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.
Re:What trolls (Score:4, Interesting)
The reality of the internet is different for different groups of people. Everybody lives in their own bubble depending on what websites they log into, and what software they use. That also dominates the civility or absence thereof.
Remember back when you were 14, what you understood as the Internet was an entirely different thing. All of us have made one or a few transitions between the bubbles -- but it is extremely difficult to do so except serendipitously or through contacts.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I suppose I'm picky where my bubble extends. If it's a place that doesn't cope with trolls then I leave the discussion or the service for somewhere better. There was a time I participated in the discussions on Gawker's Kotaku gaming blog, but the web site became barely functional and every change they implemented made it more difficult for me to join in. So I stopped. (I also tried their IRC channel, but gave up on that because it was mostly about game piracy, the irony.)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
When I was 14 my internet was a tymnet node in grenada, ms.
Re: (Score:2)
When I was 14, my internet was Byte magazine and television.
(inb4 my internet was AM radio, my internet was relays clicking in Morse code, and my internet was fires on the horizon)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly and literally. Smokey and the Bandit was still in or just coming out of theaters when I was 14. And yes, we were trolls (not on CB though). We did real world trolling. Smoke bombs, bottle rockets, bb guns, sling shots, chunking wax balls from those stupid wax sippy candy at cars (no damage, in case you got busted) etc. We used to do all kinds of crap that would have gotten our asses kicked if we didn't know the alleys and yards you could jump fences in without a dog biting you. Trolling on the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What, have people forgotten how to use /ignore?
Most people never knew you could block certain people in the first place, let alone forgot.
Anyway, the trolls are more sophisticated than that, they just create new accounts ever day. Many web sites are anonymous too, e.g. Ask.fm.
Very subjective (Score:5, Interesting)
There are ofcourse the obvious trolls, but where does someone end being a troll, and is just someone who has a completely different view?
If someone is convinced the earth is only 5000 years old, and that [insert deity] created all other history to confuse us, is that a troll? How do you prevent just creating a forum where you "discuss" things only with people who think the same way you do, and thus without opposing viewpoints since they'll eventually get removed for "trolling"?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Very subjective (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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, Interesting)
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.
and that is the problem with banning trolls, Extremists aren't trolls they are people that disagree enough with you, that you consider their opinion extreme. People who considered women should have the right to vote where probably considered extremists a one point.
Trolls are people who make comments, who's purpose is meant to invoke an emotional response. when he says:
You've just described the teaching methods of the world's most popular religions, so I guess all those folks are out.
If he is expressing his true belief then he is not a troll, if he is just doing to to annoy religious people then he is.
I personally like having people disagree with me, it makes for much more interesting discussions than with people who agree with me.
Once you introduce moderation, you are likely to remove peoples opinions that you strongly disagree with as well. I would rather have a few idiots posting stupid comments, which I can choose to ignore, and keep strongly opposing views. My life won't be significantly effected if someone I don't know insults me, or my beliefs, and if it does significantly effect someone's life I think they had bigger issues to start with.
It maybe society as a whole has a problem that we are creating so many people who have so little self esteem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Too bad he (or she) didn't create it. It was a Heinleinism [wikiquote.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What if we trade-off not monetary price, but anonymity?
Typical trolls neither pay to post, nor have to reveal who they are. If there were a real-names policy (an actual, checked, real-names policy, not bullshit like what Google tried to pull), one would surely see less trolling.
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)
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: (Score:3)
I have seen plenty of cases of people using 'real name' information on facebook to harass people in weak social positions and those people no longer being willing to say much publicly, so their speech was quite chilled. The trolly jerks however simply s
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:4)
It wouldn't be worthless, it would have pros and cons like everything else.
Cons: Easier to identify and take action against dissenters (as you stated above).
Pros: Easier to identify astroturfers/shills.
It cuts both ways.
I really worry, long-term, about the "paid/fake poster" problem. Especially as bots/AI will continue to advance, it will only get worse. How long until genuine human commentary on the internet is drowned-out/polluted by "sponsored viewpoints"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This might be a way a company can run a pseudo-anonymous identity validator.
John Doe would create an account with foo.com. Foo.com would know John Doe's real life info. When John Doe wants to create an account with bar.com, foo.com sends a hash of the user (the user account + a nonce + the hostname, all hashed.)
Bar.com gets the hash, and John Doe creates a user with a handle. Later on, John Doe tries to create another user for a sock puppet. bar.com realizes there is already one person with that hashed
Re: (Score:3)
Foo.com would know John Doe's real life info
Short of turning up at foo.com's premises with a government issued photo id, or swearing an affadavit, how exactly would foo.com know anything at all about anyone called John Doe? Let alone be able to differentiate one individual with that name from all the thousands of others.
Further, how could it know that John A. Doe was a different (or the same) individual as John B. Doe and that each actual, real, live person had only one identity filed with foo.com (and who would tell them when that person had died?
Re: (Score:3)
I was thinking the trolls would be the first to sign up and the first to complain when they were moderated, after all they are now paying for the right to post. This would likely scare off a lot of business where as a free site can moderate a user and not need to refund them any money while satisfying the heard.
It might keep spammers away though... I imagine they would likely move on to another investment that didn't require cash up front.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I think the Reddit public scoring system is about the best you're going to get. Let anyone and everyone mod up or down a comment. If it gets too far into the negative then hide the comment by default. Out of sight, out of mind.
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: (Score:3)
Hahaa. :D
Been there, seen it. Also called the "downvote brigade". When someone posts something against the hive mind, that message gets voted down, but then also every other message by the poster in the thread is meticulously voted down to oblivion!
Also other kinds of malicious downvoting are quite common in Reddit.
Those things being said, I still do find the system of unlimited votes to often be quite fun.
Re:Very subjective (Score:5, Interesting)
Another problem is that posts containing popular memes are pushed to the top raising the noise-signal ratio to an unacceptable level. Finally, allowing everyone to moderate has the effect of pushing all conversation to the lowest common denominator, such that the stories that make it to the front page tend to have a bland populist, unchallenging bias.
Re: (Score:3)
Swarm moderation is the best of the worst.
Re: (Score:3)
It happens here as well. I have seen several people that say something negative about the Republicans or Tea Party get everything they post for days modded down no matter what the content of the posting.
Re:Very subjective (Score:5, Informative)
I agree. I've made a few Slashdot posts that were contrary to the majority view, but meant in good faith and with the goal of advancing the discussion, which ended being modded as Trolls. Fortunately this happens to me rarely, suggesting that only a small fraction of moderators
My experience on BoingBoing was much worse. There, even after having a discussion with admins about why I made my comment, they still labelled me a troll and banned me on the site. I think any fair-minded person would have judged me to be not trolling - as far as I can tell that administrator's definition of troll included views that he/she didn't agree with.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also fun reporting a service's moderators for trolling or worse - feeding the trolls. What sport!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If they post on a proper science website (talking about the age of the earth or not) - Troll. Science sites are not the right place to talk about any deity.
I find this a difficult point. I agree it's annoying and not productive etc... but... is it trolling? They've got a viewpoint, and are trying to get it across to you...
Imo trolling is something bad you do on purpose. Being convinced that you're helping people by telling them about [deity] doesn't sound like trolling to me. But it can be very annoying on a science forum if you keep getting such on your science forum...
I agree that it's probably not their place to be (or very rarely, maybe some theological di
Re: (Score:3)
The only time I hear the 5000 year old Earth argument is when the pro-evolution folk say that creationist believe this.
It's very easy to let your bias determine for you how others probably think.
Slashdot becomes a subscription site!?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot becomes a subscription site!?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Let's see if the next article is titled, "How Much Would You Pay to Get Rid of Beta?"
We do not do that here? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"Many slashdotters do pay to be on a web site that is mostly free of trolls."
But not free of MyCleanPC 'ads'.
Re: (Score:2)
In any case I dearly hope Slashdot doesn't turn to captchas to prevent that type of post.
Re: (Score:2)
NO! (Score:2, Insightful)
I have met the troll and he is us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're kidding, right? I rarely talk to people I know...because I know them. I learn from and share with people I don't know.
Re: (Score:2)
You see no value in a chance to promote your viewpoint? Or hear others?
Wait a minute. (Score:2)
No one wants to talk seriously online to total strangers.
Only a special environment composed exclusively of people from a real life community of interest could possibly overcome this.
I very much disagree with both points, especially with such a large generalization.
Many people want to educate others, share different opinions, show different motives for political decisions, etc... For example, the only way to educate people to how corrupt the US Government is, due to the lack of any real "news" in the US, is exactly by talking to strangers.
An easy to examine real life example is the anti CISPA/SOPA campaigns. These campaigns would have failed miserably if they were only discussed by, an
No (Score:3)
There's probably a free firefox extension that disables comment sections.
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.
Re:Trolls == Necessary Evil (Score:4, Interesting)
The only place truly free of trolls is a corporate internal social media website that is moderated and any despariging remark is subject to displinary action up to and including termination.
Want to get fired? Simply ask about the workplace diversication and why nobody speaks Spanish except housekeeping. Instant termination. Only seen that discussion on the board once. All parties except those warning others that is a taboo subject are gone.
The problem of no trolls is sensitive issues are never addressed. Does your place of employment include all races in engineering? Does your janitorial staff speak only one second languange? Don't ask why. It is troll bait. In a company monitored socail media it is a quick trip out the door.
Please do not start a flame war on the taboo topic. Only discuss on topic troll free discussion boards. Thanks.
Other taboo subjects include Is there a creator of the universe, is there genetic differences in race or gender in intellect, problem solving, politics, age, sexual preference, is all man created equal?
Again do not discuss the taboo topics. Please. They erupt into flamewars.
Re:Trolls == Necessary Evil (Score:4, Interesting)
In a company monitored socail media
I find it quite alarming that anyone would go anywhere near a company forum, excpet to sing the company song and add their vote to how GOOD everything was. One place I worked had one. It was shut down after 6 months as it was only HR who posted anything and the number of times that content was read was in the single figures.
Re: (Score:3)
Trolling != Disagreement (Score:3)
A troll is someone who writes with the purpose of provoking responses. To this end they may employ various techniques, including but not limited to unpopular opinion, insults, supporting a popular opinion but with flawed reasoning, exaggerating a popular opinion, etc. A skilled troll is indistinguishable from from an honest person who is wrong, rude, ignorant, or supports an unpopular position.
Conversely, it is certainly possible to disagree while being polite and reasonable. If a site's moderation standard
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.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't like the state telling people what they can or can't do, that doesn't mean I let people smoke in my house ;)
There are plenty of venues on the internet where anything goes. Having some venues that are more civilised is something I think would be beneficial. I'm not overly sure that paying is the best way to ensure that. Xbox live had (and may still have) some of the biggest twats who seemed to get away with any
Re: (Score:2)
However, troll comments are a good thing. They offer different points of view, fight political correctness, and are even amusing at times. They are way better than the "I have no mod points, but if I did I'd mod you up" comments that add nothing to a discussion.
Godwin's Law (Score:3)
This is a record. Godwin's law before the comments!
http://xkcd.com/261/ [xkcd.com]
One site I participated in had a great way to deal with trolls. Once your rating became negative enough, you were put on a global /ignore and no one saw your posts except yourself and others with equally negative reputations.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
There is scope to abuse these ideas. Firstly it stops AC comments without login and secondly you could theorectically work out who was posting by checking with multiple accounts and/or banning and unbanning accounts.
Slashdot's moderation system seems to work pretty well. Sure it's not perfect but it's vastly better than it would be o
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that Slashdot's moderation system works better than most places.
I do not see how you could work out the id.
If I was to post as an AC and post a a troll and you block me it would only block me when I was posting as an AC.
It would not block me when posting as myself.
As to stopping ACs without a log in. Yes it would I do not see the issue with that. If you are posting something so sensitive that you do not want it tracked by a government level threat you should have be using a VPN/Tor/ so having a fake
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Um, this problem is already fixed, you can just browse at +1 or +2. ACs already take the hit for posting at +0 even if they make reasonable comments. You won't see an AC unless they get at least one up-mod. And enough mods read at +0 that ACs get a good chance for an upvote, if they post early enough. Seems like a fair compromise. In fact you can browse at +0 and miss most of the obvious trolls, because the mods down-vote those pretty fast.
Re: No real need. (Score:2)
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 trem
Just get rid of the stupid message board. (Score:3)
Why do all the sites feel the need to have a message board. Slashdot is OK, but the message board discussion is its thing. But for many of the news sites, these message boards are poorly managed and offer little to no insight to the articles. Just political rambling.
You don't want trolls, get rid of the message boards.
What is a troll? (Score:2)
Until you can quantitatively define what a troll is, you can't do anything about it. Web forum moderators have been struggling with this question for as long as there have been online discussions.
Re: (Score:3)
Troll is a person posting an inflammatory message with the deliberate intent of exciting readers into a controversial response. This is the exact definition.
But the word is misused a lot, indeed. For example, just writing hateful comments, or messages with disinformation, is not trolling.
Re:What is a troll? (Score:4, Interesting)
Troll is a person posting an inflammatory message with the deliberate intent of exciting readers into a controversial response. This is the exact definition.
But the word is misused a lot, indeed. For example, just writing hateful comments, or messages with disinformation, is not trolling.
And that's exactly my point. How do you prove "intent" on a message board? You have to be able to have black-and-white rules that say "This guy is posting a different and unpopular opinion but that guy is trying to stir up trouble." Those rules have to apply one hundred percent of the time because people are REALLY REALLY good at hiding intent and playing innocent when they're serious about trolling. In fact, the internet generally applauds the "masterful troll" who can hook as many people as possible. For all you know, I'm trolling you right now by leading you down a conversational path to an as-yet undisclosed end-game. There's just no way to know and that's why it's so hard to put a stop to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, that makes trolls indispensable for meaningful discussion, since they draw the implicit assumptions and attitudes out into the open for all to see. Ghandhi, Martin Luther King and Jesus were all epic trolls by this definition. And the authorities of the day wanted to ban them all, which rises some questions about where, exactly speaking
Not but if you want my money (Score:2)
I would pay for a website without your fat mother.
Don't read the comments (Score:2, Interesting)
With the exception of sites like Ars and /. comments posted are generally of a lower mentality level than the article. Save a few minutes of your life and skip the comments. Except this one.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
In other words, your tinfoil hat opinions on fluoridation and wireless radiation are given the mocking they deserve and as a result you've got sand in your vagina.
Your mother is a whore.
Doesn't work (obviously) (Score:2)
Concrete example:
The Airliners.net forums are paid if you want to post something. Still plenty of trolls to go around.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a paywall keep trolls out? (Score:2)
It might keep a few out but there are people who get their jollies out of trolling and the outrage that they create and might be willing to pay a few bucks for their hobby. It's been going on at least since Usenet (mid 80's).
I do enjoy small scale discussion on Facebook. I usually limit people who can post on my comments to friends of friends and that keeps the discussions more civil and usually more relevant. Perhaps the real problem is just that the number of people who can post a comment on many discu
Yes. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
sort of (Score:2)
You know, in a way, Facebook is the best thing to happen to web communities in years - the threads are incomprehensible and move so fast but the audience is so large that it's basically flypaper for wingnuts.
Then again, comment blockers and Ghostery make this largely a non-issue for me anyway.
No. Nor one run by unicorns. (Score:2)
First off, no I won't pay directly for any web content. Nor will the general public at large (unless perhaps involves pron). You can remove that idea from your head right now. it won't work, because nobody will show up.
Secondly, you can't just magically fix trolling with a dumb barrier of some kind. It really takes a human to spot the difference between someone putting forth an honest opinion, and somebody trying to create chaos. Not only that, but trolls are inventive and creative, and can swamp even a s
We already do (Score:2)
trolls are a myth (Score:2)
Absolutely not (Score:2)
Only a very short list of very obviously unacceptable behavior needs to be banned: illegal material, obvious spam, and frequently repeated copypasta. There are many things I would rather not read from frosty piss to Obama's duke to grits but it's well worth reading those to be sure my own speech is
What this really means (Score:2)
Can there be any such thing as a social (in the sense of having a community) where no one will strongly disagree with me? I'm sure Silicon Valley can package something like this as an app with a name ending in -ly.
No. I just stop visiting... (Score:2)
Absolutely Not. (Score:2)
Paying for Troll-free websites would only encourage the growth of underground bot-based black trolling markets to "encourage" people to pay for a more troll-free experience...
False premise (Score:2)
A troll will troll and some will pay to troll. Trolling is a subjective thing, so unless you're willing to face a lawsuit, once someone pays to comment, you'd better have a friggin' tight description of what's allowed before you censor them or reject their subscription. Opinions aren't trolling.
pay? (Score:2)
Moderating Trolls (Score:3)
Forums such as Disqus are prime examples where a discussion will quickly devolve into one about political affiliation, views on gay rights or simply, Obama. I always feel like I lost time on this planet which I will never get back having read some of them - And, I feel like I less intelligent since I probably burned a few brain cells out consuming their dribble.
Here on /., it seems the common definition of a Troll seems to be someone who has a dissenting opinion to the common group think. Sometimes, do we see the discussion turn to towards political hate speech. But, more often the the tone of comments can be very denigrating and hateful. And, one can quickly find their comments downgraded to 0 or -1 by someone who simply doesn't like your point of view.
The moderation model used by /. has worked fairly well. Still, it isn't perfect. Allowing people to hide behind the mask of Anonymous Coward presents its own dilemma in dealing with trolls. A possible solution would be to require all anonymous posts to undergo moderation by several moderators (maybe 3?) before being visible and the reasons for a moderator's decision should be listed. Moderators should see a list of posts, per article, that are being moderate downwards. Posts only viewed and acted upon by a single moderator should be made visible after 12 hours to keep a single moderator from squelching the voice of others. And, moderators, themselves, should be ranked by the fairness of their actions. Unfortunately, I don't have a good model on how to do this, just some ideas. Maybe, having other moderators approve or disapprove of the moderation action of another moderator and ranking the results might be a start? It could be done on a running averages basis - allowing people who might not have moderated wisely in the past to regain trust. In some respects, it's like the concept of Karma points but for moderators.
Requiring all posters to have verified accounts linked to their real identity is another solution. AC positing would simply be an option when posting as a verified user. It's AC to the world, but still linked back to oneself. Yes, this would mean the end of true anonymity. But, it make people responsible for their actions even when they choose to hide their identity. Combined with a fair moderator system, it would all but eliminate Trolls even in a non-payment subscriber model.
Paying won't work due to corruption (Score:2)
Pay-to-post models never work because of moderator corruption. For instance, Something Awful has long charged $10 for an account there, and ever since they've been doing that there have been questions of impropriety - there were allegations for a while that the site's creator was using SA as his primary income source and was instructing his mods to ban people who were likely to buy another account so he could keep making money.
There have also been plenty of cases of paid user accounts on websites getting ba
This assumes money = intelligence, nope (Score:2)
Trolls will even pop up in small communities of 20 or less given enough time. All it takes is someone convinced enough in their view, at odds with the majority in the community, and stubborn enough to stand their ground and ignore rational argument (common among people backed into a corner). Human nature creates trolls, ananymity only makes the problem more visible.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so let's cite the website perhaps second or third best known on the Internet for having lots of trolls as an example.
Re: (Score:3)
Right, so let's cite the website perhaps second or third best known on the Internet for having lots of trolls as an example.
...of a site that already tried this, and failed. Isn't this exactly the kind of example that the article was asking for?
Re: (Score:3)
Most people would pay $30/mo for a better Internet experience.
People are not dumb enough to pay for 30 individual sites; and paying a flat fee...that's what your ISP does. The cash troll filter is the secondary annoyance that drives away everyone but hard-core users, and filters out everyone but the most hard-core trolls (and hackers who cracked your password list).
^^Parent is a troll (Score:2)
Seriously, he is advocating naming your kids as parts of Hitler's name.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
-1 Troll ;-)