←back to thread

142 points mzs | 5 comments | | HN request time: 1.221s | source
Show context
neaden ◴[] No.19401182[source]
I think right now there are three main kinds of internet trolls in things like this. First would be the government sponsored ones who tend to post in unison or have some theme. These seem to mainly be Chinese and Russian. Second are the freelance trolls, people in it to make money by building an audience for advertisements. A lot of these people are in Macedonia where they can make relatively good money spreading false blogs on Facebook or something. Finally are the home grown true believers who are just posting their honest views in an abrasive, hostile, or threatening manner. I think the majority of trolls belong to the last group, but the first two have an outsized impact at creating new stories and coordinating messaging that is amplified by the third.
replies(5): >>19401231 #>>19401761 #>>19401993 #>>19402953 #>>19412907 #
tomatotomato37 ◴[] No.19401231[source]
If you're going by the original meaning of troll you're missing the fourth category; the people who post something inflammatory because everyone freaking out and arguing at each other is amusing to them
replies(6): >>19401276 #>>19401278 #>>19401334 #>>19401569 #>>19401641 #>>19403314 #
neaden ◴[] No.19401278[source]
I think that type has mostly gone away/become the third. People "ironically" posting racism seem to all just be flat out racists now. As Kurt Vonnegut said “We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.”
replies(4): >>19401383 #>>19401482 #>>19401914 #>>19402744 #
umvi ◴[] No.19401482[source]
> I think that type has mostly gone away/become the third

I think you underestimate the entertainment value of intentionally posting inflammatory things. It's fun to play devil's advocate. That doesn't mean you believe it.

replies(4): >>19401529 #>>19401832 #>>19402901 #>>19403417 #
anigbrowl ◴[] No.19401832[source]
Regardless of what one believes, posting specifically to inflame or upset people is a form of aggression. Where aggressive debate is a norm accepted by all participants this can manifest as interesting or even productive competition, but where it is unilaterally inflicted on unwilling respondents it quickly generates into sadism.
replies(2): >>19401956 #>>19402732 #
1. mistermann ◴[] No.19402732[source]
> Regardless of what one believes, posting specifically to inflame or upset people is a form of aggression.

Serious question: is it possible to play devil's advocate without insincere motivations? For example, say someone holds a strong but simplistic belief on a complex topic, if asking a legitimate question in a straightforward and non-offensive manner upsets the person holding the belief, is it necessarily (and always) a form of aggression?

replies(1): >>19403539 #
2. anigbrowl ◴[] No.19403539[source]
Of course it is, but one has to have some sort of agreed frame with other discussants. Suppose we were discussing suicide cults and the question arose of why people join them; that's well worth discussing, and even debating if there are conflicting views, but discussions of how cults recruit people should be easily distinguishable from actual attempts at recruitment.
replies(1): >>19404473 #
3. mistermann ◴[] No.19404473[source]
> but discussions of how cults recruit people should be easily distinguishable from actual attempts at recruitment

Hmmmm....can you think of an example of a case where "asking a legitimate question in a straightforward and non-offensive manner" about suicide cults would not be easily distinguishable from an attempt at recruitment?

replies(1): >>19405486 #
4. anigbrowl ◴[] No.19405486{3}[source]
Yes, I can think of many such examples because misunderstandings can and do occur. However, we are now far away from the behavior I labeled as a form of aggression, to wit 'posting specifically to inflame or upset people,' so I don't plan to proceed any further down this path of semantic possibilities.
replies(1): >>19406127 #
5. mistermann ◴[] No.19406127{4}[source]
> we are now far away from the behavior I labeled as a form of aggression

So, it is necessarily (and always) a form of aggression then?