![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Semiosis powers, activate!
Aug. 29th, 2012 08:04 pmI don't have time to flesh this out at the moment, but I suspect the problem we (where "we" equals "citizens of the Internet") have had in coming up best practices for dealing with message board trolls is at least partly because we're using "trolling" two describe two very different phenomena involving two different categories of people with two different aims.
Classic trolling, the one which spawned the "don't feed the trolls" approach, is the 4-chan variety. As with the prank call, the point is to say something outrageous and watch everyone react (or at least imagine them reacting). It's aggressive and derailing and often crude, but its objective involves curiosity: how will the target respond? There's a certain whimsy to it, a kind of "negative attention" pulling-on-pigtails sociability. Although it's ego-flattering to watch people scurry and know the cause was you, the provocation is essentially outward-focused for the same reason - you're watching people, thinking about people.
Which is why not reacting works; the troll is not amused by what he is saying, but by what people say back. If no one says back, the troll is bored and will go find someone who is more fun.
However, at least 90% of the so-called trolling I see now is not about getting a reaction, or even scrawling "I wuz here." It's an obnoxious cousin to mansplaining, one with the "splaning" part stripped out; instead of seeking a reaction, this style of troll wants you to stop having opinions in public. It does not matter if you are an expert on the subject, and the commentator didn't know it existed until your post, which he may not have finished reading; you are wrong, and he's not even mad about it - he just thinks it's cute you bother to try to talk as though you're a grown up person.
"Cute" is used advisedly; the most common comment is a simple "It's cute that you think that," end of message. No response is invited. No response is desired. The aim, if it exists, is a chilling effect, since this self-appointed Caesar is pretty sure his thumb up or down is all that matters or should matter. To anyone. That's why he doesn't have to explain or justify his "no." That's also why he's sure you need to hear it.
I don't imagine silence is the best defense against this kind of "my word is law" kneejerk patriarchy. (Based on user pictures, this type of commentator is perhaps exclusively white and male.)
For all the demonizing of social media as self-promotion and sanctification of social media as the apex of free speech, the reality is that most of us use social media the way it says on the label: socially. We post on message boards to be friendly. We don't have anything important to say; we're standing around the snacks table, making small talk about the weather. The very inanity of the talk is what makes it safe to feel someone else out; it's the bare ground that one casts seeds upon.
Using this internet-as-college-mixer metaphor, classic trolls are the immature grabby-hands "shakin' it up" drunk boys, whereas the second category ask your major solely so they can laugh about how unchallenging it is and never talk to you again. Which would be fine, except they go around doing this to everyone else too, embarrassing all the shy people so they go home and stay home the rest of the year. It's not just that these guys say bullshit; it's that they silence the people I actually wanted to hear from.
I don't know how to counter this category of behavior, but I think the first step is to stop calling it trolling, which unnecessarily confuses the issue. Perhaps we could call it "billying," for the times when some horny-headed stranger decides to casually stroll over and knock you off your own damn bridge.
Classic trolling, the one which spawned the "don't feed the trolls" approach, is the 4-chan variety. As with the prank call, the point is to say something outrageous and watch everyone react (or at least imagine them reacting). It's aggressive and derailing and often crude, but its objective involves curiosity: how will the target respond? There's a certain whimsy to it, a kind of "negative attention" pulling-on-pigtails sociability. Although it's ego-flattering to watch people scurry and know the cause was you, the provocation is essentially outward-focused for the same reason - you're watching people, thinking about people.
Which is why not reacting works; the troll is not amused by what he is saying, but by what people say back. If no one says back, the troll is bored and will go find someone who is more fun.
However, at least 90% of the so-called trolling I see now is not about getting a reaction, or even scrawling "I wuz here." It's an obnoxious cousin to mansplaining, one with the "splaning" part stripped out; instead of seeking a reaction, this style of troll wants you to stop having opinions in public. It does not matter if you are an expert on the subject, and the commentator didn't know it existed until your post, which he may not have finished reading; you are wrong, and he's not even mad about it - he just thinks it's cute you bother to try to talk as though you're a grown up person.
"Cute" is used advisedly; the most common comment is a simple "It's cute that you think that," end of message. No response is invited. No response is desired. The aim, if it exists, is a chilling effect, since this self-appointed Caesar is pretty sure his thumb up or down is all that matters or should matter. To anyone. That's why he doesn't have to explain or justify his "no." That's also why he's sure you need to hear it.
I don't imagine silence is the best defense against this kind of "my word is law" kneejerk patriarchy. (Based on user pictures, this type of commentator is perhaps exclusively white and male.)
For all the demonizing of social media as self-promotion and sanctification of social media as the apex of free speech, the reality is that most of us use social media the way it says on the label: socially. We post on message boards to be friendly. We don't have anything important to say; we're standing around the snacks table, making small talk about the weather. The very inanity of the talk is what makes it safe to feel someone else out; it's the bare ground that one casts seeds upon.
Using this internet-as-college-mixer metaphor, classic trolls are the immature grabby-hands "shakin' it up" drunk boys, whereas the second category ask your major solely so they can laugh about how unchallenging it is and never talk to you again. Which would be fine, except they go around doing this to everyone else too, embarrassing all the shy people so they go home and stay home the rest of the year. It's not just that these guys say bullshit; it's that they silence the people I actually wanted to hear from.
I don't know how to counter this category of behavior, but I think the first step is to stop calling it trolling, which unnecessarily confuses the issue. Perhaps we could call it "billying," for the times when some horny-headed stranger decides to casually stroll over and knock you off your own damn bridge.
