Discuss these results any way you like. You can still go back and respond to the poll. I deliberately avoided expressing an opinion in the post or the comments, but you can figure out something of my opinion from the way I composed the answers. I'm particularly interested in thinking about this subject in light of the hand-wringing over Russians trolling the 2016 election. I believe the fear of trolls is dangerous to a culture of freedom of speech, and I'd like to welcome people all over the world to participate in the political debate in America, just as I want Americans to be able to talk to people in other countries about what we think about their politics. We need to build up our vigor, not become more dependent on the government to filter out things that might confuse us.
पोस्ट्स
७८ टिप्पण्या:
The wording on the last option as you saw it displayed at yesterday's post was "A good troll knows how to take the bait Althouse serves and whip it into a delightful new concoction."
The pollcode software restricts how long the answers can be, but once I have the code, I can rewrite whatever I want. When you look at the answer page, however, you will see what I what I wrote before I copied the code. Sometimes I correct typos, but mostly the changes are just adding words where I wanted to write a too-long option.
I believe the fear of trolls is dangerous to a culture of freedom of speech,
Eliminating trolls is the next logical progression after we've eliminated all "hate speech".
I still think we need to define our terms of good and bad
A good troll: one who agrees with me
A good troll: one who is very adept at their job or purpose that they have set for themselves. Gets results whether you like it or not.
A good troll: hard to recognize that they are actually trolling until you have been hooked. Dang! I fell for that.
A good troll: amusing and skilled in manipulating the process and fun to watch AKA Althouse's last option. (my choice)
A bad troll: doesn't agree with me
A bad troll: one who is so obvious about it, that it is plain that they are trolling.
A bad troll: one who can't keep up the game, gets mad, flustered and devolves into name calling and virtual drooling.
A bad troll: one who is tedious and repetitive and no one is biting
I don't believe everyone who is labeled as a troll is a troll. Trolls try to get an emotional response, but people who are trying to get others to think in a way that is unwelcome to them are also called trolls.
Is this like the difference between being a good witch and a bad witch? Maybe someone will make a musical about them, sort of like Wicked. Maybe bad trolls are just misunderstood.
Es gibt eine endgültige Lösung für das Trollproblem.
This summer: the Million Troll March.
Is there anyone commenting on this blog (or any other) that doesn't troll to some extent?
Is "troll" in the context of blog comments a noun or a verb? The noun is the diminutive mythical nasty person. But the verb is a method of fishing where you pull the bait on your hook near the bottom of the lake while the boat moves forward slowly. Which is it?
The Russian trolls now have CNN harassing people.
Mission: COMPLETE.
I would think the prosecution of someone's (i.e., a troll) U.S. political views or ideas on the international medium called the internet is very shaky.
All mankind is divided into three categories: Dicks, Pussies, and Assholes There are trolls in every category, but the good ones (good in all senses, morally upright, competent, and effective) tend to be Dicks.
"Is this like the difference between being a good witch and a bad witch?"
Bad trolls are ugly.
As to a good troll: I imagine it as "effective." Effective trolls avoid the banhammer (or target communities that don't use it) and get their message across.
Trolling is an action that I don't think can be inherently good.
Bad trolls need houses dropped on them.
From Urban Dictionary:
"[Trolling is the] art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue. Trolling does not mean just making rude remarks: Shouting swear words at someone doesn't count as trolling; it's just flaming, and isn't funny. Spam isn't trolling either; it pisses people off, but it's lame.
"The most essential part of trolling is convincing your victim that either a) truly believe in what you are saying, no matter how outrageous, or b) give your victim malicious instructions, under the guise of help.
Trolling requires deceiving; any trolling that doesn't involve decieving someone isn't trolling at all; it's just stupid. As such, your victim must not know that you are trolling; if he does, you are an unsuccessful troll."
So trolling is like the fishing method, and practiced by nasty people. It's a candy mint and a breath mint!
Good trolls are ugly too. Unless you're an ethnographer who sees the beauty in all living things.
"Is "troll" in the context of blog comments a noun or a verb? The noun is the diminutive mythical nasty person. But the verb is a method of fishing where you pull the bait on your hook near the bottom of the lake while the boat moves forward slowly. Which is it?"
I have an old post where I've gone into the OED definitions of troll, including troll, the verb. There are a lot of meanings to the verb troll, not just the fishing one — consider "Troll the ancient Yuletide carol" — and there's a "Draft additions March 2006":
intr. Computing slang. To post a deliberately erroneous or antagonistic message on a newsgroup or similar forum with the intention of eliciting a hostile or corrective response. Also trans.: to elicit such a response from (a person); to post messages of this type to (a newsgroup, etc.).
1992 Re: Post the FAQ in alt.folklore.urban (Usenet newsgroup) 8 Oct. Maybe after I post it, we could go trolling some more and see what happens.
1993 Re: Bread & Napolean's Lemur in alt.folklore.urban (Usenet newsgroup) 17 Feb. This looks like perfectly good AFU material... Or have I just been trolled?
2001 D. Crystal Lang. & Internet ii. 53 Not all chatgroups troll; some insert clues to the existence of a troll into a message that only the cognoscenti recognize; some are very much against the whole process, conscious of the communicative disruption that can result.
2005 B. McWilliams Spam Kings iii. 69 Once, after a spammer trolled Nanae, accusing antis of having no life, Mad Pierre sarcastically responded that the spammer was correct.
I believe the fear of trolls is dangerous to a culture of freedom of speech, and I'd like to welcome people all over the world to participate in the political debate in America, just as I want Americans to be able to talk to people in other countries about what we think about their politics.
Fear of trolls? Seriously? Annoyed, perhaps. Think about what an internet troll does. He or she deliberately posts something provocative even if it's inconsistent with his/her own beliefs. The purpose is to sit back and enjoy the ensuing carnage. While I don't believe trolls should be banned from the 'net, I never knowingly respond to trolls. If they are ignored, they usually disappear because what they crave is attention.
The definition is pretty simple: if you comment on blogs, you are trolling. Some people are better at it than others. I like to think of trolling in the context of fishing.
My horse placed! I guess that means I get my money back.
But I see your point. It's not about whether "troll" is a verb or a noun, but whether the current usage of "troll" in this context (as a noun or a verb) connects back to the old verb that includes caroling and fishing (and rolling and walking around casually and cruising for homosexual partners) or to the old noun which has to do with the Swedish mythological creature who lives in a cave.
mockturtle at 2:55 PM
Howard at 2:56 PM
perfect juxtaposition showing how much it matters whether you make the definition narrow or broad.
I saw that too, Sablan. That's bad trolling. Especially when it is already news that CNN hyped an anti-Trump rally funded by Russians. This old lady held a rally, and the Russians decided to kick in a few bucks. I doubt her "collusion" with Russians was anywhere near the financial support that CNN provided the Russians by hyping the anti-Trump rally.
Maybe Trump should insist Sessions look into CNN collusion with Russian trolls, and include investigation of whether any crimes were committed, such as fraud, when CNN colluded with the Hillary and the DNC during the primary debates.
I disagree, Ann. I think Mockturtle's definition is quite broad because every commentator is looking to provoke agreement, disagreement,joy, hate, indifference, disgust, laughter, tears, etc. Provocation of any sort is exactly what produces the dopamine surge we all crave.
Most of what I've seen of internet trolls has been on other fora. On a vehicle forum, for example, a troll might post: "Any Chevy truck is a POS" or "I tow a 8500 lb. trailer with my Jeep Cherokee". In other words, just wanting to start an endless debate about either assertion. Once a poster gets the rep for being a troll, though, he is usually called out and ignored. There are few trolls on this blog. But they know who they are.
Bad Trolls:
For Jesus had said to him, “Come out of this man, you evil spirit!”
Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?”
“My name is Trolls,” he replied, “for we are many.”
Good Trolls:
By command of His Most Merciful Excellency your lives are to be spared. Slaves you were and slaves you remain. But the terrible penalty of crucifiixion has been set aside on the single condition that you identify the body or the living person of the slave called Troll.
I'm Troll!
I'm Troll!
I'm Troll!
I'm Troll!
I'm Troll!
I'm Troll!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8h_v_our_Q
Provocation of any sort is exactly what produces the dopamine surge we all crave.
Speak for yourself, Howard. I have zero desire to provoke. Debate, discuss, agree, disagree, yes. Provoke, no. YMMV.
Sometimes in life you just gotta troll with the punches..........
Trolls has too many meanings to fit in any of these categories.
They might show up, leave a snarky remark, and never appear on the thread again.
They might show up to start an argument.
They might try to derail a thread where their opinion has no merit, simply because they've nothing else to say.
They might show up and leave a decent comment (for or against the prevailing opinion of the forum), but then devolve into insults and invective when someone disagrees.
They might use a pseudonym to get a reaction, and then use their real name to attack those who responded positively.
They might use many sockpuppets to generate the appearance of a consensus or to inflate a minority opinion into a majority.
They might use sockpuppets as attack dogs, in an attempt to silence reasonable discussion or silence a particular commenter that they have no real ability to argue with.
There are too many potential classes of trolls to describe the traits of the group.
No troll is an island, entirely an asshole of themself; every troll is a piece of our shared internet based inhumanity, a part of the main. If a small bit of trolling be mocked away by other commentators, the internet is all the lesser for it, as well as if a major media opinionist were so, as well as if that astute comment of thy partisan friend or of thine own were: sure: every asshole's trolling diminishes me, because we are trolling the rest of personkind and therefore never send to know for whom the asshole trolls; the asshole trolls for thee.
Uban Dictionary offers a good range of troll definitions. No mention that human trolls may have positive qualities (except #4, when joking). The creativity of 2a is amusing.
But we're talking here about internet trolls (which have been a blight on this blog).
troll
1a. Noun
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.
1b. Noun
A person who, on a message forum of some type, attacks and flames other members of the forum for any of a number of reasons such as rank, previous disagreements, sex, status, ect.
A troll usually flames threads without staying on topic, unlike a "Flamer" who flames a thread because he/she disagrees with the content of the thread.
1c. Noun
A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses others. Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as thinks every member of the forum is talking about them and only them. Trolls often go by multiple names to circumvent getting banned.
2a. Noun
Sometimes compared to the Japanese ‘Oni’, a troll is a supernatural creature of Scandinavian folklore, whose race was thought to have carried massive stones into the countryside (although actually the result of glaciers). Lives in hills, mountains, caves, or under bridges. They are stupid, large, brutish, hairy, long-nosed, and bug-eyed, and may also have multiple heads or horns. Trolls love to eat people, especially small children.
The Females of the species are generally kinder and more intelligent, but still fairly hideous.
2b. Noun
An aesthetically repulsive person, often has terrible social skills, usually a woman. See Troglodyte.
2c. Noun
An old, unattractive gay man who hits on young men, and cannot seem to understand that they want nothing to do with him.
3a. Verb
To fish by dragging bait behind a moving motor-boat.
3b. Verb
To cruise for immediate sexual pleasure without commitment. Often characterized by an older man, seeking a younger man, or any man for immediate, often anonymous sexual contact.
4. Noun
A joke disguised as an outrageously stupid statement or question, intended to trap people into believing it is serious.
5. Verb
To use acid and ectasy simulataneously. See trolling.
(Comes from ‘Tripping’ on acid, and ‘Rolling’ on ecstasy)
6. Noun
A toy popular in the 1980’s, a ‘troll’ is a cute little plastic trolls with fluffy, colored hair.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll
This is in honor of Judge Smails' yacht speech in Caddyshack:
So, the Left lost a race/ they were told by the polls/ they would win.
But the polls musta lied/'cuz the trolls did abide/while the Left took it hard on the chin.
Speaking the truth in public remains the one sin that is punished. Calling them trolls is code for censoring them.
Let Competition expose the trolls without censoring everybody. Let them debate.
Norwegian mythical creature.
I believe the fear of trolls is dangerous to a culture of freedom of speech
We have no one to troll but trolls themselves.
"Fear of trolls? Seriously? Annoyed, perhaps."
Here's what it was like under Stalin:
"...every citizen learned never to utter their thoughts aloud, even in the bosom of their family, and never to express the mildest criticism of the regime. It was safe to speak only in murmurs.
The second kind of whisperers were, of course, the great legion of informers, who told their mad tales to the NKVD (Moscow's enforcers) and then watched their victims swept away to their fate."
That's why NPR and other news sites eliminated comments on their website. That's why you can punch a "Nazi" or a "Fascist" with impunity almost anywhere in this country. Burn Trump in effigy and you'll have a great turnout, a festival. Try wearing a MAGA ball cap on any college campus and see what it gets you.
It's the sam old impulse.
The results are remarkably even.
One can only conclude we are all trolls now, to a good number somewhere.
Ich bin ein troll.
Seems to me that the definition of a troll varies.
Maybe it's not popular, but to the extent you have a high-quality commenter who consistently posts against the majority/norm position on a forum or site or blog, those are generally the persons most valuable.
Some would call them trolls, though. When I think of trolling, I tend to think of persons who consistently post in a way designed to shift from the issues at hand in order to destroy dialogue.
Note also, that really skilled trolls often try to post in a way that seems supportive of the majority dialogue, but do so in a way that would still disrupt it.
For example, we were arguing at Meade's Althouse over some very important and controversial question such as "Should dog parks impose a lower weight limit for entry?" and the discussion was going full swing, with the majority coming around to the idea that perhaps there could be a problem with joyously romping hundred pound dogs stepping on the chihuahuas, and proceeding to advocate for a voluntary "small dog enclosure", a true troll might weigh in with "No small dogs should be allowed at a dog park because they are all nasty and vicious, and their owners are all nitwits", thus diverting the discussion into a defense of small dog temperaments and their owners.
We must discern between ordinary Trolls and Russian Trolls.
The former have Fist Amendment rights, even if they use false identities on Facebook to sow political discord.
The latter, however, must register with the Department of Justice -- Division of Foreign Trolling, before engaging in efforts to sow political discord.
Any unregistered Troll trying to sow political discord will be reported directly to Mr. Mueller at the Office of Special Counsel -- Troll division.
And, even if said unregistered Trolls live 14,000 miles away, they will not evade the long-arm of American justice.
Be ever vigilant. Our Troll-free democracy is at stake.
The only good troll is read troll.
I wrote it yesterday- trolls won't answer questions- this is how you identify them. When asked a question they will immediately change the subject or ask a question in return. Basically, once I have identified them this way, I pretty well never engage with them again unless they accidentally make a point worth exploring, which is quite rare.
I don't know why people feel the need to engage them- what part of your pride is on the line here? None that I have ever been able to understand.
No troll is an island, entirely an asshole of themself; every troll is a piece of our shared internet based inhumanity, a part of the main. If a small bit of trolling be mocked away by other commentators, the internet is all the lesser for it, as well as if a major media opinionist were so, as well as if that astute comment of thy partisan friend or of thine own were: sure: every asshole's trolling diminishes me, because we are trolling the rest of personkind and therefore never send to know for whom the asshole trolls; the asshole trolls for thee.
I assume 'D' stand for Donne?
Mockturtle: Thanks for provoking this response ;^0 You post quite a lot. To whom are youm speaking? Yourself? Your denial is proof enough of your addiction. QED
Russian trolls are easy to spot, they are constructed like verbal Matryoshka dolls
Actually, Howard, I am not trying to provoke a response. My comments are merely comments, take them or leave them.
Over Donne.
Some trolls live under bridges and they are not all mythical. Although I never saw any in Sweden when I was there, I did see one in Denmark on my way to Sweden. Drinking a Grolsch.
This blog has only a couple of trolls, by my definition.
A troll does not contribute to the discussion but posts only nasty comments to draw responses and thereby validating his own existence.
Only a couple.
A good troll challenges us to practice empathy.
A good troll exposes orientations and expressions that are internally, externally, and mutually inconsistent.
The better troll will indulge in whimsy and stand guard over your lawn.
Dinesh D'Souza is finding out trolling is not as easy as it may seem.
What is the value of speech by a fake person or a person impersonating someone else?
I've always seen trolls in fairy tales as a cautionary reference to child predators. Children in these tales were often warned about the evil troll under the bridge and I have no doubt that such predators existed even in the days of the Brothers Grimm.
Over Donne.
Hat tip to Scott.
facebook asked me if i was a troll last week. i was cliking like on all the posts asking my swamp creature senator (stabenow) to resign. the capcha displayed would have required a machine to read it so i ignored it and carried on. it happened twice more. and then a dialogue box popped up claiming i was reading at bot speed. now mind you, years ago there was that lizamoon. com virus thing . . . so i sorta forgive them.
it all coms down to intent... if your post is meant to challenge and cause people to think outside their programming, then you are a good troll... if it’s meant to simply cqusencnfusion and strife, then you’re bad...
cqusencnfusion === cause confusion
Ann here stands strong to encourage her readers to rely on news outlets who discredit some Parkland children shot as plants of the Jew Soros conspiracy to promote AR-15 rights.
Ann's discernment doesn't allow that one scurrilous story is any worse than others. No, Ann says, no lie or troll is any more contemptible or indecent. Indecency itself, Ann says, is part of the Trumpalist appeal.
Wait a minute -- intl Clinton prog crime conspiracy birther Bill Broaderick Chappaquiddick--there are levels of indecency. Ann posts in praise of trolls ranging from phone operators to Russian operatives: all's a lie, who can tell anything?
I can see how she thinks it's pretty funny!
How many people really believe in free speech any more?
Stephen: "What is the value of speech by a fake person or a person impersonating someone else?"
The problem is if you try to regulate speech by someone who is not who they claim to be, you are inevitably going to suppress speech by people who are not fake. I don't think speech by anti-Semites or bigots or just plain fools is in and of itself useful. But the cure is worse than the disease. Always.
We are at a bizarre pass. We won't ask people for ID when they want to vote - a form of speech that is absolutely critical to our democracy - but now we want to ask for ID on social media before someone can post an opinion? This is crazy.
Have you EVER heard of a whistleblower? There are many reasons why a legitimate speaker might wish to be anonymous when telling us something we really need to know. You think identity verification standards won't be misused by corporations and politicians (generally to hide corruption?). It is always the powerful who use controls over speech to try to maintain their power.
Once upon a time the web was fine
The blogs all buzzing in their prime, wasnt it?
People post, say 'beware doll, its all bound to fall'
You thought they were all kidding you
Bloggingheads would chat about
Language, events, just hanging out
Now it dont seem so nice
Bad faith actors, unsound advice,
And having to read all these tweeted squealssssssss
How does it feel, how does it feel?
To hear the same ol groans
In moronic tones
Like a trolling drone.
Now that may be a little over done. In my defense, trolling rhymes with rolling.
A comment in complete bad faith is a troll to me because I go with the idea of "a troll is ugly and bad." There's no point in answering or even reading the thing. The Russian troll farms were on all sides - the DNC and the RNC and Bernie and Jill Stein whereas those commenters who specialize in passing on DNC talking points believe in the DNC but not the RNC. They are trollish because they'd repeat anything the DNC said but they aren't trolls - yet. Other comments which are trying to catch people in contradictions or make them think or upset them are "fishing", "being ugly", "challenging", and a host of names other than "trolling" because they are sincerely intended to support a position achieved by some effort at independent thinking and held by a real person
langford peel:
Moby.
John Pickering.
Not even good enough to be a troll.
False virtue signalling, john, about a subject you know nothing about.
If you build up your vig-gah, then ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!
Now where'd that stewardess run off to in my pajama top?
Agree with Michael K.
>This blog has only a couple of trolls, by my definition.
My definition of Trolls:
1. Clog up the comments with junk.
2. The poster can't be reasoned with.
3. Nasty Personal attacks.
4. Other blogs have Russian trolls that post the strangest things, but I have not noticed any here.
Everyone in public positions, in public argument, lies.
This is inevitable as they take a side, and in advocating for something or against another, at best knowingly manage the truth, including some aspects of the totality of truth while excluding others. The best way to lie is to include just the useful parts of the truth.
The MSM lies constantly, sometimes by stating or repeating untruth, under various subterfuges, but for the most part it does so through exclusion and emphasis.
If there isnt an equal, opposite source for the other side of the truth, those things unspoken or minimized, then you have an effective propaganda system.
One way to avoid lies is to be neutral, to not have an interest in the outcome of the argument, or of related arguments. This is difficult, even for someone, an academic or scientist say, with the objective of the entire truth, whatever it may be. Even when the subject is not some human dispute but nature.
Nature of course is the best filter against lies, because only the truth works. Lie to yourself about nature and you will get nowhere.
Feynmans famous 1974 Caltech lecture "Cargo Cult Science" (online in several places) is well worth a read, on the state of mind required to even attempt to retain scientific integrity, and thereby get anything done.
This is one of the most difficult things to teach even technical professionals, in solving purely technical problems, where the other "side" is nature. It gets much worse when the other "side" is organizational politics. Nature tends to get a word in fairly quickly though.
But when we are dealing with people, where nature is not close at hand (nature does speak of course, delayed, buffered and muted), then imagine the difficulty.
The worst of it is in the fuzziness of language. Not only is it the path of transmission of lies, it is the very fertile subject of lies. He said, she said, he meant, she meant.
Let's not forget Molly Hemingway's great piece in the Federalist:
How The Media Enable Rep. Adam Schiff’s Russian Bot Conspiracy Theories
"...Thankfully, some other voices are making their way in this hysterical climate. Adrian Chen wrote the definitive piece on Russian troll farms back in 2015 for the New York Times Sunday Magazine. It is well worth a read for anyone wanting a factual look at how Russian troll armies work and how to guard against them. His piece centers on the very same Internet Research Agency whose members were indicted by Robert Mueller on Friday. He knocked down the Russian bot hysteria on MSNBC: [link]
Masha Gessen is a vehement and long-standing Putin critic. She has written a book warning about Putin and many articles comparing Putin and Trump. Even she, in a new article for The New Yorker, mocks the hysteria over the troll farms and says of the Russian bot operation that it was “not at all sophisticated, and about as bold as, say, keying a neighbor’s car under the cover of night.”
http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/21/how-the-media-enable-rep-adam-schiffs-russian-bot-conspiracy-theories/
Masha Gessen:
"...Trump’s tweet about Moscow laughing its ass off was unusually (perhaps accidentally) accurate. Loyal Putinites and dissident intellectuals alike are remarkably united in finding the American obsession with Russian meddling to be ridiculous. The intellectuals are amused to see Americans so struck by an indictment that adds virtually nothing to a piece published in the Russian media outlet RBC, back in October; I wrote at the time that the article showed the Russian effort to be more of a cacophony than a conspiracy. The Kremlin and its media are, as Joshua Yaffa writes, tickled to be taken so seriously. Their sub-grammatical imitations of American political rhetoric, their overtures to the most marginal of political players, are suddenly at the very heart of American political life. This is the sort of thing Russians have done for decades, dating back at least to the early days of the Cold War, but those efforts were always relegated to the dustbin of history before they even began.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-fundamental-uncertainty-of-muellers-russia-indictments
True, but politically incorrect for the New Yorker.
Quaestor's a good troll. Never eat a burhobbit, poor little blighter.
I don't troll, but I do lurk. Look out! I'm behind you in the shadows.
"Other blogs have Russian trolls that post the strangest things, but I have not noticed any here."
There might be a couple at Powerline.
NRO is over run with them.
I always figured that in matters of opinion, words stand for themselves and identity is irrelevant, as are credentials.
If you don't believe that, why are you commenting on blogs?
Buwaya observes: Nature of course is the best filter against lies, because only the truth works. Lie to yourself about nature and you will get nowhere.
Yes!
Jon Ericson.
Pussy.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा