I had a vague idea of what/who a troll was on the internet, but Sam Leith gives some definitions:
Two pieces of wisdom today preoccupy me. One, whose originator is unknown, is: “Don’t feed the trolls.” The other—which I’ve heard plausibly attributed to the Guardian columnist Grace Dent—is: “Never read the bottom half of the internet.” The latter—a warning, essentially, against plunging into the foaming cauldron of madness in online comment threads—is a sort of preventative measure. If you don’t read the bottom half of the internet—the bit under the bridge—you stand that much less chance of finding yourself looking down on a hungry troll, with a billy-goat in your arms, and being overcome by temptation.
A troll, in internet terms, is someone who sails into a discussion just to mess things up. He is the poker of sticks into ants’ nests: the commenter who gatecrashes a rape survivor’s messageboard with a collection of Frankie Boyle jokes, or posts fake news stories about stock in forums for investors. The idea is not to contribute to the discussion, but to derail it. Online trolls thrive on rage, hurt and confusion. What they are after is a rise. Hence: don’t feed the trolls. It only encourages them.
Leith goes on to use trolling/trolliness as a key to interpreting contemporary culture.
You can see trolliness in the Twitter feeds of drunken students. But you can also see it in entertainment: the “new nastiness” in stand-up comedy – using offensive material to generate buzz – is troll-work. And you can see it in national newspapers… Provocation has always been a function of journalism, but it’s becoming an ever more central one.
There is a decipherable reason for this. Eyes on a page are eyes on a page. Retweets, whether in outrage or endorsement, are retweets. The currency of the internet is not agreement but attention. So trolling – whose only raison d’être is the gaining of attention – is a central dynamic of modern media. It could, arguably, be seen as the characteristic communicative gesture of the internet era. We live in the age of the troll.
But the currency of all entertainment and journalism has always been, to some extent, not agreement but attention. I don’t think there was some kind of pre-internet purity about ‘communicative gestures’ – editors have always wanted to sell papers; journalists have always wanted their stories to be popular. The only difference now is that Joe-punter can get his oar in to stir things up and grab everyone’s attention, whereas before if was just the professionals who had the tools and the power to enter the fray.
But maybe a fundamental difference between editors seeking attention and sales, and commentators trying to provoke a deluge of re-tweets, is that the editors were at some level accountable. You can’t call a troll to account – they just slip off into cyberspace and create another login name, another avatar. Perhaps trolling has more in common with graffiti that anything else – be it the day-glo tags on the side of a train, or the scrawl on the toilet door. It’s there to be seen and to provoke you – and you’ll never know the face of the person who put it there.
I’m reminded of Graham Taylor (England Manager) being called Turnip head on the front cover of one of the red tops. The Daily Mail always went for scaring their readers (MMR / bird flu were big stories) rather than creating that ‘us and them’ bond between newspaper and reader.
“Don’t feed the trolls” seems like sound advice. ‘Grammar police’ commenting on blogs are also annoying in a smug elitist kind of way!
There comes a point in time when we must ask ourselves to what end we must bring our discussions or what boundary to set on our discourse if we proceed on the principle that we must always reply to those who reply to us. Some are genuinely unable to understand our arguments. Others are so hardened by the habit of contradiction that although they understand they cannot yield. If we continue to confute their objections as often as they choose to disregard our arguments or contradict our statements, one may readily see how endless and fruitless and tedious this task is. If such a person refuses to seek learning or be instructed and does so from malice, we should refuse to argue any further with that person. If that person cannot be instructed, that person should be warned not to waste time on what is superfluous. If that person still does not comply, there is no point in paying more attention to that person.
I noticed that there were quite a few abusive comments posted on Facebook which is one of the reasons why I closed my account. That aside, it seems people think it is easier and, dare I say, more accepted, to be abusive to others in a format that involves no personal contact. It is a sorry state of affairs and I fully agree with the propositions made by Tonia and shieldsheafson.
Sometimes trolls questioning, antagonising, and provoking why we believe what we believe allows us to practice our apologetics. Else the opportunity to re-consider or re-present the strength of our faith and the reasons for which we believe. And to do so with complete Loving kindness fills us at the same time with Grace. My expeience of trolls is limited. Old billygoats however. . .
[…] here). Most comments are anonymous. If I ever migrate to a new platform, I will reconsider. As someone said, never read the bottom half of the internet. Also don’t feed the trolls. If you want to get […]