News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

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

Re:The concept of an internet "troll" makes little sense if ... by pg on Monday October 15, 2007 @01:18PM (#68090)
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The concept of an internet "troll" makes little sense if ... by amichail on Monday October 15, 2007 @01:28PM (#68098)
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The concept of an internet "troll" makes little sense if ... by jkkramer on Monday October 15, 2007 @02:40PM (#68141)
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The concept of an internet "troll" makes little sense if ... by veritas on Monday October 15, 2007 @02:25PM (#68125)
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The concept of an internet "troll" makes little sense if ... by joeguilmette on Monday October 15, 2007 @02:04PM (#68114)
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The concept of an internet "troll" makes little sense if ... by amichail on Monday October 15, 2007 @02:09PM (#68117)
That's what voting is for.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The concept of an internet "troll" makes little sense if ... by alex_c on Monday October 15, 2007 @02:18PM (#68120)
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The concept of an internet "troll" makes little sense if ... by amichail on Monday October 15, 2007 @02:24PM (#68124)
...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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The concept of an internet "troll" makes little sense if ... by alex_c on Monday October 15, 2007 @03:41PM (#68174)
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 ;)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The concept of an internet "troll" makes little sense if ... by joeguilmette on Monday October 15, 2007 @05:31PM (#68231)
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The concept of an internet "troll" makes little sense if ... by pg on Monday October 15, 2007 @05:53PM (#68247)
No, it's not just a matter of guessing someone's intent. Baiting is clearly distinguishable from other forms of argument.
[ Parent | on HN ]