> The more accountable we are for our behavior, the less potential we have of becoming trolls. Employing less anonymity may help, but this raises privacy concerns for many. Anonymity can also be a good thing. Benign disinhibition — the friendly sibling of toxic disinhibition — is where users freely discuss their deepest insecurities and concerns with other users. This can be very therapeutic and shouldn’t be discouraged. But by using anonymity only where it is necessary, we reduce the likelihood of toxic disinhibition.

This seems highly unlikely to me.

Consider Twitter, Blue-checkmarks, as well as Facebook. There are countless trolls with verified identities. Indeed, "troll behavior" has permeated into our political system and very public figures are openly using anti-social language... to the benefit of their political movements.

From a Machiavellian perspective: people become trolls because it works. Its an effective strategy for gathering like-minded followers, and to demonstrate a "leadership" quality, one that demonstrates ambitious behavior.

Some political leaders are incredibly similar to trolls. Robespierre, Lenin, Hitler. Yeah, we look down upon them decades later, but these figures were hugely influential during their times and got a lot of things accomplished.

This article assumes that troll-behavior is not beneficial to the troll. That's a horrible miscalculation. Troll-behavior certainly hurts the victim, but it seems to benefit the troll in my experience. At a minimum, it benefits them with followers (other trolls who want to help the greater cause).

--------

So lets circle back to the top. Why do people become trolls?

Answer: Because its an effective strategy.

The important followup question: How do we build a world (or if not the world... then at least a community) where trolling becomes an ineffective, or counter-productive strategy?