Ask Slashdot: Would You Pay For Websites Without Trolls?

First time accepted submitter carbon_tet writes I read two articles this week that made me wonder: "Would anyone actually pay for a website without trolls?" The first, was about web trolls and civility on the internet, and the second about the ad-based internet. It seems that public comments unavoidably have trolls, or they degrade very quickly until someone makes a reference to Hitler. So, is it impossible to have a substantive discussion online without trolls? Would you put your money where your mouth is to have a serious online conversation without them? Are there any topics that you would talk about (or prefer to see talked about) on a website where trolls were paywalled out?

Comments

Very subjective

[Racemaniac]

There are ofcourse the obvious trolls, but where does someone end being a troll, and is just someone who has a completely different view?

If someone is convinced the earth is only 5000 years old, and that [insert deity] created all other history to confuse us, is that a troll? How do you prevent just creating a forum where you "discuss" things only with people who think the same way you do, and thus without opposing viewpoints since they'll eventually get removed for "trolling"?

Re:Very subjective

[Iamthecheese]

There are other problems with the Reddit system. Astroturfers with some budget can pay people to make accounts and, without breaking the rules, mass-downvote dissenting opinions. It costs $20 per head per day to hire fluent English speakers to push whatever opinion you like, and it takes surprisingly few of them to influence discussion. Those with differing opinions don't bother to post because they know it will just get downvoted until it's not seen. Others then don't see contradicting arguments and assume that point of view must be right.

Another problem is that posts containing popular memes are pushed to the top raising the noise-signal ratio to an unacceptable level. Finally, allowing everyone to moderate has the effect of pushing all conversation to the lowest common denominator, such that the stories that make it to the front page tend to have a bland populist, unchallenging bias.

Re:Very subjective

[ewibble]

sigh, you do realize you're an anti-religious troll right? The worlds religions aren't the issue, extremists are, extremists don't need religion to be extremists, its just a convenient twist on the work done by someone else for their own personal gain.

and that is the problem with banning trolls, Extremists aren't trolls they are people that disagree enough with you, that you consider their opinion extreme. People who considered women should have the right to vote where probably considered extremists a one point.

Trolls are people who make comments, who's purpose is meant to invoke an emotional response. when he says:

You've just described the teaching methods of the world's most popular religions, so I guess all those folks are out.

If he is expressing his true belief then he is not a troll, if he is just doing to to annoy religious people then he is.

I personally like having people disagree with me, it makes for much more interesting discussions than with people who agree with me.

Once you introduce moderation, you are likely to remove peoples opinions that you strongly disagree with as well. I would rather have a few idiots posting stupid comments, which I can choose to ignore, and keep strongly opposing views. My life won't be significantly effected if someone I don't know insults me, or my beliefs, and if it does significantly effect someone's life I think they had bigger issues to start with.

It maybe society as a whole has a problem that we are creating so many people who have so little self esteem.