Ask Slashdot: Would You Pay For Websites Without Trolls? 382
First time accepted submitter carbon_tet writes I read two articles this week that made me wonder: "Would anyone actually pay for a website without trolls?" The first, was about web trolls and civility on the internet, and the second about the ad-based internet. It seems that public comments unavoidably have trolls, or they degrade very quickly until someone makes a reference to Hitler. So, is it impossible to have a substantive discussion online without trolls? Would you put your money where your mouth is to have a serious online conversation without them? Are there any topics that you would talk about (or prefer to see talked about) on a website where trolls were paywalled out?
What trolls (Score:5, Insightful)
There are trolls on the Internet? What, have people forgotten how to use /ignore? Do they actually join in conversations on Internet services that don't have effective ignore/moderation systems? Well, that's your fault, then.
NO! (Score:2, Insightful)
I have met the troll and he is us.
Re:Very subjective (Score:3, Insightful)
Trolls == Necessary Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you want to live in an echo chamber, trolls are just something you have to learn to deal with. Besides, there's no such thing as an "anti-dickhead premium," because no matter what, if you're having a discussion with any significant group of people, it's pretty much guaranteed one of them is going to have a different enough opinion that you're going to want to stick that "troll" label on them.
Tough guy geeks... (Score:4, Insightful)
We are the tough geeks and will browse into that rough patch on the interwebs to get our fix of data.
We will risk malware and viruses to pirate the latest films.
We will walk into a biker bar and call the biggest pagan mother fucker a gay little bitch.
Oh wait, maybe not that last one.
Seriously though.. what is considered a troll, or offensive is subjective. If I do not want imposed censorship, I sure as shit am not going to pay for it directly.
No real need. (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot could significantly reduce trolls by just making everyone login to comment.
Keep the ability to post as an AC but make these changes.
1. You still take the karma hit to your real name when you post a troll and get the good karma for good posts.
2. The ability to block the person when they are posting as an AC. The person blocking would still not know who they are blocking as it would just say AC on the blocked list.
It would not stop all the trolls but it seems like a good compromise solution for Slashdot.
BTW I do not block Slashdot ads since I want them to get paid and they have not put up any annoying video ads lately.
Yes, but it wouldn't work (Score:2, Insightful)
I would pay for such a website without trolls, sure. As an educated American with a bit of disposable income I can certainly think of worse ways to spend a few dollars every month or year. The problem is that if one is going to require payment to use the service, it will exclude a LOT of the voices that I want to hear in internet discussions. Marginalized people in my state, people from other countries, people that need to remain anonymous... the beauty of the internet is the free exchange of ideas and tremendous number of voices that one can be exposed to. Being able to pay for a website without trolls is a privilege. Unfortunately, efforts to control trolls and other voices that are deemed disruptive will (in all likelihood) exclude many legitimate voices, too. Without these legitimate voices, such sites are (probably) doomed to be generally homogeneous communities with sterile discussions.
Re:Very subjective (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Very subjective (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Very subjective (Score:5, Insightful)
One would also see less insightful posts, since any kind of insight typically steps on the toes of some entrenched interest. And even on Slashdot posts expressing unpopular opinions typically end up downmodded because, after all, if it provokes you, it's a troll.
A forum with real-names policy is basically worthless, which is precisely why the Powers that Be try to push them. Stripping people of the shield of anonymity makes dissenting opinions easier to silence through chilling effects. And of course this is marketed for our own good, after all we all know that having someone get away with posting something offensive on the Internet is the worst thing ever.
Re:Very subjective (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why I think the Reddit public scoring system is about the best you're going to get
The problem with this system is that, on Reddit, a downvote = "I disagree."
You get entire discussions where eveyone is downvoted to -14, for no apparent reason.
Re:Very subjective (Score:4, Insightful)
A forum with real-names policy is basically worthless, which is precisely why the Powers that Be try to push them. Stripping people of the shield of anonymity makes dissenting opinions easier to silence through chilling effects.
If you've ever seen the kind of awfulness people willingly post through their facebook logins, I don't think you can reasonably claim that no anonymity = chilled speech.
Re:Very subjective (Score:2, Insightful)
If the person insists on saying this over and over again and denigrates others who disagrees while giving no evidence then yes, that person is indeed a troll.
You've just described the teaching methods of the world's most popular religions, so I guess all those folks are out.
It's a good thing there are no trolls in politics...otherwise we'd be screwed.
Re:Very subjective (Score:5, Insightful)
I couldn't agree more. In an insane world, the sane blogger must appear as a troll!
Huffingtonpost.com forced a policy change that required a Facebook login. I don't want my opinions to tag me, like my credit rating. Eventually, if I've got any opinions that don't follow the "common and popular" I can create a self-reinforcing negative reputation.
Having what you really think follow you isn't good for being employed. And being unemployed isn't good for a credit rating. And a bad credit rating means insurance costs more. It's a really effective way to make dissidents "non persons" over time.
Anonymity on the internet is the last refuge of Democracy. If we cannot protest and voice our complaints anonymously -- then the only people who will get good reputations and jobs will be those that agree with the status quo.
Re:Very subjective (Score:2, Insightful)
You've just described the teaching methods of the world's most popular religions, so I guess all those folks are out.
sigh, you do realize you're an anti-religious troll right? The worlds religions aren't the issue, extremists are, extremists don't need religion to be extremists, its just a convenient twist on the work done by someone else for their own personal gain.
Which is essentially what you're doing, recognizing that you don't appear to be an extremist, but you're still just warping what someone else did to fit your own silly agenda.
Re:What trolls (Score:4, Insightful)
Kotaku & Gawker's other sites are definitely hit or miss in the comments, but some of them are great...you get a diversity of voices you don't see on /. ever
it's about the 'noise' filter for me...i can scroll down through a Kotaku comment thread and it's pretty easy to scan for the relevant threads
a good rule is that good comments usually follow good comments or contradict well written but bad comments....quality discussion is not *only* to be found in controversy...sometimes 4 people all agreeing is very insightful
i try to browse /. at -1 just to see what AC's newbies are saying...i was an AC noob once...