The concept of an internet "troll" makes little sense if you care about substantive debate | Hacker News Reader

The concept of an internet "troll" makes little sense if you care about substantive debate

4 pointsamichail26 comments

According to Wikipedia, "An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response."

There are problems with this concept. First, it is based on intent (why do you care about someone's intent?!). Second, it discourages discussion on controversial topics. Third, it seems to imply that debate is bad if it upsets some people.

So essentially, by accusing people of being trolls and discouraging them from further posts, you get discussion groups where posters have similar views and where debate is restricted to mostly minor issues.

That doesn't sound good at all.

View on HN

You and have different opinions about how to define a troll. A strong opinion, forecefully presented on a controverial topic obviously does not make someone a troll. I would identify a troll through a combination of personal disrespect and off-topic commentary.

Here's an example that shows up now and then:

Orig Post: "I'm trying to decide if I should locate my startup in silicon vally or in san francisco. I'd like to be near my potential buyers, which would mean locating in the valley. But I think my developers would be happier living in the city."

Here are two strong responses, one legit, and one from a troll:

Non-Troll: "San Francisco isn't as much fun as people make it out to be. I don't think it would help you attract developers at all. I'd much rather be in the valley where the action is."

Troll: "The city? San Francisco isn't a city. New York, now that's a city..."

Both of these posts are clearly going to attract some argumentative responses. The first may goad a few people, but it is on-topic, contains something that can be defended or refuted under the terms of the original debate, and continues the discussion. The second tries to provoke the thread into something kind of stupid and off-topic.

Argumentative people can further debate, but Trolls always degrade a discussion until there is no longer anything substantive.

I hope for the best for this discussion forum. Craigslist is essentially unusable because of the trolling, but hackernews is still pretty great.

Will hackernews be like that chilly bar you found that got overrun by jackasses six months later, forcing you to look for a new spot? Man, I hope not, because this is a good site.

You're focusing on the wrong word. The critical word in that definition is "baiting," not "intention."

There is a difference between saying controversial things and baiting people.

How would you know whether someone is baiting people? Again, this has to do with inferring intent -- reading his/her mind.

And so what if it is baiting anyway?

If a post gets voted up, then presumably the debate is of potential interest irrespective of whether it is baiting.

it sounds as if you've never encountered a troll. they don't enhance or inspire substantive debate, in fact they hinder one by arguing baseless positions for the sake of raising blood pressure.

That's what voting is for.

That's what motivates some trolls - treating the discussion as a game in which they manage to trick people into voting them up. That's the difference between a "good" and a "bad" troll, isn't it? A bad troll will be exposed right away, a good troll manages to pass for legitimate arguments for a long time.

You can't really say voting is the solution if part of a troll's purpose is to subvert the voting process.

...a good troll manages to pass for legitimate arguments for a long time.

You can't really say voting is the solution if part of a troll's purpose is to subvert the voting process.

Who cares what the person's motivations are?!

Why do you care so much about the pattern of electrical activity in his/her brain?

If his/her posts/comments are voted up a lot, then they are good ones in an objective sense.

I care what the motivations are.

A person with a strong but controversial opinion will stick to and defend their point of view throughout the debate. The end result might be that I now understand a new point of view, or that they alter their point of view.

A troll will duck and weave, change topics and backtrack. The goal isn't to express an opinion they believe in, but to annoy people and get responses. The end result is that I waste my time reading their posts, since they're not going anywhere with it.

Sometimes you can only tell the difference after the dust settles. I'm still trying to make up my mind about this thread ;)

to troll is inherently negative. regardless of their intentions, if they aren't bringing a discussion to a bad place, then they aren't trolling.

i don't quite see how someone could be a "good troll"; if they are being voted up then at least some users feel that they are contributing to the discussion.

It gets easier and easier to tell.

Spend some time on reddit, for example, and you'll gradually differentiate comments that are posted as rational arguments (and inviting discussion) and troll comments which are posted to bait users into a never ending flame war which does nothing but exasperate you.

A meticulously-crafted post made to look confidently ignorant, written by an intelligent person is no different from a confidently ignorant post written by a confidently ignorant person.

They both spur argumentative (i.e., non-substantive) posts.

One is a troll by any definition; the other most people would also call a troll, even if the author didn't intend for it to be.

Likewise, if someone intends to write a troll and instead writes a devil's advocate post which spurs substantive debate, then it's not really a troll, even if the author intended it to be.

No, it's not just a matter of guessing someone's intent. Baiting is clearly distinguishable from other forms of argument.

In practice, the word "troll" has come to replace "dissenter" and "devil's advocate" and other terms with good connotations. It does encourage groupthink--as soon as someone differs from the party line, bang, that person gets labeled as a troll, end of discussion. This is very common on political sites (viz, sites that have party lines).

A real troll starts out making small, reasonable claims, and then, after getting people to agree with him at first, makes larger and larger claims. The precedent is "A modest proposal".

A troll is not a devil's advocate. A devil's advocate is making one side of a case in order, ultimately, to clarify a question. A troll just wants to make people mad.

The term "troll" is sometimes misused where "devil's advocate" should apply.

Intent is 9/10ths of the law, and also of troll identification. You can wax about how it is impossible to infer intent, but we all know that's BS.

Intent is important for law. Killing someone in a car accident should be treated differently from premeditated murder say.

But it's not clear why intent is relevant to web forums where voting mechanisms are in place.

Problem is, the number of trolls perceived in a forum is inversely proportional to one's capacity to appreciate irony.

Maybe this formula would be a good meta-moderation heuristic :P

This post is obviously a troll.

A troll is someone who is engaging in an argument because he gets satisfaction from the argument itself, not because he has any interest in the topic at hand.

Interesting way to respond to my question, amichall. What's wrong with just answering it when I asked, back at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=66297

What do you think of debating societies?

In my experience, those who manage to last long in debating societies typically have some interest in the topics they debate.

The world needs random pie throwers, even online.

I define a trolling attempt thus: 1. incensing, and 2. redundant.

That is, a troll is not a troll when they are voicing original thoughts. It is only when they bring up a discussion that has long been tired out that people really grow sick of them.

Amichail is a post-modern meta-troll.

Everyone else's opinion in this matter is wrong. Mine is the only one that is correct. End of discussion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com