Commenting on this particular troll is probably beneath the majority of us.
However, on a general note, I think it is important to realize that every text message you send, every cell phone conversation you have, every post to the CNN forum you make, every tweet you send ... is directly attributable to your IP whether you use your own name or not. With Facebook and Google tracking everything you do, whether you are logged in or not, I would go one step further, and say all of these things are directly attributable to you personally.
I would strongly urge young people to really think about what they are putting out there. Consider this, the military was doing the equivalent of credit checks for sensitive positions during the 60s. Now you need a credit check to do ANYTHING, even things that don't require credit. How long before an internet and phone background check is standard in the background checks organizations do before offering jobs?
I can tell you the military is doing this sort of screening right now for sensitive positions, but at least you are confronted about it. It still basically ends your career, but they will give you a chance to explain your posts. In the private sector in the future, they will just deep six your application and you won't know what happened. Or they'll let you in at entry level, maybe, and subsequently you'll start running up against an invisible barrier as you try to advance beyond the first or second layer of management. Or you will find resistance to you advancing into management at all.
Also be mindful, it can affect more than your professional life. Think about what the background checks for apartments will look like in the 2020s. Or what 'dating sites' will be like in the 2020s.
Please consider your future before you make comments on ... say ... Hurricane Katrina ... that might be misconstrued. Or post an opinion on ... say ... American soldiers in Afghanistan ... that could be taken out of context and viewed in a negative light.
All that said, the absolute best defense against these sorts of situations is just not to be a douche, which isn't very hard. If a guy or girl is dead...leave them in peace. If you can't say something nice...just don't comment.
I've run forums for a long time and bullying surfaces frequently. Most trolls use Tor nowadays.
Only very rarely do I get traceable IP addresses that can be dealt with in any meaningful way, and that's usually when there is an invasion of trolls for a day or two and some drop their guard.
The only time I've ever successfully stopped a troll was about a decade ago when I traced it back to a uni and was able to raise a sysadmin.
By and large, for the majority of forums and social sites out there (which is where most bullying happens) there is very little that the admins can do even if it's reported to us.
About the only thing working is stopforumspam.com , whereby hundreds of forums are blocking IP addresses for a short while across all of the forums. It's made for spam, but I and others submit trolls to it too (when we're absolutely sure there's nothing of worth in the person and it's not just differing views).
One of my projects was shut down by Craigslist (NotifyWire.com). I took down the site and posted the details explaining why NotifyWire was going off-line.
Six months later, while attempting to refinance my house, I was told to take my name off the mortgage application because my corporation was under legal threat by Craigslist and thus was a liability that the underwriters might cite as a reason to decline the application.
While your advice is generally sound, I'm concerned about the implied exhortation to self-censorship of controversial, but legitimate, views that it carries with it. Really, 20 years from now, if they're doing those kinds of background checks, will the checker care more that the checkee trolled some RIP group, or espoused support for Wikileaks? Will they care more that the checkee called someone "a fucking retard" on the comments of a blog post, or that they wrote a post arguing in favor of fighting back against cops who attack citizens?
Ultimately, the obnoxious-but-innocuous comments are just noise; it's the political views that run counter to the mainstream that will raise the most flags, and which require the most freedom from censorship, self- or otherwise.
> If you can't say something nice...just don't comment.
That's great advice, both online and face-to-face. Well, probably "useful" rather than "nice", and say it respectfully; e.g. when debating an idea, arguing your position may not be seen as nice...
It is all so true that what you say can come back to haunt you. It is the responsibility that comes with the freedom (of speech, in this case). You cannot have one without the other, but while it is important to understand and accept the responsibility, you shouldn't let it frighten you into giving away your freedom.
I agree with you other than in this part:
> How long before an internet and phone background check is standard in the background checks organizations do before offering jobs?
this is a typical scenario of unaware teen: he signs up for facebook, put bunch of pictures, then get in some sort of trouble due to that (stalker, troubles at work/home/school etc). That is like a cold shower. Most teens learns from first, second, third mistake. Then they stop posting photos OR at least think twice before clicking upload.
Not only it would be incredible abuse on FB part to share your history in a way that your data could be as valuable as credit card history, I am sure people would stop using Facebook had known their _private_ facebook life stopped them from getting a credit card or some other benefits.
Many of us would say and do crazy things on Usenet (in my defense I was aged between 13-17 when I used Usenet). News servers would delete the posts after 30 days and there was little to worry about, or so we thought.
...until Deja News came out - a cached, searchable store of all Usenet posts, which Google later acquired.
Everything we put out on the Internet can and probably will be stored by someone forever.
I saw the whole episode this snippet came from, and I feel it should be mentioned that the whole thing was very much an assault on online anonymity.
The angle was that people can be very immature and very nasty via the Web when their identity is obscured, which is hardly something to dispute. However, the programme seemed to be hinting that public forums should be more regulated to prevent this being possible, which seems to be a poor alternative.
One of the more memorable snippets involved them contentiously asking a Facebook representative why Facebook can't run phonelines to manage abuse complaints from users.
I have the feeling that this is the ultimate 'feed the troll' reaction. Actually caring enough to track them down, talk to them and reason with them about obviously attention-seeking and ill-meant content? Why?
Well, we can't forget that even trolls have day jobs, bosses, friends, family, acquaintances. This particular troll wrote some mean, racist, inhumane comments. He wants attention, but not to his real self, which is why he posts under a fake account.
So as a society, what do you do with such offenders? Freedom of speech wasn't really meant to protect garbage like that. Well, one option is you can publicly shame him, or at the very least engage in a real conversation to see what his logic is. The internet is a free place, but we can't become so desensitized to racism and hateful comments that we dismiss is at part of our daily lives, as nothing to be concerned about. People do end up reading nasty comments, and it does affect them.
I watched this last night. On the whole it was a pretty stupid programme with equally stupid people not knowing how to report and block people. Why not just ignore sites like littlegossip, and why have a formspring account.
"I love that the whole thing is narrated like they're tracking down an animal in nature. I loved the end "So, there you go, an internet troll. That's what they look like." Yep, that's what they look like." - this did make me giggle though.
The situation is analogous to the difference between the immune system of someone with limited exposure to all the normal diseases of western civ (f.ex. theo-facists, nazis, white supremacists) and someone brought up with sterilized everything and an instant antibiotics cure if he sniffs once.
EDIT: Not saying that murderous leftist radicals can't do damage, but the west's left has mellowed.
I'd like to see a Chris Hansen style confrontation, where they track down trolls, confront them with what they've written, and then see how they justify or apologize their way out of the situation.
I can't imagine a 13 year old defending his racist rants behind a veil of tears being particularly entertaining. The fact that this particular guy happened to be an adult is probably a bit of an enigma within the world of trolls.
Maybe it's my American 1st amendment ideals but I'm almost more disturbed by the tone of the report than the troll (who is obviously a huge douchecanoe).
First of all, how did they track this guy down? Sure, there are legal ways of doing it if the guy is sloppy. But how does a report on the ethics of the Internet perpetrate a huge invasion of privacy without so much as passing comment on it? Disturbing implications for what actions are justified when directed at people with the "wrong" ideas.
Second, notice the reporter's repeated emphasis on the illegality of racist speech. He's not just shaming this guy. He's beating the drum of state censorship. Again maybe it's just my ideals but this is just obviously disturbing, maybe even moreso than trolls themselves.
I am not able to watch the whole program but judging from the synopsis it doesn't sound like it entails any substantive discussion of the ethics of privacy and censorship on the Internet, e.g. interviews with civil libertarians, which is what any serious report on trolling should include. As it stands it reeks of sensationalism.
In addition it somewhat upsets me that someone could get jail time for making an offensive comment. Depending on the jurisdiction or culture, I know I have said things that would be offensive to someone (specifically regarding religion.) To be faced with jail time over something like that does not sound like something I would expect from a western country.
>In addition it somewhat upsets me that someone could get jail time for making an offensive comment. Depending on the jurisdiction or culture, I know I have said things that would be offensive to someone (specifically regarding religion.)
But did you say them with the specific, primary intent to cause that person harassment, alarm or distress? I would wager not.
Note that I don't necessarily agree with the legislation, but it's an important distinction.
What are we to gather from this? That assholes on the Internet are also assholes in real life?
"Confronting" people like this does little to change their behavior. At best, it publicizes their identities, and causes some minor level of disgrace, but why would that matter to them?
I think it was meant to educate us, not him. I assumed trolls were spineless and used Internet anonymity to massage their egos. This guy, though, had no qualms with reconciling his online and real identities. This was interesting for me.
Further, for those trolls that do care about the perception of their real identities, perhaps pointing to something like this and saying "you sound like this guy" is enough to change behavior, albeit at the margin.
It's ironic on a site called 'hacker news' where everyone knows what the older 'proper' definition of hacker people don't seem to care or even to point out what the older, 'proper' definition of troll is.
Fortunately wikipedia still has in their definition:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".
So, a proper troll on HN might pop and point out that functional languages, while pretty and amusing, are largely unused because their performance is insufficient and make a comparison about, say, perl, provoking people to correct them and argue the point.
Look up adequacy.org to learn about proper trolling.
"a troll is someone who posts inflammatory ... messages in an online community ... with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response"
Ah, good times when BBC Documentaries had actually high quality documentaries. Fascinating how their investigative journalism got all the way down to hunting people who talk trash on Facebook and exposing them. Are these really the most substantial social conflicts Britain has to worry about?
Not being familiar with privacy laws in the UK, did he have to sign a release to have his face shown on that program? If so I fail to see how its effectively shaming someone if they willingly submit to be filmed.
I have no experience in this area, other than having seen trolling on mailing lists, but my guess would be that a face-to-face confrontation with the troll would only give them further ammunition for subsequent enraged outbursts, or serve to make the situation even more dangerous/volatile.
Probably the solution is not to react to the troll, and for their outbursts to be met with silence. Don't read their content, and avoid forums or lists where trolling regularly occurs. When that's not possible report them to the list/forum admin, without engaging with the troll directly.
We've tried "Don't fee the trolls" for years: it has only lead to them becoming more vicious and egging each other on. It means the only thing they hear is how awesome they are from their friends.
It is time to engage: people with patience could engage them in good faith: instead of asking "how do you justify it?" ask "what is your life like that you feel the need to do this?" There are a number of violence-intervention programs that could be adapted.
Alternatively, we can drive them to ever-greater heights of rage by armchair psychoanalyzing them and bombarding them with ridicule: laughing at fear can make it go away. We could shun them, alienate them, mock them and otherwise make trolling unpleasant to engage in. Right now the incentive to troll is there and there is no disincentive: we need to create one.
In real life, the disincentive is that someone will take a fully-justified swing at the troll or they will be arrested for harassment, stalking and verbal assault. We need to enforce the internet-equivalent of getting punched in the face, since the government doesn't appear to enforce laws against harassment and assault online.
We don't accept it because it's abhorrent behavior but these people need mental health help. Getting them to seek help is a nearly impossible task though.
The tone of this article is downright chilling. Sure, this guy is a complete nuisance but he should have every right to spread his hate speech wherever property owners condone. The current anti-bullying meme that is being propagated by mass-media and politicians is just another in a long line of ruses designed to limit the human rights of the electorate.
It varies by country but assuming this troll is in the UK hate speech is not a protected form of free speech in his country. So in the UK he doesn't have the right to spread his hate speech. Now that his name is known perhaps somebody will take him to court, who knows. The US is one of the few countries where hate speech is technically protected but even still there are some exceptions including "fighting words" and harassment which could possibly be relevant.
This guy seems to be aware that his behavior would be likely to land him "9 weeks" in jail which he dismisses as an insignificant punishment.
[+] [-] bilbo0s|14 years ago|reply
However, on a general note, I think it is important to realize that every text message you send, every cell phone conversation you have, every post to the CNN forum you make, every tweet you send ... is directly attributable to your IP whether you use your own name or not. With Facebook and Google tracking everything you do, whether you are logged in or not, I would go one step further, and say all of these things are directly attributable to you personally.
I would strongly urge young people to really think about what they are putting out there. Consider this, the military was doing the equivalent of credit checks for sensitive positions during the 60s. Now you need a credit check to do ANYTHING, even things that don't require credit. How long before an internet and phone background check is standard in the background checks organizations do before offering jobs?
I can tell you the military is doing this sort of screening right now for sensitive positions, but at least you are confronted about it. It still basically ends your career, but they will give you a chance to explain your posts. In the private sector in the future, they will just deep six your application and you won't know what happened. Or they'll let you in at entry level, maybe, and subsequently you'll start running up against an invisible barrier as you try to advance beyond the first or second layer of management. Or you will find resistance to you advancing into management at all.
Also be mindful, it can affect more than your professional life. Think about what the background checks for apartments will look like in the 2020s. Or what 'dating sites' will be like in the 2020s.
Please consider your future before you make comments on ... say ... Hurricane Katrina ... that might be misconstrued. Or post an opinion on ... say ... American soldiers in Afghanistan ... that could be taken out of context and viewed in a negative light.
All that said, the absolute best defense against these sorts of situations is just not to be a douche, which isn't very hard. If a guy or girl is dead...leave them in peace. If you can't say something nice...just don't comment.
[+] [-] buro9|14 years ago|reply
Only very rarely do I get traceable IP addresses that can be dealt with in any meaningful way, and that's usually when there is an invasion of trolls for a day or two and some drop their guard.
The only time I've ever successfully stopped a troll was about a decade ago when I traced it back to a uni and was able to raise a sysadmin.
By and large, for the majority of forums and social sites out there (which is where most bullying happens) there is very little that the admins can do even if it's reported to us.
About the only thing working is stopforumspam.com , whereby hundreds of forums are blocking IP addresses for a short while across all of the forums. It's made for spam, but I and others submit trolls to it too (when we're absolutely sure there's nothing of worth in the person and it's not just differing views).
[+] [-] IanDrake|14 years ago|reply
One of my projects was shut down by Craigslist (NotifyWire.com). I took down the site and posted the details explaining why NotifyWire was going off-line.
Six months later, while attempting to refinance my house, I was told to take my name off the mortgage application because my corporation was under legal threat by Craigslist and thus was a liability that the underwriters might cite as a reason to decline the application.
That was an eye opener for me.
[+] [-] redthrowaway|14 years ago|reply
Ultimately, the obnoxious-but-innocuous comments are just noise; it's the political views that run counter to the mainstream that will raise the most flags, and which require the most freedom from censorship, self- or otherwise.
[+] [-] AlexBucataru|14 years ago|reply
That's great advice, both online and face-to-face. Well, probably "useful" rather than "nice", and say it respectfully; e.g. when debating an idea, arguing your position may not be seen as nice...
It is all so true that what you say can come back to haunt you. It is the responsibility that comes with the freedom (of speech, in this case). You cannot have one without the other, but while it is important to understand and accept the responsibility, you shouldn't let it frighten you into giving away your freedom.
[+] [-] gorgonville|14 years ago|reply
...unless one is already a douche, in which case it might be very hard.
The behavior of insulting people for no reason, like bullying generally, seems to transmitted via anti-rational memes.
Which means that the people who engage in it don't understand why they do so; they just know that it gives them some sort of psychological relief.
[+] [-] joering2|14 years ago|reply
this is a typical scenario of unaware teen: he signs up for facebook, put bunch of pictures, then get in some sort of trouble due to that (stalker, troubles at work/home/school etc). That is like a cold shower. Most teens learns from first, second, third mistake. Then they stop posting photos OR at least think twice before clicking upload.
Not only it would be incredible abuse on FB part to share your history in a way that your data could be as valuable as credit card history, I am sure people would stop using Facebook had known their _private_ facebook life stopped them from getting a credit card or some other benefits.
[+] [-] dotBen|14 years ago|reply
...until Deja News came out - a cached, searchable store of all Usenet posts, which Google later acquired.
Everything we put out on the Internet can and probably will be stored by someone forever.
[+] [-] stefanve|14 years ago|reply
I don't know if it was on purpose, but when I read that the music of i'll be watching you popped in to my head
[+] [-] JanezStupar|14 years ago|reply
Nimrod 7 is an asshole cyborg character from a Cyberpunk game Bloodnet (Microprose 1993).
Basically Nimrod is an excellent cyborg warrior. But if you have him on team you will face A LOT of unprovoked attacks.
http://www.sysabend.org/champions/characters/[email protected]...
This guy seems to have his character covered pretty well.
[+] [-] danso|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] betawolf33|14 years ago|reply
The angle was that people can be very immature and very nasty via the Web when their identity is obscured, which is hardly something to dispute. However, the programme seemed to be hinting that public forums should be more regulated to prevent this being possible, which seems to be a poor alternative.
One of the more memorable snippets involved them contentiously asking a Facebook representative why Facebook can't run phonelines to manage abuse complaints from users.
[+] [-] lucisferre|14 years ago|reply
Holocost Deniers: Tolerated
Breastfeeding Mothers: Not OK
[+] [-] darklajid|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coryl|14 years ago|reply
So as a society, what do you do with such offenders? Freedom of speech wasn't really meant to protect garbage like that. Well, one option is you can publicly shame him, or at the very least engage in a real conversation to see what his logic is. The internet is a free place, but we can't become so desensitized to racism and hateful comments that we dismiss is at part of our daily lives, as nothing to be concerned about. People do end up reading nasty comments, and it does affect them.
[+] [-] anons2011|14 years ago|reply
"I love that the whole thing is narrated like they're tracking down an animal in nature. I loved the end "So, there you go, an internet troll. That's what they look like." Yep, that's what they look like." - this did make me giggle though.
[+] [-] tosseraccount|14 years ago|reply
US has free speech.
Rest of world doesn't. (yeah yeah .. "we have free speech except for obectional material" ... right.
American develop an "idiot filter" and get good at using it: "dude's an idiot. whatever. move on".
Europeans don't and find the need for authorities "e.g. The BBC" to police their brains.
Big deal So what? Some clown is an offensive troll. I'd rather deal with that with big brother smashing anonymous complaints, no matter how off base.
[+] [-] Selvik|14 years ago|reply
EDIT: Not saying that murderous leftist radicals can't do damage, but the west's left has mellowed.
[+] [-] coryl|14 years ago|reply
I'd like to see a Chris Hansen style confrontation, where they track down trolls, confront them with what they've written, and then see how they justify or apologize their way out of the situation.
[+] [-] Peroni|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilamont|14 years ago|reply
http://boingboing.net/2011/10/18/internet-trolls-on-snl.html
[+] [-] abalone|14 years ago|reply
First of all, how did they track this guy down? Sure, there are legal ways of doing it if the guy is sloppy. But how does a report on the ethics of the Internet perpetrate a huge invasion of privacy without so much as passing comment on it? Disturbing implications for what actions are justified when directed at people with the "wrong" ideas.
Second, notice the reporter's repeated emphasis on the illegality of racist speech. He's not just shaming this guy. He's beating the drum of state censorship. Again maybe it's just my ideals but this is just obviously disturbing, maybe even moreso than trolls themselves.
I am not able to watch the whole program but judging from the synopsis it doesn't sound like it entails any substantive discussion of the ethics of privacy and censorship on the Internet, e.g. interviews with civil libertarians, which is what any serious report on trolling should include. As it stands it reeks of sensationalism.
[+] [-] kbatten|14 years ago|reply
In addition it somewhat upsets me that someone could get jail time for making an offensive comment. Depending on the jurisdiction or culture, I know I have said things that would be offensive to someone (specifically regarding religion.) To be faced with jail time over something like that does not sound like something I would expect from a western country.
[+] [-] JonnieCache|14 years ago|reply
But did you say them with the specific, primary intent to cause that person harassment, alarm or distress? I would wager not.
Note that I don't necessarily agree with the legislation, but it's an important distinction.
[+] [-] xedarius|14 years ago|reply
What a ridiculous stereotype.
[+] [-] bioskope|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lamby|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gk1|14 years ago|reply
"Confronting" people like this does little to change their behavior. At best, it publicizes their identities, and causes some minor level of disgrace, but why would that matter to them?
[+] [-] wmf|14 years ago|reply
That's actually useful information because it contradicts the received wisdom that trolls won't troll offline.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|14 years ago|reply
Further, for those trolls that do care about the perception of their real identities, perhaps pointing to something like this and saying "you sound like this guy" is enough to change behavior, albeit at the margin.
[+] [-] tomelders|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sien|14 years ago|reply
Fortunately wikipedia still has in their definition:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".
So, a proper troll on HN might pop and point out that functional languages, while pretty and amusing, are largely unused because their performance is insufficient and make a comparison about, say, perl, provoking people to correct them and argue the point.
Look up adequacy.org to learn about proper trolling.
This guy is just a jerk.
[+] [-] panacea|14 years ago|reply
Isn't that exactly what he was doing?
[+] [-] stfu|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mediacrisis|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danso|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tankenmate|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] motters|14 years ago|reply
Probably the solution is not to react to the troll, and for their outbursts to be met with silence. Don't read their content, and avoid forums or lists where trolling regularly occurs. When that's not possible report them to the list/forum admin, without engaging with the troll directly.
[+] [-] roguecoder|14 years ago|reply
It is time to engage: people with patience could engage them in good faith: instead of asking "how do you justify it?" ask "what is your life like that you feel the need to do this?" There are a number of violence-intervention programs that could be adapted. Alternatively, we can drive them to ever-greater heights of rage by armchair psychoanalyzing them and bombarding them with ridicule: laughing at fear can make it go away. We could shun them, alienate them, mock them and otherwise make trolling unpleasant to engage in. Right now the incentive to troll is there and there is no disincentive: we need to create one. In real life, the disincentive is that someone will take a fully-justified swing at the troll or they will be arrested for harassment, stalking and verbal assault. We need to enforce the internet-equivalent of getting punched in the face, since the government doesn't appear to enforce laws against harassment and assault online.
[+] [-] ck2|14 years ago|reply
We don't accept it because it's abhorrent behavior but these people need mental health help. Getting them to seek help is a nearly impossible task though.
[+] [-] lwhi|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stfu|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lightyrs|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jakejake|14 years ago|reply
This guy seems to be aware that his behavior would be likely to land him "9 weeks" in jail which he dismisses as an insignificant punishment.
[+] [-] danso|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] buro9|14 years ago|reply