←back to thread

142 points mzs | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
dvt ◴[] No.19401956[source]
> Regardless of what one believes, posting specifically to inflame or upset people is a form of aggression.

This is a ridiculous, not to mention untenable, position. I take it you never read Socrates? He saw great value in poking and prodding -- being the proverbial gadfly.

replies(3): >>19402136 #>>19402716 #>>19402958 #
jstarfish ◴[] No.19402958[source]
...and he was ultimately executed for it.

That behavior is acceptable in an academic setting, but nobody blithely posting contrarian or inflammatory content on a fansite or Facebook is doing it because they're hoping to inspire Socratic discourse.

replies(1): >>19403109 #
1. dvt ◴[] No.19403109{3}[source]
Let me put it this way. You have a society and in your society you have an annoying Socrates. He provokes people, gets some people riled up, and gets some people to self-reflect. Some people are angry, most people are indifferent, and some people like him.

You have two choices: (1) execute Socrates, or (2) accept Socrates as part of the Miltonian "marketplace of ideas" and leave him be. I'd like to think we've started to see that (2) is a better choice than (1). Dismissing Socrates as "aggressive" (and implicitly "dangerous") is, from what I can tell, not the right move.