cross referencing conduct, comment and a number of google searches for identifiable information – there were at least 6 characters of immediate concern who are all now on the watch list.
One who wrote with great concern about Rape Victims and injustice had a most odd presence on sites and message boards that deal is such matters as S&M rape fantasises – which the Netopath was actually promoting as positive and highly enjoyable. That they posted in one venue with one identity and with a different identity in another was not hard to find out. Their concern on one board was a mask to gain access to rape Victims to abuse their experience for fantasy and acting out. As it was phrased “they rape the rape victims to gain ideas for fantasy rape”! There was a striking correlation between what some rape Victims had reported and the Fantasies that featured else where. Again rape is not the central issue here – the use of a Mask and deceit to gain access to information that is then used aberrantly and abusively is significant.
Evidence shows that girls aged 12 to 17 are three times more likely than males to be subjected to Cyber Abuse, and yet it is other young women in the same age range who are the majority perpetrators in such cases.
There is often a mob which is lead by a Primary Netopath. Gang Bullying always has a gang leader – and they are not always the most obvious person or the one who appears to lead.
There is an ongoing mistaken focus by media and Authorities in attempting to Model Specific recognisable behaviours for management and prevention – such as using School related Cyber bullying as an example. That addresses only the Tip of the Iceberg and masks the fuller reality – and even causes false assumptions as to the sex/gender profile of abusers.
Which is more damaging? Being cyber abused at age 12 or at age 32 or even 62? The abuse may be different the effect upon the target is not. Age and emotional maturity may provide some defence, but the damage is real and should be treated as such.
Individuals who have been located and interviewed over their on-line sociopath/netopathic conduct repeatedly identify as sociopath in real life. There is no distinction between one-line and off-line. They cover all age groups, sex/gender, demographics and social groupings. The same applies to the people they target.
The net and web can act to free such people of social constraints – and imagining that the person is sitting in a rage or smiling with gleeful malice is a massive mistake. The impassive way they react to inflicting damage is a hallmark of their sociopathic/netopathic nature.
In the USA there has been evidence of this issue from Dateline NBC “To Catch a Predator”. Many have viewed the findings as only relating to sexual predation and male lust – however, repeated analysis of the perpetrators has shown key factors linked to sociopathy –
* GLIB/SUPERFICIAL CHARM
* GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH
* NEED FOR STIMULATION/ PRONENESS TO BOREDOM
* PATHOLOGICAL LYING
* CONNING AND MANIPULATIVENESS
* LACK OF REMORSE OR GUILT
* SHALLOW AFFECT
* CALLOUSNESS/LACK OF EMPATHY
* POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS
* IMPULSIVITY
* FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR OWN ACTIONS
* CRIMINAL VERSATILITY
Many have been shocked and confused by the behaviour of those caught on “To Catch a Predator”, and have wondered at the lack of shock, remorse, the excuse making and at how some simply saw humour believed they had done nothing wrong and could not be held accountable …… Now transfer those same people and attitudes to other net abuse and you have a better insight as to who is at the other end of events as they sit at their computer.
Dr Robert D. Hare’s Checklist (Sociopathic Traits) can prove helpful in getting to grips with the mindset and motivations of Netopaths. For people targeted – any evidence which corresponds with patterns on that check-list should be recorded and kept. Multiple incidents should be reported to authorities.
There is a mistaken view that Only Males are the primary group of Socipaths/Netopaths. Whilst there is a gender disparity between conviction rates where sociopathic behaviour is involved, there are also marked patterns of gender disparity as to how behaviour is made manifest. There are extant cases of netopaths where females have masqueraded as males to increase the impact of their activity – and males who have masqueraded as females as a way to ingratiate themselves as none threatening and obtain a more in-depth and even trusted position from which to manipulate their targets and abuse through supposed trust.
The stereotypical image of a Troll as a male youth – eating pizza – drinking sodas – with major personal hygiene issues – the loner in a bedroom that is covered in posters of Nude babes and heavy metal rock bands is very incorrect – and should be avoided at all times. The most common trait of netopaths is “CONVENTIONAL APPEARANCE.”.
That appearance is not just in clothing but also in day to day conduct and social behaviour. Emotions may be expressed but they are all too often feigned and not real – and there is often a shallowness of any such emotions that can be puzzling to other people. If that seems odd – watch the BBC3 program and see it for yourself – lack of shock and reaction, cool lying and denial when faced with the evidence of abusing others claiming to have sexually molested a child – and that claim made after the child was dead – and the claims posted on a memorial page dedicated to the dead child! …. and some will have to watch that over and over before they can accept it is reality and not some fiction created for a bad taste drama.
This excerpt from “The Sociopath Next Door: The Ruthless vs. the Rest of Us” by Martha Stout Ph.D. is also highly informative – http://www.cix.co.uk/~klockstone/spath.htm
When dealing with any form of online abuse, any threat, express or implied, against property or person should be treated as a Valid threat and reported to authorities.
A sudden increase or variance in the nature of Junk mail ( Electronic or Physical Real Mail ) should be noted and recorded. If there is an implied threat, no matter how bizzare it may seem, it should be reported. Getting multiple mails about pet insurance – or even life insurance – indicates that someone has harm in mind. ….. and if it is a pet …. how did they know you have a cat/dog/pony/Gold Fish?
A shift in content indicating increased malice or focus upon the person targeted should be acted upon and reported.
Routine checks for Identity Information, such as the name of a Blog – online profile – email addresses – should be made via search engines. The cloning and misuse of Cyber Identity info is a marker of escalation, and can also lead to other information about any netopath – their possible identity and past net activity – both innocent and aimed at others.
It should never be assumed that the Netopath is NOT personally known to the target. Over 50% of online abusers/harassers/stalkers/netopaths are known to the person targeted. The aggressor range from family members to past school/work colleagues, neighbours – to someone who is unhappy because of a car bump 15 years ago where they were found responsible and have been paying increased motor insurance ever since! (They have had your contact details from the motor insurance papers all along – along comes Web3 – and there you have it – a real world case).
Any incident where limited information is alluded to or addressed directly should not be dismissed or questioned. It identifies that the person either knows you or people close to you.
Anyone who is subjected to patterns of abuse should record all matters and keep all evidence – Whilst a person may think that deletion is a rational control measure, it destroys evidence that Law Enforcement Agents and Attorneys need. Learn to use that File – Save as – and back it up! If you receive emails print full copies and make sure that the Full Header is printed too. The header provides traceable data to the sender.
If you have access to data that shows the IP address of a perpetrator, back it up. They may be using an anonymysing proxy, but that only hides their real IP address – or even the cell phone number linked to a mobile device.
Any information from the aggressor that indicates that they have personal information about the target (home or work address – phone numbers – unpublished email addresses – names or contact details of relatives) should be treated as Real World Stalking and reported as such. Never take NO from a police officer when they don’t grasp the evidence. Most police are not trained to recognise cyber abuse and the threat it represents.
Some will advocate ignoring matters – even removing yourself from social networking sites, removing net profiles and refraining from making comment. This may have some reduced value – but will not deter the most determined of netopaths. As their motivation is power – control – making the victim do as the netopath desires, once a person acts to fulfil those goals and aims, they have agreed to being targeted.
In relation to the BBC 3 programme with Richard Bacon, The professional input from experts is well worth noting, as it is in line with best practice when dealing with Netopaths. Motivation is identified as – Fear, Intimidation, Power, Control, – Notoriety, seeking a following. The abusive behaviour is itself rewarding and pleasurable – perpetrators even refer to it as addictive. Any shift in language or behaviour that indicates increased danger should be accepted as such and reported to the relevant authorities.
Addiction with increased and emerging violence is a known Red Flag and a Big One!
Ongoing targeting of the families of people who have died, school teachers, students, employers, employees, public figures and bloggers all follow the same patterns. There is now a growing industry of professionals who deal with addressing the abuse and threat that is very real.
In the UK and Europe there have been multiple prosecutions of offenders with Jail time. A number of people who have suffered at the hands of Netopaths now ensure that any servers and contracts for server provision are located within Europe. This places a higher obligation upon the service provider to act and deal with cyber abuse and predation – upto empowering law enforcement immediate access to necessary data to trace the aggressor. It does not matter where the actual servers are geographically located (Co location for back up and security purposes is industry standard) – it is the enforceable law under contract and by law enforcement that is the significant factor.
The same does not apply to service provision where the provider is US based.
Claims by net/web service providers that they lack the power or opportunity to deal with abusers are false. It should be considered that these service providers are using you, your data and your web presence to make money by Advertising Revenues. Being cynical – a popular website/page/profile that gains increased hits due to abusive content benefits their bank balance and not the victims mental state or physical welfare. If the providers were serious in dealing with abuse they would have a fast response system that addressed abuse and removed it promptly ( even immediately) … and yet the technology for this exists and is not being used.
Should you suffer damage, get an Attorney who is happy to sue the service provider as an accessory to the fact. They do exist and are waiting. Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom to commit injury.
Troll is a term that really needs to be retired and returned to fairy-tales, where it has had some relevance. It is a most misleading term when dealing with the reality of aberrant conduct via the net and the real damage that is anything other than childish!
Ok, I didn’t read all of that but I would make a distinction between unwelcome comments and attention from someone known to the victim in real life, or someone who’s purely online stalking goes far beyond the ordinary, and a once off angry comment on a youtube video.
Peter – some examples of supposedly innocuous One Off Troll Comments on blogs – in response to YouTube Videos etc. and some fall out for some none bloggers – just ordinary folks with little to no web presence.
Over 25 years of dealing with the Psychology of Computing – coupled with having had to deal with some very, very, very nasty types does tend to change your outlook … and some wonder why I write under a Nome De Plume? P^)
1) You’re a paedophile and I have the proof.
An interesting claim – given that it is generally impossible to prove A Negative! As I say “Mud Sticks” – and a thin spreading of a little mud artfully across the Internet is very damaging. Of course as an adult you may well see it as harmless and stupid – but when your kids friends are suddenly not allowed to visit your home … or even associate with your children, told to not associate with you at school – who is paying the price?
… and all because those comments appeared on the cross linking on a facebook page from Youtube, and other parents had security software on their kids computer than suddenly blocked access to their own child’s facebook page. The parent logs in – checks what is going on …. and the rest is history! It did not matter that the Video was ever so innocent and showed kids having fun … and they had all seen it as friends via social media! … and parents started sharing the link to warn each other of concerns…..
You protest that it’s just a lunatic troll and it’s all harmless. … so of course others believe you, because no-one in their right mind would ever make false claims and spread muck and mud about another, would they…. especially when the issue is so emotive and high impact?
Result – Netopath Unidentified – family relocate after 18 months of negative impact upon the children – including school bullying!
2) Screeds of abuse and rant followed by – remember, I know where you live – and here’s the link to StreetView.
The person who received that was beyond alarmed. In fact it was very easy to find their address from online public records and then use Streetview to scope out their home. It took me only a few minutes. That was an eye opener for them!
Couple that with a few photos published by a person linked on a social networking site of a child’s birthday party with images of the house Quite Visible, including house number – and they had even conveniently embedded geo-location in the Exif data in the images …. well It may just be a nasty rant, but the psychological implications are most serious.
The person did know here they lived and had proved it! They even knew the birthday of the targets child!
It was quite easy to find the photos – all that was needed was to tell the mapping website to show linked photos – and there they were. Some were shocked to find that photos taken in innocence were so accurately linked to the location and public – and they had no idea how it had happened.
Those few lines lead to a number of parents and family members all having to review exactly what data they were putting on-line and how. Many were not even aware of how it was happening. Funny how an app on your smartphone (One that you traded in for an upgrade) linked to geo-location decides to embed data from that app into photos taken on the same Smart Phone – and then uploads the lot to a file sharing site and tells all your friends about the pictures… and then links the originals to social networking…… and all someone did was take a photo of a birthday party to remember a particular moment – three years before!
Do you even know what Exif is, what it contains and how it gets there?
Do you clean images that you embed in sites – blogs – social networking – or do you cross link to originals with some rather pertinent data about you there for all to poke into! Who has access – and what formation is in those images?
They say that a picture speaks a thousand words – and if it’s digital it can say a lot more besides.
The target decided to move house and relocate to another neighbourhood. There was that nagging questions as to who the perp was! Maybe it was that neighbour who disliked your kids playing … or maybe it was someone had darker motives… and that odd inquiry a few years before from someone (Who The Hell was that) who had wanted to know if you wanted to sell the house…. Oh How Odd – They were the People who ended up buying The House… below market value. Never did get to the bottom of that one. P^0
Result – Netopath Suspect Identity Known – unable to obtain relevant evidence – family relocated.
3) Are you OK? I see that you are having problems – and I want to help!
This is most fascinating, and even bizzare. It looks so innocuous and filled with concern. In fact – it’s linked to a form of Identity Theft. The person targeted had online info, including photo’s of them taken and then fake identities were set up. It’s called Cloning!
Some less than suitable websites visited and commented upon – and a false trail left. Of course the victim was not empowered to have the fake details removed. The site owners told them to just log in and remove their profile data and adjust supposed privacy settings. ( Our T&Cs stste we have no liability – and if you want to take legal action come to this continent) They would not accept that the person reporting abuse was not the person who was acting to abuse. Worse the target did not even know of the issue until La merde well and trully frapped le ventilateur.
That one got nasty – especially when the person’s employer ran a weekly Google Check to see if any employees were engaged in online activity that could bring the Business into disrepute (It was part of contact of employment). That the person targeted was supposedly visiting sites that dealt with Suicide and they were supposedly discussing killing themselves due to the abuse of their employer was a bit of a shock! … intimations of sexual harassment… fraud…. lots of dark ideas and hints!
Now who was doing it? Was it the person themselves – another employee – someone in the field of business who was pissed – a lone nutcase… or even all or none of them?
So what happens when you have a high profile – public facing position in a business – and anyone who needs to contact you google’s your name and the business name and finds………..
Who is the target? Is it you – your boss/employer……?
The employer moved the target sideways in the business into an area with no career prospects – and out of the public eye. That’s a bit of an issue when you are in a media based business and all of your expertise and career is based on being client facing!
Result – netopath unidentified – employee moved to other duties – career progress halted – left employment and career prospects blunted. Family relationships damaged – divorce! Parent and children relocated for fresh start – other parent left behind, limited access to children.
There is an old saying “Truth Is Stranger Than Fiction!”. I deal with Journalists all the time – and the biggest issue that comes up there is that they need proof – a rational way to develop the story – and the issues are not readily summed up in a few column inches for their readership! Give them a suicide of one victim and they run with the story…. of tragedy to the family! The underlying issues and causes are simply missed.
Data Leakage via social networking – aggregation sites such as Linkedin – Yasni – sites that provide access to Census Data and even electoral data are most fascinating. What do they say about you – and where do they lead?
Yup there are some Inflammatory types out there – but that Inflammation is also empowered by technology that a number are learning to use in very negative ways. It’s a been a growing problem for 20 years and there are even clubs and groups of people, congregating is supposed safe cyber environments, who enjoy gathering and setting out to abuse innocent parties. They find it ever so funny! It’s a bizzare hobby!
I have a long, long history as a site moderator, owner and editor – and have had to deal with the fall out! Most of my work ended up being tracking the culprits and then providing the targets with all the relevant data to defend themselves – and get a few laws changed along the way! P^)
So yup – a foolish rant by a mindless cretin can be ignored – but then again, are you sure they are foolish – mindless – a cretin? … and are they alone or just acting as a lighting rod to attract others who seek fun and amusement at the expense of many others and don’t care who you are – just that you are a suitable target and readily abused.
I was glad to see that Mark Green takes the risk seriously – and acts on concerns, no matter how silly they may appear to others. Far too many people are unaware of the risks – and far too many have already been damaged most seriously.
It’s just a few words – but when you have to spend time and money and even relocate at great expense it is not a minor issue or one that should be brushed aside – and it’s not just the one person who can end up paying the price – it’s your spouse, kids, relatives and even your friends … and even your employer.
There is a focus upon on-line security around finances – fraud – identity theft. Those are readily quantifiable in Dollars and Cents – last year The Global Economic impact was estimated to exceed £1 Trillion – or about $150.00 for every man, woman and child on the planet.
But I always wonder at the cost of Reputation and piece of mind? Is $150.00 enough for your’s?
NB when you calculate individual cost by hours of access to the net ( noting that many billions lack net access at all ) the individual cost implication rises to as high as and in excess of $15,000.00 per person per year.
And it’s wrong to think that it’s only nasty comments that are an issue! The correct focus is upon the mindset and behaviour of the people who are intent upon mischief and damage.
I have been watching the Rutgers – Dharun Ravi – Clementi case with great interest. Some have seen it as a trial about bullying – and others as a privacy issue – yet others talk of it as an LGBT issue – and yet all of those miss a central issue. How the Internet was used by the perpetrators and the outcome of their actions.
It is interesting that Ravi’s defence repeatedly claimed that it was just a prank – the conduct of an immature freshman student – that seeing things via webcam that some wish to claim he was not emotionally and socially mature enough to deal with – when he was inviting people via Twitter to log in and watch a live show it was just a bit of silliness …. the excuses and explanations are all so old hat and evasions of reality. It was all a supposed Immature and ill considered Joke that ended up with unforeseen consequences.
Does that sound familiar in any way?
Odd how the Jury did not agree with the defence. Sentencing 21 May 2012.
It’s time for people to wake up and smell the reality! The Coffee Pot ran out over a decade ago – 09:54 UTC on August 22, 2001 to be exact.
I REALLY think that the whole troll phenomenon has really much more to do with the fact that most people are really bored, to put it mildly.
It’s all about engagement.
I absolutely loved what you wrote in this article about trolls. Sometimes I can be so confusing what to do when you encounter one, and a lot of the times , what they say really get to me so I am always constantly restraining myself from retaliating.
Just out of curiosity , do you think its worth trying to identify a troll and referring them to a police or is it quite impossible? – J.Y
MediaHound:
Wow, you have an amazing amount of info on this subject. You made a good distinction between trolls and netopaths — a great term, and one I’ve never heard of.
Glad you found it informative.
I noted that earlier your site was unavailable by any routing over the net! The servers were up and running – but your site was unable to respond to requests. I Hope it was just an odd server glitch?
You may want to check that your site is not being hit by false traffic requests – DDoS is a nasty thing and indicates that someone is in a nasty mood and acting on it!
I suspect that you have limited bandwidth allowances on your site/hosting – so someone may be attempting to eat your allowances and make you pay out cash to stay online! It is more frequent than people think or realise.
All the best!
Hmm…that doesn’t happen when I google myself or click the link in this article. Maybe it was just a weird one-time thing. Thanks for alerting me though.