Why do people troll? Can we prevent trolling or limit the damage trolls do? Here are some thoughts on trollology derived from academic studies and web research.

Identifying Trolls

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

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.

For example, here at OS News,

the purposefully disruptive don’t get far.

The community self-moderates pretty effectively, and thumbs-up or

thumbs-down voting on comments supports this effort. Yet we do

see cases where people — who would

never consider themselves trolls — unintentionally disrupt threads

just as effectively those who would try to. Sometimes they offend

others with snappy

put-downs. Other times they question others’

intelligence or motives. Though not meant as trolling, the results are

the same.

Thoughtful discussions degenerate into insults.

Intentional trolls purposely

disrupt threads. Those who unintentionally

troll

do so without meaning to.

Motivations differ but the results are the same.

Why Do People Troll?

Let’s talk about intentional trolls.

Some are motivated by political, financial, or

ideological gain. For example, political trolls participate in forums

run by opponents to disrupt them. Sometimes this

takes the form of a concern

troll, a person who appears sympathetic to the cause being

discussed but who is

actually trying to sow doubt among the believers. In 2006 a Republican Congressional staffer

was forced to resign after he posted to liberal blogs as a Democrat who

thought the party should fold in the contest for his boss’s seat.

How about financial and ideological trolling? Trolls posted

falsely about a corporate buy-out at Yahoo

Finance that caused an

immediate 31% gain in the stock of telephone equipment

company PairGain. The hoax was quickly exposed and the stock deflated. Wired claims that anti-Scientology

protests sometimes take

the form of trolling. We’re all familiar with Linux trolls who

disrupt Windows threads, and Windows trolls who disrupt Linux

discussions.

Then there are the cases of astroturfing,

also called astrotrolling.

Whole Foods

CEO John Mackey was caught doing this. His anonymous self “quickly became

an outspoken regular on the board, praising and defending Whole Foods

with the equally enthusiastic virulence used to attack and shame the

company’s competitors and nay-sayers.”

Trolls sometimes defame individuals.One

victim was the late 60 Minutes

commentator Andy Rooney, whose name was signed

to a racist rant he didn’t write. Another was

John Seigenthaler, eminent journalist and former Kennedy aide, who

was implicated

in the Kennedy assassinations by a false Wikipedia post. The perpetrator was caught. Few of us non-famous

folks would have had the resources to counteract such “Internet character assassination.” Some trolls

even mock the dead and deface online memorials.



Claire Hardaker explores the psychological motivations of trolls in her

Ph.D. thesis Trolling

in Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication. She concludes that

“trolls intention(s) is/are to

cause disruption and/or to trigger or exacerbate conflict for the

purposes of their own amusement.”

Dr. Tom Postmes, Dutch professor of social psychology and book editor

of Individuality and the Group,

has a contrarian take. He argues that instead of contravening

social standards, trolls conform to them. It’s just that the social

standards to which they’re attuned are specific to a certain web

subculture.

Another way to consider trolling from is Dr. Phil’s viewpoint: People only engage in repeated behavior if

it pays off for them. What

is the pay-off for trolling? Experts and

online discussions cite:

Attention and recognition, even if negative

The emotional release of venting

Power (the power to disrupt)

Vandalism

The thrill of breaking social conventions

Sabotaging groups the troll dislikes

Immaturity



Intentional trolls brag that they do it for the lulz. Their

braggadocio usually masks these reasons.





Unintentional Trolling

Most

of us have unintentionally trolled at one time or other. Perhaps we

posted while in a bad mood or under stress. Or we posted hastily or

without editing. We’ve all written something at 3 am that we might not

have upon reflection.

Where unintentional trolling becomes a problem is when a person

engages

in such behavior repeatedly because he doesn’t recognize that he’s

trolling. Some people think it’s cool to post snappy put-downs. Or they

casually question the intelligence or sincerity of others. Or they

name-call. Often these people would be surprised to be called

trolls. Yet when they post like this they are trolling just as surely

as the intentional troll. Why? Because

their

posts have the same effect. They sidetrack useful discussion into

offensive, heated exchanges. They destroy threads.

Some who repeatedly troll but don’t mean to lack social sensitivity.

Discussion requires give-and-take.

Some aren’t socially mature. Some can’t accept or handle

disagreement. We’ve all been too thin-skinned on occasion.

While most participants consider forums to be for the equal

interchange

of ideas, some people don’t. They see them as vehicles

to meet their personal needs. They place their needs above useful

interaction or concern for

others. Their motto is “I’ll post whatever I want, deal

with it.” This is a selfish understanding of social

interaction. If this isn’t obvious, try treating people like this in

real life. You won’t have many friends or much success in dealing with

people. Acting this way online has the same effects. It’s a form of

trolling.

Unintentional

trolling can be as destructive as the purposeful kind. “By their fruits

ye shall know them.”

How to Stop Trolls

The problem with trolling is that

a small minority can destroy a web site’s usefulness for the majority

of

well-intentioned, well-behaved participants.

Some web sites eliminate trolls by not allowing comments. For certain

kinds of blogs or online magazines this can be a good solution. But

for most sites this is unacceptable because it prevents the growth of

online community. At OS News,

for example, community is vital and much of the value from the articles

appears in the comments. Many other web sites have the same need for

reader participation; online forums wouldn’t exist without it.

A few web sites defeat trolls by posting only a selected comments.

Print newspapers followed this model for years. Advice columns come to

mind. The columnist selects a few reader comments to which to reply. No

others make print.

What do you do if you want to allow all comments but eliminate

trolling? One approach is to pre-moderate.

Only after a moderator approves comments are they posted. This is very

effective with competent moderators but it requires lots

of time. It also hampers discussion if it delays postings. Post-moderating comments

eliminates the time lag but still incurs the labor costs. Inappropriate

comments may get brief airplay.

Software can eliminate the labor requirement for moderators while still

imposing some order. The software has to integrate compatibly with the

comment software. For example, those with WordPress blogs can use tools

like Bad Behavior, Spam Karma 2, and Akismet. In my experience many

programs do better at stopping spam than policing trolls. Skillfull

trolls can outwit programs.

Many communities informally police themselves to curtail trolls.

The common maxim “Please don’t feed the trolls” argues that if troll

comments are ignored intentional trolls will leave and

go where they provoke results. “Don’t take the troll bait” works best

when

the bait is obvious and the forum participants are more sophisticated

than the trolls.

Forum participants can complain about trolls to board adminstrators.

Even

sites lacking hands-on moderation will often respond if they get

feedback indicating that trolls threaten the forum. Admins

can warn trolls and/or drop their user ids. IP addresses help identify

intentional trolls who post under multiple ids, or who create new ids

after their

original one is terminated. How effective these techniques are often

depend on the respective skills and persistence of the adminstrators

versus the trolls.

Some forums offer tools that allow readers to filter out troll

comments. killfile and filters on Usenet

discussion groups and the Ignore

function on some boards come to mind. OS

News features a specially-written thumbs-up/thumbs-down voting

mechanism that allows

users to vote down posts that are then hidden from the default view.

Individuals can set their comment threshold to suit their own

preferences. The

voting mechanism allows users to specify why they voted against a post (Inaccurate, Troll, or Off-topic). This enables the

collective wisdom of OS News readers

to reduce trolling.

One can think of many ways to fine-tune such voting mechanisms — but

at the

cost of increasingly complex and sophisticated algorithms. Here at OS News, readers offered

many good ideas on voting moderation systems in

response to Thom Holwerda’s excellent article On the Virtues of Comments.

With unintentional trolls, often just bringing inappropriate

behavior to their attention will solve the problem. After all,

they are not purposely being disruptive. Where I’ve moderated as admin,

I’ve found that polite but direct communication works best:

“We value your contributions but you need to be more

respectful of others in how you express them.” If someone won’t respond

to polite entreaties they are trolls (of whatever kind) and are stopped

from posting.

Intentional trolls are a different story. They won’t stop if you ask

them. They hide behind anonymity. Most would not post

the way they do if they were not anonymous. Thus mechanisms that

undermine

anonymity and enforce personal responsibility deter them.

Amazon deters trolling through a qualification

system. One has to qualify

in order to post. Their system requires personal information, a

verifiable email address, and a verifiable credit card. Other web sites

qualify commenters through paid memberships, technical quizzes, or

using real names in posts.

The WELL is one of the oldest online

forum communities. It maintains

a high level of discourse by requiring a paid subscription and the use

of one’s real name in postings. Most WELL comments can only be read by

fellow

members but there are designated exceptions.

Facebook and Google executives argue

that we should eliminate anonymity on the web. The cite trolling as the

reason but their real motives are commercial.

The problem with eliminating anonymity is that its benefits

outweigh the damage trolls do. Most people do not want

their real name on every comment they ever post, which would then

be

available to every person, corporation, or government entity for the

rest of their lives.

Even innocuous comments could have unanticipated consequences.

Whistleblowers and dissidents would be exposed and penalized.

Destroying privacy is not a solution to trolling.

Some countries have legislated against trolling. In the U.K., section

127 of the Communications Act 2003 says

it is an offence to send messages that are “grossly offensive or of an

indecent, obscene or menacing character.” Several people have been

jailed under its provisions. In the U.S., 1st Amendment rights make

prosecution for troll speech rare. But trolls take heed: all 50 states

have passed laws

against cyberharassment, cyberbullying, and cyberstalking.

The Bottom Line



Trolling isn’t going away. Yet there are some good techniques

to reduce trolling and its impact. Your ultimate recourse is to leave

a trolled forum and participate in a community more to your liking.

Unintentional trolling is an essential but overlooked part of the

problem. It is rarely discussed or even acknowledged,

which is why I’ve specifically identified it here. Sometimes

people troll and don’t realize it. Unless a forum can get them to

understand that their behaviors are inappropriate, those who

unintentionally

troll can do every bit as much damage to useful discussion as those who

troll with

malicious intent.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –



Read more on trolling in New York

Magazine‘s feature article

or in these profiles

of infamous trolls.

Howard Fosdick (President, FCI) is an independent consultant who

supports

databases and operating systems. His hobby is refurbishing computers as

a form of social work and environmental contribution. Read his other

articles here.