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

81–90 of 321 posts

Re: Trolls (2008)

#81

Post by wpeterson »

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…

There are obviously people who don't add any value and instigate vitriol that should be banned.

On the other hand, you have people like Ted Dziuba who often provoke controversy and critique popular ideas/products. I find those critiques both entertaining and legitimate in their content.

I worry you lose a lot in a community when you rule out both types of Trolling.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#82

Post by joejohnson »

>> I've thought a lot over the last couple years about the problem of trolls. It's an old one, as old as forums, but we're still just learning what the causes are and how to address them.

That's crazy. We still don't know what causes Trolls?

Re: Trolls (2008)

#83

Post by Tossrock »

libraryatnight wrote: post #47
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…

Ahhh. I missed the date on the article and couldn't believe that HN was only getting 8k uniques/day.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#84

Post by libraryatnight »

namityadav wrote: post #54
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…

They're bits in the stream. My karma is an int on a server somewhere Like your bank account is just a database entry somewhere, like a dollar bill is just a paper, like all of your life's memories are just some information stored in your brain -- again just a few cells. In the end, everything is just some atoms anyway, right? as someone who dabbles in trolling as a hobby Oh wait, I fell for it! :)

"I fell for it!"

I wondered on that myself ;)

Re: Trolls (2008)

#85

Post by cwilson »

I'm curious if anyone else is seeing a trend of passive aggressive, or light hearted, "trolling" on social networks with family and friends.

For example, on Facebook, a troll might play out like this:

Sarah posts "Having the worst day ever, ugh!"

David "likes" this post.

Link baiting, tagging people places they are not actually at, and other forms of this exist as well. At least in a few of my friend circles they do. In fact, at one point, one of my friends and co-founders created a Facebook group called "Operation Troll Cullen". He invited around 20 of our mutual friends, and the idea was to respond to anything I said or posted with extremely positive messages. "You're doing so great Cullen! Well done!" or "This was the MOST insightful, amazing, article I have ever read. Thank you so much for sharing Cullen, you're amazing!" would be two examples.

I of course had no idea this was going on, but suspected something was amiss. It was quite the week for me, to say the least (and I did find it quite funny, after the fact).

Re: Trolls (2008)

#87

Post by kd5bjo »

boredguy8 wrote: post #79

I think one particular line got me thinking: Graffiti happens at the intersection of ambition and incompetence: people want to make their mark on the world, but have no other way to do it than literally making a mark on the world. Paul Graham has to make a caveat because it's too easy for someone to say, "WELL, sir, you have clearly missed that some graffiti is amazing. Banksy!" But there's a very important filter th…

http://bikeshed.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_Law_of_Trivialit...

Re: Trolls (2008)

#88

Post by brador »

hyperbovine wrote: post #45
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…

I'd suggest there's two types of trolls:

First there are the discourse enhancing trolls, those who provide value to a discussion by suggesting alternative, usually taboo points of view.

Then there's the troll trolls. You know the type. The ones who spew racist or derogatory comments just for the hell of it.

Many people commonly mix the two into a single bucket, which I think is wrong to do, since one is a ++ for a forum, the other a -------.

Anyway, that's my take on the situation as someone who has ran 3 mid size forums in the past.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#89

Post by joejohnson »

joejohnson wrote: post #82

>> I've thought a lot over the last couple years about the problem of trolls. It's an old one, as old as forums, but we're still just learning what the causes are and how to address them. That's crazy. We still don't know what causes Trolls?

Ah, never mind: this article is 3 years old.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#90

Post by jbooth »

_delirium wrote: post #62
hyperbovine wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

One of my hobbies is reading a lot of history, and I don't see much support for this narrative. American politics has long been really nasty. Take a look at the 19th century presidential campaigns: there is some pretty shrill stuff in there. The 1828 election in particular was really nasty. And people regularly fought duels---actually shot each other---over politics. Political brawls were not uncommon. A Congressman…

Yeah, things used to be rougher, but they also used to actually get something done on occasion. Can you see the current congress accomplishing that?
Post reply on HN