The war on trolling is like the "war on drugs". If everyone who trolled online was convicted we'd need to build a bunch of extra prisons just for them. There has to be a better solution. But how do you show these people what they're doing is wrong?
Honestly, I think that 'don't feed the trolls' and slowly making it socially unacceptable from a larger point of view is about all we can do. Punishment is never going to actually create a change in these people. A majority of trolls aren't evil people out to do evil in the world. They are otherwise normal people who slip into a troll persona due to any number of factors - alcohol, drugs, releasing steam and pent of frustration, desire to be accepted, and many more. I think it is also something that typically happens in the 16-24 age range - when you are first becoming independent but aren't quite there yet. Experimentation and trying on different hats is all part of this "growing up" stage and it will happen before and after the internet. You also have far more down time and general boredom at this age than you will ever have again. Once you start finding confidence in yourself and your life choices, the desire to troll and general interest in internet-drama tends to subside. I know that my interest in drama (internet or otherwise) was directly related to the amount of free time I had. The second I had more stimulating things or do and more time-consuming things to handle, the idea of spending time reading about or engaging with anything in that realm became much more unsatisfying, not to mention often left me annoyed and angry. I realized that if I only had an hour of freedom to idle around the internet, reading anything that wasn't stimulating / challenging and beneficial to my general mental state was an utter waste.
"Don't feed the trolls" worked on Usenet back when it was coined because non-trolls outnumbered trolls, and the regulars usually had a pretty tight knit community going. Once people caught on, trolls only had each other to talk to, got bored and left. It stopped working on Usenet when Usenet exploded, and even if the regulars didn't take the bait someone would. The modern Internet is even worse in that respect. Not only are there far more people who will react than will just ignore them, particularly obnoxious trolls make the news. It doesn't matter if you don't feed the trolls, twitter, tumblr and reporters needing to fill space will feed them all they could ask for.
There seems to be two, diametrically opposed camps to dealing with trolls online. On the one hand you have "Don't feed the trolls" which has lead some otherwise smart people to blame victims of harassment for their harassment (I'm in particular thinking of one of weev's victims). On the other you have what I would call "The Racist Tree" group (appropriate that it was posted on hubski so recently). This has been an explicit rejection of "Don't feed the trolls" by being as loud as possible in naming and shaming the trolls to the point of trying to get them fired and even doxxing. I think in some ways society and our laws need to change to help protect against persistent, perhaps malevolent trolls (such as the recent changes to outlaw revenge porn). For most, though, trolling is probably just symptomatic of something else, whether it be substance abuse or just experimentation with notoriety.Honestly, I think that 'don't feed the trolls' and slowly making it socially unacceptable from a larger point of view is about all we can do. Punishment is never going to actually create a change in these people. A majority of trolls aren't evil people out to do evil in the world. They are otherwise normal people who slip into a troll persona due to any number of factors - alcohol, drugs, releasing steam and pent of frustration, desire to be accepted, and many more.
How about "block the trolls"? Nearly every online communication platform has a way to block certain users. This is worse. Ruining someone's life simply because they enjoy saying something you find offensive? Are we going to dox those and get them fired for saying 'fuck', 'shit', 'cunt', 'bitch', etc? Are we going to dox and fire people who are against a state monopoly? Against religion? Against same-sex marriage? Are we going to tolerate different opinions at all? forwardslash, I don't like you an your opinions, so I'm going to give out your personal info online, in an attempt to dox you and ruin your life. Isn't that so much better than simply ignoring you? I see outlawing revenge porn as a different topic entirely. That's about copyright. Which is certainly something that needs work. As for persistent trolls? No. This is no more wrong than someone who simply has an unpopular opinion and uses 'offensive' language. Should we protect against those who have a real ill-will? Absolutely. But against those who simply like using such language? No. Otherwise we get 'taboo' words. Which is full of shit, because that's how you keep people ignorant and stupid. There's a few different causes. There's the difference of opinion being labeled as trolling. There's the notoriety aspect. Then there's the impaired conscious decision making aspect. And then there's the ill-intents. Which is the actual problem we should fix.. On the one hand you have "Don't feed the trolls" which has lead some otherwise smart people to blame victims of harassment for their harassment (I'm in particular thinking of one of weev's victims).
This has been an explicit rejection of "Don't feed the trolls" by being as loud as possible in naming and shaming the trolls to the point of trying to get them fired and even doxxing.
I think in some ways society and our laws need to change to help protect against persistent, perhaps malevolent trolls (such as the recent changes to outlaw revenge porn).
For most, though, trolling is probably just symptomatic of something else, whether it be substance abuse or just experimentation with notoriety.
This depends entirely on the context. If people want to spout racist crap in their own forums, so be it. If they want to come on here, say, and start a debate about why they feel back people are inferior or gay marriage should be banned, then fine. If they brigade onto other people's spaces and make death threats and multiple seriously abusive remarks, then yes, let's name and shame. Freedom to speak does not mean freedom to harass and abuse. There are people driven to suicide by online harassment.This is worse. Ruining someone's life simply because they enjoy saying something you find offensive? Are we going to dox those and get them fired for saying 'fuck', 'shit', 'cunt', 'bitch', etc? Are we going to dox and fire people who are against a state monopoly? Against religion? Against same-sex marriage? Are we going to tolerate different opinions at all?
Certainly. It's understandable if the property owner doesn't tolerate it, and kicks you off/out. Including on webspace. Twitter has every right to ban whoever they'd like. I'm talking about legality, and seriously messing up someone's life, for what they perceive as a joke. Yup. No reason they should be attacked for it though. Even if it's a widely looked down upon opinion. These users didn't really do anything of the sort though. They simply tweeted, which they normally do. As I said, it's not like they stalked the person, and they certainly weren't even aware of who it was, it literally could've been anyone. Which is why fucking up their life for it seems silly. But yes, if they actively search out email addresses, other online accounts, etc. and stalk/harass continually, I can see why it's a problem. Insulting someone isn't a problem. Even if the insult comes as a particularly nasty statement. What's a problem is threatening safety, and stalking. Sure it does. It means the freedom to say whatever you damn well please. The problem stems from civil disruption. Like yelling "fire" in a movie theater when there isn't a fire. It's not that you aren't allowed to say "fire", it's that you aren't allowed to cause an uproar over nothing. Online, there's absolutely no reason any of this should happen. Even if it's done intentionally. You can simply block a person and move on. Or make a new account. The only reason people get pissed off is because they don't realize the internet is truly anonymous. You don't have to go by your name. And certainly back in the day no one did. Just change names and move on. Which is stupid. On both sides. How the fuck are you driven to suicide by some random commenters words? It's literally just fucking anonymous text on a screen that could be addressed to anyone. The fact that they simply don't block the person, or delete their account and make a new one is ridiculous. Is insulting people IRL illegal? Is it a problem? Honestly, I see it as a bigger problem than online, since you can't simply block people in real life. It's easy to simply make a new anonymous account and move on. Why people don't get that is baffling to me. This depends entirely on the context.
If people want to spout racist crap in their own forums, so be it. If they want to come on here, say, and start a debate about why they feel back people are inferior or gay marriage should be banned, then fine.
If they brigade onto other people's spaces and make death threats and multiple seriously abusive remarks, then yes, let's name and shame.
Freedom to speak does not mean freedom to harass and abuse.
There are people driven to suicide by online harassment.
If you make death threats then you suffer the consequences of your harassment. I hate the trend to downplay something just because it happens in a specific arena, like schoolyard bullying which is also abuse and harassment but never gets taken seriously as it would be if happened outside the "playground". Internet "trolling" - in terms of death threats severely abusive personal attacks made to that person - is abuse and harassment and should rightly be a criminal offence.
The first girl clearly has problems. Honestly, she'd probably have been in prison even if she didn't troll online. The second guy, what the fuck? Seems like a pretty chill dude who just happened to jump on a bandwagon. No real ill-intent there, even if he did spew out nasty words for 'fun'. Are we going to arrest people who play violent games too, simply because it shows an 'intent to kill'? How absurd. There's a clear difference between a bit of poking with sticks, and actual death/rape threats. Should there have been a warning? Sure. Should the account have been banned? Probably. Should the guy have been arrested? No fucking way. Perhaps if he followed up, got an email address and sent them there, or stalked the person and harassed everywhere online, then yea, that's probably grounds for an arrest. But a single instance on a fairly anonymous website? Really? And even other people were doing it too, it wasn't just that one guy. Taking down the one guy is simply encouraging unequal rights. And for what? Free speech? What if he encoded his tweets into binary? Is it a crime to make certain algorithmic patterns? If there's a real intent to harm, I can see the problem. But just a 'joke' online? FFS people, grow up.