Internet trolls are even more hostile when they're using their real names

[Plazma Inferno!]

Anonymity, we often assume, is the breeding ground for bad behavior on the internet. Among the gatekeepers of comment sections and social media sites, the conventional wisdom is that anonymity empowers bullies to voice hateful opinions without consequence. When unmasked by real-name policies, the theory goes, these trolls will slink back to their caves, taking the vitriol from Twitter, Facebook and other social media with them.
But, that's not true, according to the latest research.
A team of the sociologists from the University of Zurich wanted to know whether anonymity really encouraged the worst kind of behavior seen in online “firestorms.”
They studied comments on online petitions published on a German social media platform between 2010 and 2013. The data included 532,197 comments on about 1,600 online petitions. Commentators could choose to be public or anonymous. Contrary to expectations, the commentators with the harshest words during mass public attacks were more likely to be the name-identified ones than the anonymous ones (less than a third of commentators kept their names private).
These findings suggest we may need to rethink our efforts to encourage or enforce civility online.

http://qz.com/741933/internet-troll...-theyre-using-their-real-names-a-study-finds/

 

[geordief]

That explains why I am so courteous online I suppose

 

[Bowser]

I had to look up the term "firestorm" because I didn't know what it is...

Actors of public interest today have to fear the adverse impact that stems from social media platforms. Any controversial behavior may promptly trigger temporal, but potentially devastating storms of emotional and aggressive outrage, so called online firestorms. Popular targets of online firestorms are companies, politicians, celebrities, media, academics and many more.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155923

I'm not certain it is a bad thing, people voicing their views. If it is contained within the realm of online discussion, why should we care? Doxing and trying to do physical harm are another question though.

 

[Daecon]

I'm not certain it is a bad thing, people voicing their views. If it is contained within the realm of online discussion, why should we care? Doxing and trying to do physical harm are another question though.

"You're an idiot."

What? I'm only "voicing my view", so why should you care, right Bowser?

Unless of course you find that view offensive and you DO care, but then we wouldn't want anyone to think you're a hypocrite or have double standards...

Or do you actually agree that trolling IS a bad thing?

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Thats interestin.!!!
A guy who used his real name "Trolled" me for over a year in my own forum... lol.!!!

 

[Bowser]

Or do you actually agree that trolling IS a bad thing?

I suppose it depends on how you define "trolling." If it's just someone voicing an opinion which you disagree, then we define it differently. As for people expressing views, I'm all for that. There's something to be learned from other people. I've seen a lot of critical ideas online. Some I found useful, others not.

I've seen a few "firestorms" online, too. #Shirtstorm comes to mind.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...sexism_when_a_shirt_is_more_than_a_shirt.html

As silly as the whole issue was, it shows how petty some people really are--an indicator of online sensibilities.

I think I can handle being called an "idiot," Where trouble enters the picture is when people go out of their way to cause real harm...

 

[Tiassa]

I'm not certain it is a bad thing, people voicing their views. If it is contained within the realm of online discussion, why should we care?

Given that you have recently been participating in a discussion that includes consideration of rape and murder threats via social media, I am compelled to wonder at your question.

Why should I care if someone threatens to rape and murder a five year-old girl because that someone doesn't like what the little girl's mother says about women not appreciating sexual harassment? You know, I'm going to go with self-evident this time.

 

[sideshowbob]

Unless of course you find that view offensive and you DO care....

I've been called an idiot in forums. I don't care. Only an idiot would think I was an idiot.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I've been called an idiot in forums. I don't care. Only an idiot would think I was an idiot.

You're an...


Ah, nevermind

 

[wegs]

I try to show people the same respect online as I would if they were standing in front of me. Not into ad homs or name calling and it only makes one's argument appear weak. Discuss the points of the discussion, not the people.

 

[geordief]

I try to show people the same respect online as I would if they were standing in front of me. Not into ad homs or name calling and it only makes one's argument appear weak. Discuss the points of the discussion, not the people.

What if your reply or input is ignored or cherry picked. Is it not valid to point out the dishonest (as you see it) character or nature of the poster. For sure you have to give them the initial benefit of the doubt but if you have to address the motivation of the poster is that not an a hom?

Is it best to leave the fray or perhaps report the post?

Are there not times when ad homs can be valid or do we all be to "self blinker" when we see bad behaviour in other posters ? (apart from the sheer boredom of ignoring the issue)

 

[Bowser]

I try to show people the same respect online as I would if they were standing in front of me. Not into ad homs or name calling and it only makes one's argument appear weak. Discuss the points of the discussion, not the people.

Good point. The term "Troll" can be tossed around quite liberally. It's often used to label someone with whom people simply disagree. I don't believe it is exclusive to only those who attack someone's character. When I think of the the definition for the word "Troll"--and having been a fishing maniac for many years--I see them as being someone who baits others. If you have ever trolled for fish in a lake, you can understand my point.

Not into ad homs or name calling and it only makes one's argument appear weak.

Agreed.

 

[wegs]

What if your reply or input is ignored or cherry picked. Is it not valid to point out the dishonest (as you see it) character or nature of the poster. For sure you have to give them the initial benefit of the doubt but if you have to address the motivation of the poster is that not an a hom?

Is it best to leave the fray or perhaps report the post?

I would only report posts that are a) harassing in nature b) deliberately derailing the thread topic especially when pointed out to the poster c) using ad homs as part of their argument.

I've seen new people to a forum post something and then never to be seen again, and the thread is usually a pot stirring kind of topic. lol It's annoying, and troll like, but I usually wait to see if a person is going to post a few things first before engaging in discussion, as to not waste my time.

But, using ad homs, it's your call but why stoop to someone else's level?

Good point. The term "Troll" can be tossed around quite liberally. It's often used to label someone with whom people simply disagree.

haha I've noticed that.

I don't believe it is exclusive to only those who attack someone's character.

True

When I think of the the definition for the word "Troll"--and having been a fishing maniac for many years--I see them as being someone who baits others. If you have ever trolled for fish in a lake, you can understand my point.

That's a great definition of it, actually - someone who baits others, and the motivation for posting is only that, pretty much.

 

[Bowser]

That's a great definition of it, actually - someone who baits others, and the motivation for posting is only that, pretty much.

The difficulty is sometimes determining their motivation. What we might think bait can quite possibly be honest opinion or a point of view. Also, a statement can generate discussion, so there is a fine line that we ride when approaching a subject. I will often walk away from a topic if I think I am repeating the same point too often.