Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trolls (2008)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 321 posts

Re: Trolls (2008)

#41

Post by 127 »

angersock wrote: post #6

Good post, but as someone who dabbles in trolling as a hobby, I'd like to suggest the following: Trolls are important. Trolling, especially as seen on places like slashdot/4chan/somethingawful/etc., can oftentimes be a mechanism of critique for ideas and rhetorical styles. One of the best things about the 'net is that, frankly, none of this really matters. None of it. It's a big joke. My twitters and my wikis and my…

Trolling also wastes valuable time from reasonable and constructive arguments. You may not value your time, but I do, greatly. If ones goal is to achieve nothing intellectually on the Internet, then trolling is fine, but if ones goal is to learn and debate, then (given, only very skilled, non-obvious) trolling is destructive.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#42

Post by _delirium »

pnathan wrote: post #34
angersock wrote: post #6

Good post, but as someone who dabbles in trolling as a hobby, I'd like to suggest the following: Trolls are important. Trolling, especially as seen on places like slashdot/4chan/somethingawful/etc., can oftentimes be a mechanism of critique for ideas and rhetorical styles. One of the best things about the 'net is that, frankly, none of this really matters. None of it. It's a big joke. My twitters and my wikis and my…

Your interpretation is that trolls are court jesters.

That's an interesting take, though it'd be only certain kinds of trolls imo. Some trolls inflame negative situations: the guy who shows up at comp.lang.lisp and restarts one of the many canonical flamewars is doing sort of the opposite of what a court jester is supposed to do. But I think comp.lang.lisp might actually benefit from a real court jester; there's a certain stifling, vaguely bitter seriousness that could use disruption.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#43

Post by robbrown451 »

I think the fact that you don't allow downvoting posts contributes to this. I get that you want to keep things positive. But when you don't provide an outlet for people who want to simply disagree without forcing them to come out of the woodwork and defend their position, it is inevitable that some people will come out with a lot of ugliness.

I think there are a whole lot of reasons internet forums are different than real life communication. I think there are technical solutions that can change the balance. We all know there is a big difference between, say, the comments on YouTube and the comments on Slashdot. Do you think it is all "culture"? I don't. I think it is mostly that Slashdot has technical solutions that discourage trolling (and substanceless posts, etc), while YouTube doesn't. If the culture is different, it mostly because of the karma system (or lack thereof).

Re: Trolls (2008)

#44

Post by 127 »

figgles wrote: post #31
aidenn0 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My bank account is just an int in a server somewhere, but that doesn't make it unimportant. Obviously my karma isn't important, but that's because it has little effect on my outside of HN. Being bits on a server somewhere doesn't make it unimportant. Similarly, when someone posted a fake obit of Steve Jobs (well before he died), it caused quite an impact despite none of it mattering.

I hope your bank account isn't stored as just an int(!) But seriously, it is a representation of something physical. Money. Money which can in turn be used for other physical things. Reputation "karma" isn't. It /is/ meaningless in this context, because you can never log into HN again and your life will go on. I don't think the argument was "anything digital is pointless."

Only difference between money and karma is that we can't easily trade karma. Modern money is not physical, it is just a figment of our imaginations. It has only the value we collectively give it.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#45

Post by hyperbovine »

angersock wrote: post #6

Good post, but as someone who dabbles in trolling as a hobby, I'd like to suggest the following: Trolls are important. Trolling, especially as seen on places like slashdot/4chan/somethingawful/etc., can oftentimes be a mechanism of critique for ideas and rhetorical styles. One of the best things about the 'net is that, frankly, none of this really matters. None of it. It's a big joke. My twitters and my wikis and my…

> One of the best things about the 'net is that, frankly, none of this really matters.

I disagree. I think the shift from personal to electronic interaction is largely to blame for the level of shrill nastiness that pervades our present-day culture. It's okay to express yourself in ways that would have been completely socially unacceptable, or just plain embarrassing, in past times. Social norms can be stifling, and self expression is good, but it's possible to take it too far. And on the internet, it frequently is. (Although this problem predates the internet. Talk radio in the 80s and 90s comes to mind.)

Nowhere is this more evident to me than in the realm of politics, where things really do matter. The process is seemingly held hostage to whoever can scream the loudest. The result is the sort of do-nothing congressional bitchfest which is currently pleasing to a whopping 8% of Americans. I read accounts of the way things used to work (30+ years back) in Washington and am amazed--it's like studying a lost civilization.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#46

Post by scott_s »

_delirium wrote: post #30
scott_s wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your view of trolling is colored by your participation in it. I would like to participate in and read honest discussion. Trolls poison honest discussion. The "none of this matters" line of thought is a red-herring. Trolls get in the way of what I, personally, get out of forums.

I like honest discussion also, but also enjoy discussion that's "playful" in various ways, especially when it's on the gray-area border between serious and trollish. You can get interesting sides of people when they have something of an alibi because they aren't "really" saying something (but aren't "really" not doing so, either). I do think it's probably better if it's in areas where there's at least tacit agreement…

Playful discussion requires familiarity and trust. Trolls poison trust.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#47

Post by libraryatnight »

angersock wrote: post #6

Good post, but as someone who dabbles in trolling as a hobby, I'd like to suggest the following: Trolls are important. Trolling, especially as seen on places like slashdot/4chan/somethingawful/etc., can oftentimes be a mechanism of critique for ideas and rhetorical styles. One of the best things about the 'net is that, frankly, none of this really matters. None of it. It's a big joke. My twitters and my wikis and my…

"None of it really matters." That's your opinion. For some people finding a place, a community, with people disciplined enough to keep conversation interesting, to call people on BS without using troll tactics, that annoy and disparage, matters very much.

PG in his article, 3 years ago, describes the second kind of troll in more broad terms and notes, "Now when people talk about trolls they usually mean this broader sense of the word." 3 years ago. The first definition of troll is, in my opinion, near dead. The broad, asshole, troll reigns. They don't just 'sully the pristine conditions of these high-minded realms of discourse,' they break it down, and erode it.

A troll might think everything is a big joke, but many people deal with problems communicating in person: they don't have groups interested in the things they are near them, they have social and personality issues, they feel passionately about their views and enjoy expressing them but don't feel confident face to face or in a room of people. Connecting and communicating can happen legitimately on the internet, to say it's all a joke devalues that connection and that communication, which is how trolls hurt communities and people.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#48

Post by wpeterson »

Trolling is the spice or salt that keeps things interesting.

Too much can definitely turn everything brackish.

But seeing some humor/sarcasm even if it's pointed mixed in with all of the serious discourse keeps it all manageable.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#50

Post by ImprovedSilence »

angersock wrote: post #6

Good post, but as someone who dabbles in trolling as a hobby, I'd like to suggest the following: Trolls are important. Trolling, especially as seen on places like slashdot/4chan/somethingawful/etc., can oftentimes be a mechanism of critique for ideas and rhetorical styles. One of the best things about the 'net is that, frankly, none of this really matters. None of it. It's a big joke. My twitters and my wikis and my…

The one big thing from Slashdot that I miss the most on HN are the "funny" comments. I know it's hard to separate the funny from the malicious sometimes, but there were/are some GOOOOD, and often creative, senses of humor over there. This seems to be largely suppressed here in HN, for better or worse...
Post reply on HN