In the past, when I read comments from online trolls that spew vitriol, hate, and other evils, I was dumbfounded. How could people be so mean to other people?
These trolls aren’t just taking a jab at an author or making a joke at their expense – the comments are some of the ugliest, darkest sentences you could imagine. I’ve seen the former in person, and while it’s not always nice, it’s at least a natural reaction. It’s the fact that the trolls’ comments go so far above and beyond a reasonable criticism that befuddled me (I also felt angry, but more so, I was confused).
There’s something to be said for the distance the internet makes you feel; commenting on another user’s post feels safe when you’re all alone in your home, like you can’t really be held accountable. But that still doesn’t seem to justify the passionate (and yet, removed) loathing that the comments reek of.
Fortunately for my confusion, Lindy West’s story shed some light on the matter. Her interaction with her “cruelest troll” was very interesting. The comments the troll made and the actions he took were drastic overreactions and destructive personal attacks – the type of stuff that actually makes you feel sick inside – “gratuitous online cruelty,” as West aptly puts it. So at least for me, I’ve got this picture of a deformed, malfunctioning human being sitting behind a computer. What normal person could write those remarks?
But then we hear from the guy, and he’s incredibly remorseful. He apologizes profusely, he expresses mature, human thoughts, and he even donates money to a charity relevant to West’s father (who was a target of his trolling). That does not build onto the original picture I had of the guy. While I don’t feel particularly remorseful, myself, for dismissing him initially because of the depraved things he did, I do feel a bit ignorant, for not recognizing that there’s a reason he acted the way he did. As inexplicable as one’s actions may seem, it is rarely the case they don’t have an understandable motivator behind them. In the case of internet trolls, you just really have to try in order to imagine why they’re acting the way they do.
One of our authors observed that, “the most common tactic was to ‘diagnose’ [her].” The trolls would interpret the author’s sympathetic attitude toward a mother cooking for her family as the author, herself, needing sympathy. This is a bizarre, backwards diagnosis. It seems to me that the trolls are trying to “diagnose” the author because they want to be diagnosed, themselves. They want someone to understand what they’re going through.
So can we empathize with trolls? It’s tough, no doubt, but I think it would be useful.
Regarding some of the other questions:
What ethical or moral obligations do technology companies have in regards to preventing or suppressing online harassment (such as trolling or stalking)?
I’d like to think that people at those companies have moral intuitions, so they should feel obligated to make their service safe for users, but I’m not sure they legally have any obligation. Seems in their best capitalistic interests to suppress harassment too though, since one or two high-profile harassment cases could really hurt their business.
Is anonymity on the Internet a blessing or a curse? Are “real name” policies useful or harmful in combating online abuse?
One of the articles mentioned that “real name policies” aren’t super effective and that they do more harm than good. I can see the arguments against them, like protection from government surveillance or other identity protections, but I think it’s undeniable that people behave better without the curtain of anonymity. The novel, The Circle, by Dave Eggers, paints a convincing picture of a society in which everyone has a single social media account that is linked to their real name, and in it, there are no evident trolls. Most people just won’t act like degenerate villains when others know their identity.
Is trolling a major problem on the Internet? What is your approach to handling trolls? Are you a troll?!?!?
It’s definitely a problem. I haven’t had enough personal exposure to know if it’s a major problem. The only personal experience I have is when I used to write articles for Bleacher Report. I’d usually get a few comments on articles to the effect of, “this kid’s an idiot, he has no idea what he’s talking about.” While slightly offended and disappointed at the lack of constructive feedback, I couldn’t really argue because I didn’t have any idea what I was talking about. It was part of Bleacher Report’s model to let anyone write who could form complete sentences.
My main point comes back to the “walk a mile in someone else’s shoes” adage. We struggle to walk in the shoes of an internet troll because it’s so difficult to tell what the shoes look like. They’re hidden by a digital filter, and they don’t really want to be seen. But at the end of the day, they’re shoes that fit humans – it just takes a little more effort to put them on.
I didn’t really get into the question of whether or not it’s worth making the effort to put the shoes on.
pat73hat 