It seems that trolls are also winning leadership positions across the world, so why wouldn't they win the internet as well?
Perhaps there's a related sociological or psychological dynamic?
Trolls are winning the internet, technologists say
311–320 of 439 posts
Re: Trolls are winning the internet, technologists say
#312No, Internet was always like this (even worse), just there was much less people on it, and expectations were different. Back in the days of USENET there was a lot of quite unpleasant people you'd run into occasionally, but we've seen it as a part of the scene. Like going on a punk concert and someone spills a beer on you or a fight breaks out. It's not nice experience, but it's the part of the show, partially it's wh…
It's not true that nothing has changed. Facebook and Twitter will show you posts that they think you're likely to interact with, and hide other stories. That didn't happen on Usenet. Those services will also recommend that you follow/friend other users with similar interests, which automatically builds up mobs. That's not how the Internet used to work.
Right but if people are never going to click on stories they're not interested in then does it really matter? Can we really blame increasing silo-mind on certain demographics not seeing links that they demonstratively wouldn't have opened anyway?
Re: Trolls are winning the internet, technologists say
#313I think the only way that trolling can be defeated is if people are educated in productive discussion, including why it is beneficial and how to carry it out, and also in how to respond to trolls without simply attacking back.
Acculturation is a component, hence Netiquette, the September Effect, and then of course, the Eternal September.
Acculturation only scales so far.
Re: Trolls are winning the internet, technologists say
#314I stopped reading after the third paragraph when I realized the entire basis for this article is a survey given to 1500 "technologists" with a loaded question that basically equates to "is trolling getting better or worse?". First of all, not everyone who could be described as a "technologist" is qualified to answer that question, and people are naturally biased to say things are getting worse. I have seen non-opinio…
I think online journalism as a whole has turned into a form of trolling. Or maybe we are in a post Journalist world now. The value of a story is based on how many clicks it gets. Thats what makes these sites money. It does not matter if you click because the story makes you angry or you think its insulting just so long as you click and you get the advertising. And as far as standards go there are none. Just make up s…
I think that depends on your sources. TheIntercept doesn't fit into that bracket to me. Bias? Maybe, but bias isn't a problem if you read a diverse set of sources. Bias isn't a problem, opinion isn't a problem; reading one source and complaining its 'fake news' because it's bias isn't the same as yours is.
Re: Trolls are winning the internet, technologists say
#315If you give people a big wall and free spray paint, of course they 'll fill it with dicks. Unlike real life, there is nobody to paint over them. Trolling is a natural part of the internet, its the price for having relative freedom, i dont have a problem with it. If that puts off people who don't have the capacity to tune it out, all the better.
> Unlike real life, there is nobody to paint over them. In the real world having your tagging painted over is one of the saddest feelings. I wonder if there's a way to digitize that sensation but I think people are desensitized to things being deleted. It would have to be beyond that.
I've seen people respond similarly or analagously to having their posts or comments removed.
Which makes me cautious about invoking that particular remedy in any but particularly eggregious or blatent cases. If I think there's any reasonable option for remediation, I'll try to avoid it.
Spam and blatent trollery, not so much.
Re: Trolls are winning the internet, technologists say
#316I remember when the internet was primarily shock videos and Newgrounds flash animations, and really crappy expages raw HTML webpages with flaming GIF animations. That internet was horrible. It was filled with goatse, tubgirl, lemonparty, crush videos and much more. The internet today doesn't have that. But it is politicized. And just like mainstream media control of the politics has created a race to control platform…
I'm getting pretty worried about all this stuff. When did we lose the ability to discuss things with people who have a different stance?
Re: Trolls are winning the internet, technologists say
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, but as director of whatever, perhaps one shouldn't be tweeting controversially. And if one is tweeting controversially, perhaps as part of one's job, then one ought to practice good OpSec. This isn't a new issue: http://www.learnliberty.org/blog/anonymity-and-doxing-in-the...
You've conflated "controversial" with "attracting harassment", which I perceive as pretty much in line with your earlier defence of victim blaming. This is something I reject outright as simply another angle chilling the speech of the victims of online harassment, instead of attenuating the bullies. I'm responsible for my own OpSec, but we both know that public registries have their own vulnerabilities. Again, I thin…
If you want walled gardens, by all means build walled gardens. But don't imagine that you can prevent people from using other services. And talking about you.
Re: Trolls are winning the internet, technologists say
#318A troll is anyone with an incompatible worldview. That's why when /r/democrats starts posting in /r/republicans everyone says everyone else is trolling.
If I'm having a rational discussion with someone who disagrees with me then I'm automatically a troll? I tend to feel the trolls are the hordes of people calling for me to be executed or using nothing but insults instead of contributing meaningfully.
Everyone is free to their own worldview, shutting down discussions with "I hope you get raped in hell n*" isn't what I call a different worldview, it's what I call an arsehole.
Re: Trolls are winning the internet, technologists say
#319A troll is anyone with an incompatible worldview. That's why when /r/democrats starts posting in /r/republicans everyone says everyone else is trolling.
If I'm having a rational discussion with someone who disagrees with me then I'm automatically a troll? I tend to feel the trolls are the hordes of people calling for me to be executed or using nothing but insults instead of contributing meaningfully. Everyone is free to their own worldview, shutting down discussions with "I hope you get raped in hell n*" isn't what I call a different worldview, it's what I call an ar…
The ability to have a rational discussion comes from a place of [typically white, male] privilege, though. If you are being sexually harassed, racially discriminated against, or are otherwise in a psychologically unsafe position, you're not going to be in a position to "back up your opinion with facts" or "explain why you feel the way you do" or even listen to someone who calmly, rationally explains that "he's never made me feel uncomfortable", or "why didn't you report [being raped to the police] / [being discriminated against to HR]" or "I don't see race".
Re: Trolls are winning the internet, technologists say
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think online journalism as a whole has turned into a form of trolling. Or maybe we are in a post Journalist world now. The value of a story is based on how many clicks it gets. Thats what makes these sites money. It does not matter if you click because the story makes you angry or you think its insulting just so long as you click and you get the advertising. And as far as standards go there are none. Just make up s…
I think that depends on your sources. TheIntercept doesn't fit into that bracket to me. Bias? Maybe, but bias isn't a problem if you read a diverse set of sources. Bias isn't a problem, opinion isn't a problem; reading one source and complaining its 'fake news' because it's bias isn't the same as yours is.
I agree that there is still a spectrum of quality. And certain Journalists and publications can still establish a reputation for reliability and quality.
But the problem is the business model. No one has been able to come up with a solution to make money on quality. Its all volume advertising. NYT is competing with BuzzFeed for eyeballs. Its a competition to come up with the most clever hook and target peoples emotions to drive traffic.
In the print days there was a small number of publications and it was very expensive to start one. The more serious publications published monthly. Its totally different now.
Think about that up until just a few years ago serious Journalists had to produce about one piece a month and they had supporting staff and a budget.
There is very little now that comes close to the quality and analysis that there use to be.