[Discussion] The Inconceivable Power of Trolls in Social Media

Pages

This is a follow-on to the nearly two year old topic "Trouble at the Kool-Aid Point." The intention is to provide a place to discuss the unreasonable power social media trolls have over women and minorities, with a primary focus on video games (though other examples are certainly welcome).

By now, GamerGate may have already become a footnote, but the kind of people and attitudes that brought it about and allowed it to flourish are still very much active on various social media. In fact, it seems the primary impact GamerGate had was to raise awareness of the issues around internet trolling and incite increased mainstream media coverage of the phenomenon. An episode of Law and Order on the subject was aired. Anita Sarkeesian appeared on The Colbert Report.

If you haven't read it yet, please take the time to read the article that spurred me to create the original topic even after several GamerGate-related topics had gone into the weeds. Kathy Sierra, noted AI and programming genius and game developer, was bullied off of Twitter. She wrote about the debacle in Trouble at the Kool-Aid Point (mirror here). Her story is painfully enlightening, completely heartbreaking, and a textbook example of the kind of noxious power trolls still swing around in social media to this day.

Plenty of other examples of this phenomenon exist, for example, the whole Hugo award "Rabid Puppies" movement. A few positive outcomes have happened, too, for example, Twitter took away (one of) Milo Yiannopoulos' bullhorn(s).

Here's a great video from the PBS Idea Channel that discusses trolling. Definitely worth a watch. Thank you for sharing this, Kronen.

If you want to avoid trolling, find forums where people put their own beliefs up for examination, thus putting skin and reputation in the game, and where the social expectation is that of a bar. In a bar, you find strangers, but you treat them respectfully even when you disagree, because everyone is there for a good time, and because you don't know what they are capable of when drunk. The combination makes for a reasonable limit on *how* people engage with others.

The problem with Internet forums is that they consist largely of dive bars populated by people looking for a fight, many of whom are also human scum who actively enjoy tormenting others and find anonymity a convenient shield for doing this. Since this type of cruelty exists in face to face interactions, I don't think we'll find an easy way to stop it happening in our virtual lives.

Robear wrote:

If you want to avoid trolling, find forums where people put their own beliefs up for examination, thus putting skin and reputation in the game, and where the social expectation is that of a bar. In a bar, you find strangers, but you treat them respectfully even when you disagree, because everyone is there for a good time, and because you don't know what they are capable of when drunk. The combination makes for a reasonable limit on *how* people engage with others.

The problem with Internet forums is that they consist largely of dive bars populated by people looking for a fight, many of whom are also human scum who actively enjoy tormenting others and find anonymity a convenient shield for doing this. Since this type of cruelty exists in face to face interactions, I don't think we'll find an easy way to stop it happening in our virtual lives.

Even those people wouldn't start these kinds of things in a dive bar; it's the whole Greater Internet F*ckwad Theory; anonymity plus an audience means people don't care what impact they have. It's a lot easier to be a jerk when you don't risk getting punched in the face.

Actually, I've met some jerks who indeed go looking for fights in bars... But I agree, some are only that aggro when they are safe in their mom's basement (so goes the stereotype).

The catch with finding your own forums is that harassment is worse on some of the most public, least optional services, like Facebook and Twitter. If you're not on those sites, someone can claim your name and libel you. Or just spread lies about you. (They're still posting new stuff about Zoe Quinn.)

I don't know if calling it trolling really gets across the issue. There's a difference between surprise links to kitty cats dancing and tricking SWAT teams into storming someone's house.

To extend the "bar" analogy: In a bar, if you act too much like a jerk, they'll kick you out. They may also call the cops.

Yeah I started to think it was a good thing when many newspapers and other sites started just relying on Facebook posting for comments sections. Then maybe when people are posting under their real names they would be more polite.

But nope, people are still assholes.

Stele wrote:

Yeah I started to think it was a good thing when many newspapers and other sites started just relying on Facebook posting for comments sections. Then maybe when people are posting under their real names they would be more polite.

But nope, people are still assholes. :(

Yep, the idea that lack of anonymity has an effect is provably false. I was happy when most of the news sites I frequent just disabled comments.

I missed most of the Kool-Aid thread, but I still want to read and hear more. Thanks for creating the follow up, BadKen.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
Stele wrote:

Yeah I started to think it was a good thing when many newspapers and other sites started just relying on Facebook posting for comments sections. Then maybe when people are posting under their real names they would be more polite.

But nope, people are still assholes. :(

Yep, the idea that lack of anonymity has an effect is provably false. I was happy when most of the news sites I frequent just disabled comments.

A quick skim of Facebook should have been enough to disabuse anyone of that notion, and yet Google tried to launch Google Plus with a real-name policy. (Which, of course, rejected a bunch of real names and made it easier for harassers to stalk their victims, to the point where many of the more vulnerable people avoid Google Plus.)

I do think that the facelessness of the victims has some effect, in that there's some people who don't think what happens on the internet is real. But there are clearly also radicalized harassers who have taken on anti-feminism or anti-semitism or straight-up the-white-race-should-be-separate-ism or whatever as part of their identity. Which escalates into a Dylan Roof, a Ben Moynihan, or an Elliot Rodger. And the former attitude provides cover for the latter, up until someone dies.

Stele wrote:

Yeah I started to think it was a good thing when many newspapers and other sites started just relying on Facebook posting for comments sections. Then maybe when people are posting under their real names they would be more polite.

But nope, people are still assholes. :(

I thought that was idiotic from the start. All that does is weed out the portion of the general public who thinks that it might not be a good idea to have their opinions on controversial subjects indexable by Google. What'd you have left is a highly refined population of fools and egotists.

kazooka wrote:

(Snip) What'd you have left is a highly refined population of fools and egotists.

You called?

kazooka wrote:
Stele wrote:

Yeah I started to think it was a good thing when many newspapers and other sites started just relying on Facebook posting for comments sections. Then maybe when people are posting under their real names they would be more polite.

But nope, people are still assholes. :(

I thought that was idiotic from the start. All that does is weed out the portion of the general public who thinks that it might not be a good idea to have their opinions on controversial subjects indexable by Google. What'd you have left is a highly refined population of fools and egotists.

I had a fairly tight filter bubble in Facebook until I started engaging with neighborhood groups where I live. Yesterday someone posted an image of a new gang tag, and folks were disagreeing over the meaning (was it just disrespecting the other gang, or threatening?). A few neighbors were dancing around the "I know what I'm talking about because of my own gang connections" line. A couple others just outright declared their allegiance as part of their interpretations.

The thing is, I know that on the sidewalk, these folks aren't as forthcoming, let alone making sustained eye contact with anyone who doesn't scan as part of their social order. It's assumed that explicit declarations of gang affiliation are something that teenagers do. Once you're an adult, you keep your mouth shut, or at least learn to hedge and code your language in public spaces.

It's funny, because these public Facebook groups are sort of treated as public, but without as much awareness of who's "in the room." You get conversation that's a little more back-porch than front stoop.

So I guess I'm saying that anonymity causation is sorta kinda there, but also not.

Recent FB activity in the Philippines has also made me much more aware that an FB account could easily be fake - even if it has a plausible name with a pic and all that jazz. It doesn't take a lot of effort to create a throwaway account that looks real to superficial examination.

Which might be a problem if they use it to brigade other sites.

I'm also disappointed that the alt-right Twitter clone seems to have better anti-harassment tools than Twitter itself.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/Tk1JnB6.jpg)

brouhaha wrote:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/Tk1JnB6.jpg)

What is a Libertarian?

The PBS Idea Channel posted a great video today concerning trolls and the internet. It's a great channel by the by, worth the subscribe!

This is one of those things that could go in multiple threads, particularly since they're responsible for some of the anti-Clinton memes. I'll let someone else post it in the other threads, as appropriate.

As it turns out, Palmer Lucky (of Oculus-acquired-by-Facebook-for-billions fame) has been secretly funding an online "sh*tposting" group in conjunction with Milo and moderators of r/The_Donald.

Gremlin wrote:

This is one of those things that could go in multiple threads, particularly since they're responsible for some of the anti-Clinton memes. I'll let someone else post it in the other threads, as appropriate.

As it turns out, Palmer Lucky (of Oculus-acquired-by-Facebook-for-billions fame) has been secretly funding an online "sh*tposting" group in conjunction with Milo and moderators of r/The_Donald.

What a complete asshole.

Not that I really cared about VR, but there's one more reason to not care about it, I suppose.

Whiny manchild with a stupid haircut, too much money and an over-inflated ego? It's a wonder nobody figured this out earlier.

Well then. HTC Vive it is then. (Assuming I ever have enough money to justify the purchase).

To paraphrase a tweet posted on the polygon article : so much for waiting for the old rich white billionaires to die so that the new compassionate, reasonable young billionaires can take their place.

DSGamer wrote:

Not that I really cared about VR, but there's one more reason to not care about it, I suppose.

A pretty specious reason, but yeah I'm right there with you.

Kronen wrote:

The PBS Idea Channel posted a great video today concerning trolls and the internet. It's a great channel by the by, worth the subscribe!

That's a great video.

I have a new favorite word: "Memerati".

NathanialG wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

This is one of those things that could go in multiple threads, particularly since they're responsible for some of the anti-Clinton memes. I'll let someone else post it in the other threads, as appropriate.

As it turns out, Palmer Lucky (of Oculus-acquired-by-Facebook-for-billions fame) has been secretly funding an online "sh*tposting" group in conjunction with Milo and moderators of r/The_Donald.

What a complete asshole.

Yeah very glad I bought the Vive now..

Let's all leave Facebook too.

pyxistyx wrote:

Whiny manchild with a stupid haircut, too much money and an over-inflated ego? It's a wonder nobody figured this out earlier.

Well then. HTC Vive it is then. (Assuming I ever have enough money to justify the purchase).

To paraphrase a tweet posted on the polygon article : so much for waiting for the old rich white billionaires to die so that the new compassionate, reasonable young billionaires can take their place.

There is a particular brand of assholery that is fairly exclusive to technocrat libertarian sh*theels.

"Let's make the world a better place by automating everything, putting thousands out of jobs and having absolutely no back up plan on how to re-integrate those folks into our new robot overlord society!"

nel e nel wrote:
pyxistyx wrote:

Whiny manchild with a stupid haircut, too much money and an over-inflated ego? It's a wonder nobody figured this out earlier.

Well then. HTC Vive it is then. (Assuming I ever have enough money to justify the purchase).

To paraphrase a tweet posted on the polygon article : so much for waiting for the old rich white billionaires to die so that the new compassionate, reasonable young billionaires can take their place.

There is a particular brand of assholery that is fairly exclusive to technocrat libertarian sh*theels.

"Let's make the world a better place by automating everything, putting thousands out of jobs and having absolutely no back up plan on how to re-integrate those folks into our new robot overlord society!"

The robots will merely sell bootstraps at a "reasonable" cost through their tax-free corporate strongholds. If you can't pay, they'll just disintegrate you with their built-in lasers to resolve the pesky leech problem.

I'm just blown away by how many of the alt-right/GG accusations turned out to be...about them. Billionaire secretly funding online spamming and harassment? Who would have believed it, if he hadn't started outright bragging about it?

Pages