Community Chat

[Joey Heatherton]

There's a fascinating article in the Washington Post today on trolling.

Entitled, "Reign of Terror:  An Online Troll Destroys a Family's Offline Life."

It's scary, for real.

http://wapo.st/1LpS58G

[YorkieonmyPillow]

Joey Heatherton, did you read what he did, though?

"He... displayed quirky humor but also contributed offensive comments about child molestation and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Moreno said those posts were not serious, bur he earned the ire of some users."

When you get online and run your mouth, you're going to have a problem.

I notice the article didn't post what his offensive comments were. You can't get online and shoot your mouth off about such matters as CHILD MOLESTATION and not expect a reaction.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'd like to see what he posted. The article seemed to gloss over that.

Bad journalism.

[Joey Heatherton]

Yes Yorkie.  As I read the piece I thought, well he was a troublemaker himself.

But, IMO, the stalking and harrassment he received in RL for his ignorant online comments still were overreaching and possibly criminal.  The article describes the harrasser as the "self-appointed sheriff" of the site.  IMO, that's where many people go overboard.  We can disagree, debate, virtually shout. But we can't make others think the way we think because we believe we are moral and right.  We cannot tell others how to think.

Reading the article closely, also, I came away with the theory that the harrasser had to be an owner or admin on the site.   Because a simple fellow user would not have access to a fellow poster's IP or email. Somebody was able to track the guy.

Here's an article on the "science" of what makes a troll a troll:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/science-reveals-what-makes-trolls-so-nasty/2015/07/20/7ca2...

[YorkieonmyPillow]

  Well of course but when you post online, you need to realize that the world is reading.

  Making light of something like child molestation is guaranteed to get you some attention.

  That's not saying what was done to him was right, but people need to learn how to use the internet.

  Lord knows I had a baptism by fire and boy, did I learn.

[MyGirlsMom]

I just found this on line. Good for him!

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/boy-confronts-bullies--goes-to-white-house-489090627747?cid=s...

[JustJazzmom]

Is spamming a form of trolling?

Googling that I found a few definitions of both.

spam = stupid pointless annoying message

so spamming is simply posting repeated stupid messages

trolling is trying to get a negative emotional response out of somebody

_________________________________________________________

Trolling is saying stupid things repeatedly and annoying people and spamming is random or irrating emails or texts.

_________________________________________________________

Trolling: basically annoying people on the internet

Spamming: excessive posting

_________________________________________________________

From this website

Trolls divert online discussions into non-productive, off-topic venues. They pose as part of a community only to disrupt it. Trolling is anti-social behavior.

Some of the techniques trolls use to accomplish their objectives are:

• Pithy put-downs
• Name-calling and insults
• Ad hominem attacks that try to negate an opinion by alleging negatives about the person supporting it
• Impugning other's motives
• Emotional rants
• Bullying and harassment
• Completely off-topic posts
• Posting inaccurate "facts"

The traditional definition of trolling includes intent. That is, trolls purposely disrupt forums. This definition is too narrow. Whether someone intends to disrupt a thread or not, the results are the same if they do.

[MyGirlsMom]

The traditional definition of trolling includes intent. That is, trolls purposely disrupt forums. This definition is too narrow. Whether someone intends to disrupt a thread or not, the results are the same if they do.

***

Spot on.

[HappyDaze]

I truly believe people that go on threads and continually try to argue with others or change the topic and continue to argue with others regarding this off topic post very much know that they are derailing the original intent of the OP's post.

I know we all go a bit off topic on some threads but usually it is not to argue and create chaos and disrupt but just a temporary digression and the topic will get back on track. Posters will often apologize for the digression too, which is NEVER the case of a troll because, again, their intent IS to derail and digress the conversation.

[MyGirlsMom]

I agree HappyDaze, you this this time and time again, especially on facebook.  

[JustJazzmom]

I want to take this in a slightly different but related direction: something I see time and again on 'heated' threads here.

It's called the 'straw man argument'

Here is one site to explain what it is and I will post an example from that site.

" One example of this type of argument can be seen in the following hypothetical situation between a child and his parent:

Child: "Can we get a dog?"
Parent: "No."
Child: "It would protect us."
Parent: "Still, no."
Child: "Why do you want to leave us and our house unprotected?"

The child in the above scenario may be making a straw man argument if the parent's reason for not getting a dog has nothing to do with protection but with other factors. Moreover, not getting a dog is not necessarily proof that the parent doesn't want to protect the family and home, since there are other means of protection."