Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Here's an idea: Maybe there's a positive side to trolls on the internet.
...or not.
So this episode is going to be a little bit different than normal. I got
most of the way through writing it before realizing I didn't agree at all with what I was saying.
But instead of scrapping it, we decided to shoot it anyway and then at the end we're gonna talk about how and
why I changed my mind.
So, in classic Stark Trek color coding, red shirt me will get himself into some trouble;
and blue shirt me will hopefully clean up his mess. So. Here we go.
AAAHHH, trolls. Everyone's favorite member of the online discursive foodchain.
Depending upon who you ask a troll could be many different things; very generally speaking
they are people who endeavor to interfere, to disrupt... to anger.
Trolling high priest Weev has described trolling as a form of "combative rhetoric".
Trolls are drawn to comment threads, Twitter, facebook, irc --
Basically anywhere where people talk online or...are
They might say purposefully offensive things; argue for the sake of arguing or just
refuse to stay on topic--
--and the more time YOU spend responding to or trying to reason with them, the more successful
they are. It's kind of like The Game: to play at all is to lose. Oh and btw: the game. sorry.
To lots of people trolls are simply a nuisace but at their worst, they can do considerable
emotional damage, especially when the targets are unfamiliar with ye olde addage: "DONT
FEED THE TROLLS." So. That addage is the very shaky foundation upon
which the episode is built. We'll talk more about what that means in a few minutes.
All of this does raise an important question: which is: why would a troll choose to spend their time...
being a jerk... to strangers?
Well there are lots of reasons. Some trolls would say it's simply fun; some would say there's
a certain justice to it--keeping the ignorant or gullible busy and therefore out of other
people's business.
And along that same line others still might say that they, the trolls themselves, are providing...a SERVICE...
to the very people they are trolling. UUUGGGGHHHH. Nope. don't agree with that.
So let's, for a moment and if we can stomach it but I think we can because we're all
professionals -- step into the... shoes? of a troll.
Recently we talked about the Filter Bubble. It's a technologically determined effect that
isolates you from views that challenge your own. Chances are, though, that you consciously
isolate yourself more than the internet cuts you off. Most of us don't purposfully
interact with people that we vehemently disagree with.
So that means that your positions and ideas are constantly reaffirmedby the people around you--this is called the
Echo Chamber Effect. Which, incidentally, is exactly what this episode
suffers from, at least partially. It's written based on experiences that are very easy to nod assuredly
at if you're someone LIKE. ME. Again, more about this in just a minute.
But then -- along comes a troll, who is more than happy to let EVERYONE know how wrong they are. And
let's say, for argument's sake, that you don't heed the golden rule and feed them a big ole
argumentative dinner.
Maybe in said argument it's helpful to have a devil's advocate testing you. Whatever your point of view,
perhaps it could benefit from being subjected to troll ... "logic". In the process while maybe getting
worked up, is it not possible that your argument is also, improving?
And really: WHY GET SO WORKED UP IN THE FIRST PLACE? Arguing with a troll is like shouting
at the ocean. If the ocean were ... racist.
Which, actually, let's make one distinction clear. I'm drawing a line between trolls who "troll"
and trolls who HARASS; YES the line is fine and in some cases semantic, BUT:
it might also be the one between trolls and bullies; there is a difference, I think, between
someone celebrating the judicious application of frustrating rhetorical techniques ...and
someone attempting to ruin a life.
But really, in the process of getting all worked up over what some stranger on the internet
says you might have a kind of epiphany.
Why... am I engaging with this person? Why am I taking this so seriously?
OOOOOHHHH KAY. So it was after writing that line--about why you would take strangers on the internet
SOOOOO SERIOUSLY--that I had a moment of crushing doubt. Followed by crushing self-awareness.
Followed by crushing my own head between my hands.
Let's talk for a second about what I thought I was saying, what I ENDED UP saying, and why those
things aren't compatible or....good
So in order to make the original claim that there's a "good" side to trolling I had to make
two additional claims:
First: to avail yourself of that "good", you need to make a conscious decision to "FEED" the trolls.
And second: that there is an important and clear difference between trolls who want to
waste people's time...
...and trolls who want to harass or threaten. Now, if those things are the case then we're
all good. EXCEPT!
While *I* might have the luxury of choosing to NOT feed the trolls, for other people it's
not so straight forward.
For some people, simply having a presence online is treated as grounds for harassment.
Amanda Hess, Jill Filipovic and Emily Graslie have all recently spoken about how
simply DOING THEIR JOB invites all manner of torment. Links in the doobly-doo.
Depending upon the context, "Don't feed the trolls" puts responsibility on the person
being trolled, and not the environment hosting the trolling.
It says "Oh,--those people who are threatening to kill you hundreds of times a
day? Just ignooooore themmmmmm.", which after a point, might not only become impossible
but FOOLISH.
It DOESN'T ask how and why such extreme behavior exists and it might be otherwise disincentivized.
But ok! What if it IS just someone arguing and saying flame-baity things?
Aren't people allowed to have an opinion?
Sure! And we can even agree that there IS a line between even the harshest criticism and threats
of physical violence against someone and their entire family.
BUT--and here's the thing that really ... dawned on me--if you suffer, day after day, through
instance after instance of the worst kind of trolling...
...is it not possible that the other kind--the argumentative, negative-for-negativity's-sake
kind--might always BECOME the threatening kind? Or serve as a reminder of it? Or, at
the very least, create an environment where it feels inevitable?
I don't know. I'm actually asking.
Now, maybe, you'll say "Well that's the price you pay for making things on the internet"
And to that. I say. "NO."
Making things does not mean that you "sign up" to be harassed. Criticized, sure.
But not harassed. It might happen, you might even expect it--but I don't think one excuses the other.
And telling someone of a certain cultural milieu that if they don't like it, they just
shouldn't use the internet is kind of like telling them that they shouldn't participate in SOCIETY.
Footnote: Moxie Marlinspike @ DefCon. Doobly-doo.
This is why I'm uncomfortable talking about the "benefits" of trolling. In a vacuum the
existence of argumentative, rhetorical sparring is ultimately harmless and yes, maybe even good to have around.
But no culture exists in a vaccuum. In a recent and AWESOME TEDx Talk, Doctor Whitney Phillips
talks about trolling, some of its context, and why it doesn't deserve to be ignored or
unilaterally condemned.
And, for the record, I agree. I don't think it should. I do, however, think my reasoning
on the road to the "good side" of trolling lacked accurate context and as result was
flawed at best... and dangerous at worst.
In our last episode we talked about how privacy is different things for different people--and
at least in one corner of the internet that might not be more true
than when comparing people like me and ANY infrastructurally oppressed group.
However: for those groups, their differing privacy is not always a choice. Though men, women,
straight, ***, trans* and cis all live in the same public--our experiences of
it are VASTLY different.
The degree to which members of certain communities deal with intense and vicious trolling indicates
that simply because of who they are... they are seen as deserving of less privacy.
Not long ago on twitter, Charlotte Ashlock asked me if there was something about the internet
that worried me. And... I think this whole arrangement of things might be it.
What do you guys think? Are there two different kinds of trolling and if so
does the line between them dissolve depending upon who you are? Let us
know in the comments and because we thought it might be a little strange to
go from what we think of as a very serious discussion to funny comments from
last week we're gonna leave off comment responses this week. So next week we'll
do responses to this video and last week's video about surveillance and reality
TV. But we are gonna do this: the first step in repopulating the record
wall is to give two records a little bit more visibility than they've already had.
Eventually we'll replace the Beach Boys & Marshall Tucker Band but welcome Miles &
Coltrane. Django Rheinhardt.