IC :
BDSM Dictionary : Internet troll: history
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z
This entry is part of the BDSM Dictionary hosted by Informed Consent.
This is the version from 14 Aug 05, 7:15 PM. The full history of this entry will show any more recent versions.
| Contents |
{{Wikipedia|Internet_troll}}
In the context of the Internet, a troll is a message that seems to at least one user to be inaccurate, inflammatory or hostile, which by effect or design causes a disruption in discourse. The word is also often used to describe a person posting such messages.Scientific view
Trolling can be described as a breaching experiment, which, because of the use of an alternate persona, allows for normal social boundaries and rules of etiquette to be tested or otherwise broken, without serious consequences.
This may be part of an attempt to test the limits of some discourse, or to identify reactive personalities. By removing identities and histories from the situation, leaving only the discourse, some scientists believe that it is possible to run social engineering experiments using troll methods.
However, few believe that troll organizations are engaged in science, and a few scattered individuals with no particular method or thesis cannot be described as scientists. They might however be engaged in research.Political view
Some authorities consider the term "troll", when used to label a person, as being roughly equivalent to "riff-raff" or "scum" or some other term that dismisses a person as being unworthy of being heard for reasons that are not directly stated. "Some even consider it to be racist."
Many - perhaps most - people labelled "trolls" are simply being called a name by someone else in the course of a religious, political or other ordinary type of dispute. In other words they are simply a dissident or heretic, no better or worse than the authority they argue with. 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 numbers) is not necessarily a sign of any superior political or moral judgement.
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 may use the label without consequence, usually in a joking or disarming way. For instance:
Self-proclaimed "trolls" may style themselves as devil's advocates, 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.
Critics have claimed 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.Use as pejorative
As a pejorative, the term "troll" is very often a slander of opponents in heated debates. People who identify as trolls and those who vehemently deny that they are trolls will both use the term, often making it obvious to all neutral third parties that both participants are, in fact, trolls: one who admits it, and one who does not. Accordingly the view has arisen in some circles that trolls, the plural, is a valid term, but that it is not valid to refer to someone as an Internet troll on their own. In other words, it takes two to troll, and once they do, they're two trolls.
It could also have originated from the prase "don't feed the troll" as giving them ammunition by replying to their posts often in fact made them stronger and perpetuated the argument.Vicious cycles
Many times a person will post a sincere message that they are emotionally sensitive about. Skillful trolls know that the easiest way to upset them is to falsely claim that the person is a troll. On other occasions a person may not instantly understand or fit into the social norms of a forum where most people are the same - and so acting just slightly out of social norms, often unintentionally, for legitimate reasons gets the poster called a troll. "Whether they actually "are" a troll depends wholly on whether one takes the political view of trolling, in which motives are not considered."
Sometimes people who are merely attempting to be funny are accused of trolling, when that is not their intent. Many trolls now find that the traditional trolling tactics are so overused and commonplace that they have to disguise their trolling to make it effective - although, quite often, the disguising merely involves accusing others of being trolls themselves.Troll culture
The long history of trolling and the strong support for anonymous and pseudonymous discourse on the Internet, suggests that the story of the anonymous troll is only beginning. 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.
This culture seems to have gone beyond the vague Scandinavian mythological identification and included some elements of Celtic culture, including a sort of status for the more effective poets and rhetoricians among them. The Wikipedia red faction was a notable group of this sort, employing largely Marxist rhetoric. The Anarchopedia similarly employs some anarchist rhetoric and seems to actively encourage self-identification and factional expression among trolls. To a lesser degree so has Consumerium.Usage
Calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives that are impossible to determine, whereas using the verb (calling a post "trolling") describes the reception of a post without making assumptions about motives. Such assumptions would generally be an example of the fundamental attribution error; i.e. inferring that behavior results from a person's nature or personality rather than examining behavior in the context of events surrounding the behavior. In other words, trolling may have more to do with context than with personality. Also, it may be possible to troll unintentionally. Regardless, both users and posts are commonly labelled as trolls when their content upsets people.
The term troll is highly subjective, and some posts will look like trolling to some while seeming like meaningful contributions to others. For example, a so-called troll may be playing Devil's advocate by stating conservative opinions in a liberal forum. Behavior which might be considered a simple rampage or an emotional outburst in other environments is often tagged with the term troll in Internet discussion.
The term is frequently used to discredit an opposing position in an argument. This can amount to an ad hominem argument; a purported troll of this nature may actually hold an insightful but controversial position that is generating controversy precisely "because" it has successfully challenged entrenched opinions.
Possible reasons people use more slang monikers in Internet-mediated discussion include the feeling of anonymity and impersonal perceptions of other conversants.
Regardless of the writer's motives, controversial posts are virtually guaranteed, in most online forums, to earn 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, that originated in such physical communities are often applied naively by newcomers to the Internet who are not used to the range of views expressed online, especially anonymously.
Troll food refers to replies to the original controversial troll posts, that the trolls subsequently use as feedback to throw more fuel to the fire of their posts.
"Please do not feed the Trolls" is a warning sign that other article readers post to warn newbies that they believe the original poster is a troll.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.
Common types of troll messages or activities:
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.
Proposed motivations for trolling:
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 conflict 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 offtopic.
Regarding troll-related conflicts, there are six groups into which users might be classified:
In the attention-seeking cases, trolls seek the conflict provided by trollbaiters, whereas in the "cry for help" cases, they seek the consolance and compassion offered by moderators.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 trollhunters (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 not emerge at all.See Also
(This entry in the BDSM Dictionary incorporates text from the Internet troll article in Wipipedia.)
This entry is published under the terms of the GFDL. People with profiles on Informed Consent can improve this entry: see the BDSM Dictionary help page for details.
