The key thing is to break down the vague word "trolling" into specific bad actions. Threats. Verbal abuse. Inciting harm. Doxxing. It's fairly easy to get people to agree that these are bad and use the existing antispam machinery to get rid of them. You don't refute death threats, you delete them, ban the user, and if they're persistent enough report them to the police.
The older sense of troll (posting controversial opinions and false statements in hope of getting furious disagreement) does respond to "feeding", but is not so directly harmful.
Then you have to make a judgement call as to whether some opinions which aren't specifically violent or threatening should be banned anyway (e.g. "women do not belong in IT"). Allowing those opinions drives people (e.g. women) away, often quietly and without fuss, but creates a subtly oppressive environment. This is not easy to do and will itself attract controversy and trolling.
> You don't refute death threats, you delete them, ban the user, and if they're persistent enough report them to the police.
This is the same as ignoring them, unfortunately, and the article goes on at great length at how that's not sufficient. A blocked user makes another account, and can still goad others into joining them. Meanwhile the police do nothing in nearly all cases. From the article:
> You’re probably more likely to win the lottery than to get any law enforcement agency in the United States to take action when you are harassed online, no matter how viscously and explicitly. Local agencies lack the resources, federal agencies won’t bother.
I would say be careful to not be directed by the trolls. Real trolls are good at directing all of us to attack the innocent. Thus while you may feel like you are "stopping" someone, you may in fact be attacking the wrong target. Look at what happened with Reddit and the Boston Marathon Bomber.
Some trolls love to create these vortexes ... it was the end-game for them all along. So ... if the person being attacked is a public person, I would say tread lightly. If both are anonymous ... perhaps simply getting into thread "thought defense" is not wise and should be avoided?
There are trolls on HN that have very high karma and yet are anonymous accounts. We (in the technical community) need to pause when we allow for that type of power that can be used against others.
In any bullying, there are three players: the bully, the bullied and the witnesses.
People who are bullied will often internalize that they are worthless (and that's why they are bullied). That can be one of the hardest parts of being bullied.
This happens especially if people who witness the bullying stay silent. Than the bullied will feel even more alone (and will feel awful about how bad they feel).
But if witnesses stand up and say- "hey, bully: you're being an asshole", then that is a service to the bullied. The bullied will at least not feel so alone.
In what way does the parent comment indicate the author did not read the article? The article discusses options as a target of trolling, the parent seems directed at bystanders.
The article specifically calls out the "ignore the trolling" tactic is specifically a losing one, as the trolls will simply turn up the volume / severity of abuse. Nearly the entire article elaborates on this theme -- that it's not something that can be ignored, nor fought easily, and that telling someone to "just ignore it" is not going to solve it.
Like I said, though, that is directed at troll targets, not bystanders. Further, "just ignore it" is an incorrect summary of what Joe suggested, which was "ignore it but support the victim". I don't know that this is the correct approach, but I know it's not what the article spoke to.
I didn't read it as being directed only as targets.
There's been a general push, among communities suffering harassment, against the notion that vocally calling out malicious actors is 'feeding the trolls' in the traditional exacerbating sense. i.e. standing aside allows further victimization.
It may deserve to be directed more broadly; reading the article, it was not my impression that it was being so directed - and skimming again seems to support my initial reading ("ignore" is mentioned thrice, and every time in the context of talking to someone who was a target of trolls).
I would note that this discussion lends significant strength to my initial complaint here - which is that a bare RTFA is poor form and one should point to why and how the source disagrees with the comment. People are quite capable of reading the same material and coming away with different things (without anyone being an idiot).
The article also mentions that there becomes a competition among the bullies to see who can find the most effective tactic. ("The more dangerous social-web-fueled gamification of trolling is the unofficial troll/hate leader-board. ....")
This adds a lot to the severity. Ignoring it is not enough.
Note that I'm not saying ignoring it is the best approach. I just don't like seeing a bare "RTFA" when the issue raised was not specifically addressed in the article. (Even if it can be arguably inferred from the article, some pointers at the steps of inference are worthwhile - things are not equally obvious to everyone).
I felt that the aside about social gamification was important conceptually.
As technologists, sometimes we build something and then like to step aside and talk about it like it's inevitable. But how it was made and how it works factors in to how it is used. So it is our responsibility.
Right, thanks, way beyond normal sane responses required I see from the article. Well, maybe there's not been anything invented yet that will solve this problem.
If I will go through this forum and add reply to every post in an attempt to get random people angry, I am a troll. If I personally target you, publish your ssn and spread lies about you, then I am harassing you.
The solution to trolling is not feeding them in majority of cases, but it will not solve harassment problem.
I think what Kathy Sierra described was people following charismatic "trolls" without thinking ... if those of us capable of rational thought actually speak out, I'm assuming we'd be the majority. Trolls and their followers are that same radical 10% of the population that bombs abortion clinics (or WTCs).
i: a small short website that can serve as a point of accurate information
ii: support for the person under attack. Whether privately by email (or similar) or a short single "please don't let the attacks get to you".
iii: disengaging from the trolls, and building a culture where responding to trolling is avoided.
The UK had some high profile arrests, trials, and imprisonments recently. I'm not sure if it made much difference in the frequency or severity of trolling.
Did you actually read the article? That's not feeding the trolls. That's, after six years of ignoring the trolls, deciding that it's gotten toxic enough that she needs to make a public refutation of weev's reality distortion field.
Aren't trolls getting lulz off of this? If so, they've been fed, regardless of whatever reasons it's so. Nobody feeds trolls to keep them fat and happy; people feed trolls because they are against trolling, so we have to remind them to stop because it's counterproductive.
I do think it's going to prove counterproductive for internet discourse as a whole.
At this point though, the "con" of feeding trolls is outweighed by the "pro" of increasing public awareness. Plus, the "trolls" involved here are so severe that they no longer require a response to continue. The core of the "don't feed the trolls" argument seems to be that they will eventually give up, but that only works with the mildest of offenders.
It could however be argued that by pulling away from the public eye she actually was feeding them, and that the best course of action would be to act like they don't exist. I still find it doubtfull that it would have stopped it though, as in the minds of the most obsessed trolls the very act of ignoring them tells them their tactics are working.
Will writing this make things worse for her? Probably, but saying it's her fault makes as much sense blaming sexual assault victims for wearing anything even remotely revealing.
-sent from phone, so please forgive spelling/grammar
