What is trolling?

[Dr. Cheese]

Lately, a lot of old threads I started have been searched and discussion started again about the topic. One thread feature some rough interaction between me and another member over what I saw as trolling. If I remember corrrectly, we talked privately and came to an understanding.

That brings me to my topic, trolling. In my opinion, trolling is when one deliberately goes against the consensus of a thread just to get a reaction. Here is an example: a few years ago, Ronnie James Dio died and there was a tribute thread in his honor. I read the thread and learned more about an artist who I only knew of through old videos and I learned about him and his variety of Metal. I left the thread more knowledgeable. I contrast this to when Prince died and the great majority mourned his passing, but some people took great pleasure in saying how they disliked him or recounted stories they were negative. Of course, their defense was that they had a right to express their opinions.

My question is when does opinion turn into trolling? I feel that we should look at the tenor of a thread. Is it a commemoration or is it a genuine discussion? People posting might want to ask themselves if they really want to take part in a discussion or do they just want to toss a stink bomb?

The bottom line is that I think as a community, we should strive for intelligent conversation instead of simply stirring up controversy, I know it can be hard to know where to draw the line.

 

[Dr. Cheese]

I think it's making comments that are needlessly contrarian or mean or whatever, just to get negative reactions out of people. Bullying essentially. Which is pretty much what others have said upthread.


I think this is a good way to handle those situations. When I have allowed myself to get caught up in those doom loops, it makes me feel pretty crummy. Better to just move on with our lives.


Lately, I've really thought hard about this. In discussions about subjective topics (music, for example), I tend to have an unhealthy inclination towards stating my opinion as fact, or registering a negative opinion about the topic at hand, etc. Part of it is trying to be funny, I guess. But after a while I thought that there's really no value in telling someone that I don't care for the thing that they enjoy. Doesn't make me feel good and I can't imaging that the other party cares for my opinion anyhow. So nothing good really comes from it. I think it's better to just keep scrolling rather than feeling the need to crap on something someone else likes.

Asking yourself what are you seeking to achieve before you go negative makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[bearhart74]

My village idiot theory

Back in the day, before the internet, when the village idiot said something stupid, we'd all turn and look at him like he was an idiot, and someone would eventually say, "Shut up, you're an idiot".

This social behaviour tended to isolate the idiot, so his stupid ideas didn't get very far.

These days every village idiot can communicate with every other village’s idiot. The internet will profile them and match them up with other idiots, so even if they’re a complete idiot social media will figure it out and do it for them.

Now, instead of a bunch of non-idiots staring at the idiot like he’s an idiot when he says something stupid, he has an accepting audience that not only confirms that his stupid idea was right all along, but adds to and builds on his stupid idea with more stupidity.

Which is why we're now living in an idiocrasy.

Social media is an idiot amplification device

 

[Jazzdogg]

As to the intent of possible trolling, don't forget to take Hanlon's razor into account..

Too often, I see thin-skinned people drawing inferences about a poster's intent without anything to support their conclusion.

Why infer bad intentions or lack of character merely because some "Karen" has a burr under her saddle blanket and is itchin' for a fight, or is a clueless twit?

I also see quite a few posts that seem to be pathetic attempts to get attention; like a small child whose behavior suggests that bad attention is better than no attention.

Some posters appear to be trolls merely because they are know-it-alls with limited social skills. Given time to see several of these posts, some have turned out to be full of useful information, despite their lack of social skills, while others prove themselves to be pot-stirrers with few, if any, redeeming qualities.

 

[Jazzdogg]

I think it's making comments that are needlessly contrarian or mean or whatever, just to get negative reactions out of people. Bullying essentially. Which is pretty much what others have said upthread.


I think this is a good way to handle those situations. When I have allowed myself to get caught up in those doom loops, it makes me feel pretty crummy. Better to just move on with our lives.


Lately, I've really thought hard about this. In discussions about subjective topics (music, for example), I tend to have an unhealthy inclination towards stating my opinion as fact, or registering a negative opinion about the topic at hand, etc. Part of it is trying to be funny, I guess. But after a while I thought that there's really no value in telling someone that I don't care for the thing that they enjoy. Doesn't make me feel good and I can't imaging that the other party cares for my opinion anyhow. So nothing good really comes from it. I think it's better to just keep scrolling rather than feeling the need to crap on something someone else likes.

I love the "block" feature as a means of preventing trolls from elevating my blood pressure more than once.

 

[Pdaddy1978]

The internet..
The place where formally powerless individuals enjoy the anonymity and distance to say things out loud that they would never say to peoples face.
A person can joke without being cruel.
A person can disagree without belittling.
Respect..
You have to give it....to get it.

 

[GR7G5TER]

The internet..
The place where formally powerless individuals enjoy the anonymity and distance to say things out loud that they would never "have the confidence "say to peoples face.
A person can joke without being cruel.
A person can disagree without belittling.
Respect..
You have to give it....to get it.

I agree 100% BTW But have added some words that changes the nuance.

*For the avoid I'm taking a contrary position to provoke discussion and thought

 

[jeff62]

For me, trolling is not a negative opinion per se, but being a true jerk about something to get a reaction.

 

[porkynuggets]

In Alaska we have a much more fun version of trolling.
View attachment 7206894
Sorry for the bad pun just thought I’d throw some humor into this thread before it gets depressing.
Flag my comment if you must, I won’t be offended.

Literally where the term comes from




just leaving trails of comments waiting for someone to bite

 

[1999 Epi]

Wait. What? you mean all those posts regarding the fact the Earth is flat are maybe not true?
Say it ain't so.

 

[GR7G5TER]

Wait. What? you mean all those posts regarding the fact the Earth is flat are maybe not true?
Say it ain't so.

The Earth is 100% flat, otherwise spirit levels wouldn't work.

Proven me wrong

 

[DuluthDank]

My understanding is that back in the early internet days, "trolling" wasn't synonymous with being a jerk, which is the current definition. It was originally about posting silly questions or observations in an online forum that those "in the know" would recognize as silly, but would prompt those "not in the know" to jump in and respond to as if they were serious. So the victim of the troll was the person who responded to the troll's post as if it were real, while not realizing that in taking the question seriously in the first place, they were being laughed at by those around them who are "in the know".

Or one can respond to the troll with additional non-serious troll questions/suggestions/observations that showed that you too were in the know.

But obviously any definition this complex is going to be watered down over time, so now trolling it's just being mean on the internet.


Hypothetical Talkbass troll, using the original definition:

Hi everybody, I heard from this forum that soaking my strings in carrot juice not only extends their life, but produces a sound that is the best for metal...yet after trying it, I'm just noticing a carrot juice residue that seems to be having opposite effect...any suggestions on how I did this wrong? Please help because I'm getting extremely frustrated and bass strings are expensive".

 

[Jazzdogg]

Literally where the term comes from




just leaving trails of comments waiting for someone to bite

My initial thought was that trolling describes the behavior of a brutish troll who lurks beneath a bridge looking for opportunities to act badly.

 

[GretschWretch]

Thanks for proving my point, sort of. You cracked a joke instead of adding to the discussion, but you were not being negative and attacking anyone.

But if no one ever cracked a joke, what a grim, humorless place TalkBass would become. I think "trolling" depends largely on intent, which of course only the "troller" would know. But my definition of trolling is someone calling attention to themselves simply for the sake of being contrary.

 

[porkynuggets]

My initial thought was that trolling describes the behavior of a brutish troll who lurks beneath a bridge looking for opportunities to act badly.

Close, but that kind of troll tends to speak in riddles where internet trolls aren't that clever

 

[Dr. Cheese]

My initial thought was that trolling describes the behavior of a brutish troll who lurks beneath a bridge looking for opportunities to act badly.

True.

 

[tpaul]

My village idiot theory

Back in the day, before the internet, when the village idiot said something stupid, we'd all turn and look at him like he was an idiot, and someone would eventually say, "Shut up, you're an idiot".

This social behaviour tended to isolate the idiot, so his stupid ideas didn't get very far.

These days every village idiot can communicate with every other village’s idiot. The internet will profile them and match them up with other idiots, so even if they’re a complete idiot social media will figure it out and do it for them.

Now, instead of a bunch of non-idiots staring at the idiot like he’s an idiot when he says something stupid, he has an accepting audience that not only confirms that his stupid idea was right all along, but adds to and builds on his stupid idea with more stupidity.

Which is why we're now living in an idiocrasy.

Agreed. It seems that unfortunately we as a species are not able to handle technology like the internet, which magnifies and reinforces idiocy and bad behavior. As much as I enjoy this forum and other online sites, I am forced to conclude that humanity would be better off if the internet had never been invented.

 

[Jazzdogg]

But if no one ever cracked a joke, what a grim, humorless place TalkBass would become. I think "trolling" depends largely on intent, which of course only the "troller" would know. But my definition of trolling is someone calling attention to themselves simply for the sake of being contrary.

I particularly dislike the troll who acts boorishly and refuses to consider, much less learn from, the wisdom or experience of other posters; pridefully ignorant and lacking in social skills, fact resistant, argumentative and dismissive. BLOCK.

 

[_Some Dude]

Agreed. It seems that unfortunately we as a species are not able to handle technology like the internet, which magnifies and reinforces idiocy and bad behavior. As much as I enjoy this forum and other online sites, I am forced to conclude that humanity would be better off if the internet had never been invented.

In fairness, I'm sure plenty of people who grew up riding horses had the same opinion of the car. Eventually society progresses, and we reach a point where everyone is born after the car and no longer considers a horse an option. Further, we reach a point where the infrastructure to feed, water or hitch your horse no longer exists in most places, so we can't even go back if we wanted to.

I see the internet and social media pretty much the same way.

As an example, I'm required to give an annual media awareness briefing to the people who work for me so they know what they're allowed to say and not say to the media. Over time this has evolved into a social media awareness briefing.

The irony is the people who are screwing this up are my age (the one's giving the brief). It's the 40+ year olds that grew up pre-social media that are saying dumb sh*t online and getting national attention. The 20 year olds have grown up in this environment, they seem to know better, and they don't seem as emotionally attached to what people say on it as the older crowd.

 

[Thunderthumbs73]

Lately, a lot of old threads I started have been searched and discussion started again about the topic. One thread feature some rough interaction between me and another member over what I saw as trolling. If I remember corrrectly, we talked privately and came to an understanding.

That brings me to my topic, trolling. In my opinion, trolling is when one deliberately goes against the consensus of a thread just to get a reaction. Here is an example: a few years ago, Ronnie James Dio died and there was a tribute thread in his honor. I read the thread and learned more about an artist who I only knew of through old videos and I learned about him and his variety of Metal. I left the thread more knowledgeable. I contrast this to when Prince died and the great majority mourned his passing, but some people took great pleasure in saying how they disliked him or recounted stories they were negative. Of course, their defense was that they had a right to express their opinions.

My question is when does opinion turn into trolling? I feel that we should look at the tenor of a thread. Is it a commemoration or is it a genuine discussion? People posting might want to ask themselves if they really want to take part in a discussion or do they just want to toss a stink bomb?

The bottom line is that I think as a community, we should strive for intelligent conversation instead of simply stirring up controversy, I know it can be hard to know where to draw the line.

From my time reading threads, which is admittedly much less than reading the intro post, I'm not sure that there is a lot of consensus on things- and that includes opinions on artists, bands, albums, or even what constitutes "fact", given diverging experiences- sometimes completely opposite experiences.

I don't like The Beatles White Album. Because a bunch of people say they love that album shouldn't preclude me from saying I don't like that album, and if they say why they love that album, I still retain the right to say why I don't like that album. So that I'm always in the "majority" of opinion, I guess I could wait around to give a response on a thread that has started with something like "I don't like The Beatles White Album and I don't understand why other people think it's so great". In that case, I would be positively aligning to a point with the OP, and maybe somehow in an assumed "majority" of responders (never mind how everyone else who didn't respond feels?). But rhetorically, do I have to wait around or search for or create a thread to say I don't like something so that I don't violate "If you don't like it, then why did you 'waste your time' bothering commenting". Which of course misses an important learning point about life that seems to need to be learned OVER, and OVER and OVER again- because you like something, you are not entitled for everyone to agree with you, and you're also not entitled for everyone else who doesn't agree with you to be mute and silent about it.

That said, and I agree with you that there ARE people who are looking to do nothing more than pissing in someone else's pool JUST because they can. And there is a LOT of controversy in music from "correct" techniques about how to play, and who is underrated or overrated, etc, etc, etc... and controversy persistently continues and certainly isn't helped by that which we know as our own honest (and sometimes decades long) experience with X can often be countermanded by people who experienced Y, the EXACT OPPOSITE experience.

FWIW, I don't worry about "consensus". For all the little time I spend on TB, and by the time I read the OP, and respond, I really DON'T have time to go through the responses and assess who agrees with me or doesn't. I figure the benefit and rationale of my response and time spent on it accrues to the OP FIRST, but whether in agreement or disagreement with, or being part of the majority of, or minority of... just doesn't matter. I don't have time to "watch" the thread.

Good topic, thanks.

 

[tpaul]

In fairness, I'm sure plenty of people who grew up riding horses had the same opinion of the car. Eventually society progresses, and we reach a point where everyone is born after the car and no longer considers a horse an option. Further, we reach a point where the infrastructure to feed, water or hitch your horse no longer exists in most places, so we can't even go back if we wanted to.

I see the internet and social media pretty much the same way.

As an example, I'm required to give an annual media awareness briefing to the people who work for me so they know what they're allowed to say and not say to the media. Over time this has evolved into a social media awareness briefing.

The irony is the people who are screwing this up are my age (the one's giving the brief). It's the 40+ year olds that grew up pre-social media that are saying dumb sh*t online and getting national attention. The 20 year olds have grown up in this environment, they seem to know better, and they don't seem as emotionally attached to what people say on it as the older crowd.

I hear you. But I think there's a qualitative difference between the few big, life-changing inventions and the many smaller inventions that make incremental changes.

For example, there's life before nuclear weapons and there's life after nuclear weapons. There's life before antibiotics and there's life after antibiotics. I think the internet falls into this category of big, society-warping inventions. You can't really put can openers, automatic garage doors and glow-in-the-dark shoelaces in the same category. Cars were a significant advance, but people were already using animals and technology to get from A to B faster than they could on foot. So I'd say cars were an incremental advance, while the internet has altered everything about our lives in ways we don't even fully understand yet.