NYT Explores the World of Internet Trolls 423
prostoalex writes "New York Times magazine explores the history and status quo of Internet trolling. They look at the early days of Usenet trolling, current anonymous forums, and social networking pages as the latest venues for trolls: 'In the late 1980s, Internet users adopted the word troll to denote someone who intentionally disrupts online communities. Early trolling was relatively innocuous, taking place inside of small, single-topic Usenet groups. The trolls employed what the M.I.T. professor Judith Donath calls a pseudo-naïve tactic, asking stupid questions and seeing who would rise to the bait. The game was to find out who would see through this stereotypical newbie behavior, and who would fall for it. As one guide to trolldom puts it, If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it.'"
Re:First troll (Score:0, Informative)
There's a big difference between successful trolling and just making yourself look like a complete idiot.
Re:PLEASE EXPLAIN! CAPSLOCK REPITITION FILTER FAIL (Score:2, Informative)
You know the redundant tag on this is not really warranted. The way this guy IS getting past the filters is quite ingenious. Let's give credit where credit is due. He made his point quite well.
Well Played Sir.
Re:New York Times (Score:3, Informative)
Can you believe it? Its still the best fishwrap in the world.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:3, Informative)
In Cmdr. Taco's mind, they are different, but nobody knows how. In practice, a "troll" moderation is a way to call someone a name. A "flamebait" moderation means that someone was offended by your post. They probably DESERVED to be offended by your post.
Also, Overrated means you have a tiny cock. Interesting means that there was nothing better to do than to read your lame post. Insightful means that you cut and pasted from an Ann Coulter column. Funny means someone completely missed your point. Informative means you are king of the geeks.
Re:For just 3 replies a day (Score:3, Informative)
I think the prevalance of people who are faking is because of trends and the way people mindlessly follow them. This was unbelievably common when I was in school and my case was hardly an isolated one. Following a trend already means adopting someone else's idea instead of being yourself and using your own so it's excellent training for how to be plastic people who know how to present a desired image. Most of this really is cowardice of the "don't rock the boat" variety.
It's disgusting the way so many allow their style of clothing, choice of food, taste in music, manner of speech, attitude and philosophy and far too many other things to be determined by a mob mentality. This is where choices and behavior patterns have implications that people don't consider. Like so many things that are widespread, it's most certainly not the result of a careful consideration of the merits of all options. I suppose the irony is that most of these trends that are thought to be cool and original are the creations of suits with marketing degrees who would be regarded as neither by the people who follow them.
Most people are leaves in the wind who unnecessarily surrender their lives to the media, their peers, or random chance. They have neither the determination nor the courage to learn to take responsibility for their actions which is why they want so badly to believe that they can work with what they do not understand and somehow obtain a good result (nowhere is this more obvious than computers and networking). They get suprised by eventualities and foreseeable circumstances. They do not act deliberately, with an appreciation for the Law of Unintended Consequences and a clear sense of purpose but instead they act on whim in a helter-skelter fashion and things "just happen". They don't understand the difference between causing a problem and allowing a problem to happen when they have the power to avoid both. They don't understand the concept of due diligence or they assume that it somehow doesn't apply to them. They are victims and subjects when they could choose to be bystanders and citizens. And it's always someone else's fault.
So yeah, you could say I'm not crazy about the status quo and the cowardice and the fakers. I used to find it a constant irritant before I learned to accept that people must live their lives the way they see fit. I still don't like it one bit, but I have decided that I needn't allow the poor decision-making of other people to bring negativity into my life. I suppose my remaining objection is that I live in a constitutional republic and I don't desire the kind of government that they deserve, which seems inevitable.
From your two posts, it sounds like we agree far more than we disagree.
Re:You're a Troll If You Disagree With the Crowd (Score:2, Informative)
it is not OK to criticize any homosexual regardless of how wrong they are because that makes you a homophobic
That would make you "a homophobe", or "homophobic" - not "a homophobic".
This post brought to you by the National Socialist Grammarian Party.
Re:You're a Troll If You Disagree With the Crowd (Score:3, Informative)
Man-made global warning is an exception. Anything said about it, whether for or against, is a troll.
Don't forget Adequacy.org (Score:2, Informative)
From my view this was the high point for trolling - carefully-crafted posts that seemed so logical that most of the way through you thought it was for real, and even by the end of a post and its outrageous conclusion you weren't always sure the poster was kidding.
Typically these posts weren't targeted at a specific person, but a general hot-button issue (Christianity, Linux, etc) and would elicit a lot of amusing responses from people who didn't get the joke.
The archive is still on line at www.adequacy.org [adequacy.org], and the Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] gives a good overview of the approach.
Anyone have any favorite Adequacy posts they'd like to share?