Slashdot Mirror
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?
There are trolls on the Internet? What, have people forgotten how to use /ignore? Do they actually join in conversations on Internet services that don't have effective ignore/moderation systems? Well, that's your fault, then.
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"?
Dice, is this your way of testing the waters?
Many slashdotters do pay to be on a web site that is mostly free of trolls. The time people give to take part in the rating system is not free.
I have met the troll and he is us.
There's probably a free firefox extension that disables comment sections.
Unless you want to live in an echo chamber, trolls are just something you have to learn to deal with. Besides, there's no such thing as an "anti-dickhead premium," because no matter what, if you're having a discussion with any significant group of people, it's pretty much guaranteed one of them is going to have a different enough opinion that you're going to want to stick that "troll" label on them.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
We are the tough geeks and will browse into that rough patch on the interwebs to get our fix of data.
We will risk malware and viruses to pirate the latest films.
We will walk into a biker bar and call the biggest pagan mother fucker a gay little bitch.
Oh wait, maybe not that last one.
Seriously though.. what is considered a troll, or offensive is subjective. If I do not want imposed censorship, I sure as shit am not going to pay for it directly.
Silence is a state of mime.
This is a record. Godwin's law before the comments!
http://xkcd.com/261/
One site I participated in had a great way to deal with trolls. Once your rating became negative enough, you were put on a global /ignore and no one saw your posts except yourself and others with equally negative reputations.
Slashdot could significantly reduce trolls by just making everyone login to comment.
Keep the ability to post as an AC but make these changes.
1. You still take the karma hit to your real name when you post a troll and get the good karma for good posts.
2. The ability to block the person when they are posting as an AC. The person blocking would still not know who they are blocking as it would just say AC on the blocked list.
It would not stop all the trolls but it seems like a good compromise solution for Slashdot.
BTW I do not block Slashdot ads since I want them to get paid and they have not put up any annoying video ads lately.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I would pay for such a website without trolls, sure. As an educated American with a bit of disposable income I can certainly think of worse ways to spend a few dollars every month or year. The problem is that if one is going to require payment to use the service, it will exclude a LOT of the voices that I want to hear in internet discussions. Marginalized people in my state, people from other countries, people that need to remain anonymous... the beauty of the internet is the free exchange of ideas and tremendous number of voices that one can be exposed to. Being able to pay for a website without trolls is a privilege. Unfortunately, efforts to control trolls and other voices that are deemed disruptive will (in all likelihood) exclude many legitimate voices, too. Without these legitimate voices, such sites are (probably) doomed to be generally homogeneous communities with sterile discussions.
Why do all the sites feel the need to have a message board. Slashdot is OK, but the message board discussion is its thing. But for many of the news sites, these message boards are poorly managed and offer little to no insight to the articles. Just political rambling.
You don't want trolls, get rid of the message boards.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
With the exception of sites like Ars and /. comments posted are generally of a lower mentality level than the article. Save a few minutes of your life and skip the comments. Except this one.
BTW You are literally Hitler for wanting eliminate trolls.
Heroes die once, cowards live longer.
Most people would pay $30/mo for a better Internet experience.
People are not dumb enough to pay for 30 individual sites; and paying a flat fee...that's what your ISP does. The cash troll filter is the secondary annoyance that drives away everyone but hard-core users, and filters out everyone but the most hard-core trolls (and hackers who cracked your password list).
Support my political activism on Patreon.
No one wants to talk seriously online to total strangers.
You're kidding, right? I rarely talk to people I know...because I know them. I learn from and share with people I don't know.
I come here for the love
Troll is a person posting an inflammatory message with the deliberate intent of exciting readers into a controversial response. This is the exact definition.
But the word is misused a lot, indeed. For example, just writing hateful comments, or messages with disinformation, is not trolling.
Let me state the current definition of a troll: someone who disagrees with you. There is NOBODY out there posting stupid comments on purpose to cause arguments and screw with people. I've certainly never seen it.
Troll is a person posting an inflammatory message with the deliberate intent of exciting readers into a controversial response. This is the exact definition.
But the word is misused a lot, indeed. For example, just writing hateful comments, or messages with disinformation, is not trolling.
And that's exactly my point. How do you prove "intent" on a message board? You have to be able to have black-and-white rules that say "This guy is posting a different and unpopular opinion but that guy is trying to stir up trouble." Those rules have to apply one hundred percent of the time because people are REALLY REALLY good at hiding intent and playing innocent when they're serious about trolling. In fact, the internet generally applauds the "masterful troll" who can hook as many people as possible. For all you know, I'm trolling you right now by leading you down a conversational path to an as-yet undisclosed end-game. There's just no way to know and that's why it's so hard to put a stop to it.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Right, so let's cite the website perhaps second or third best known on the Internet for having lots of trolls as an example.
...of a site that already tried this, and failed. Isn't this exactly the kind of example that the article was asking for?
Forums such as Disqus are prime examples where a discussion will quickly devolve into one about political affiliation, views on gay rights or simply, Obama. I always feel like I lost time on this planet which I will never get back having read some of them - And, I feel like I less intelligent since I probably burned a few brain cells out consuming their dribble.
Here on /., it seems the common definition of a Troll seems to be someone who has a dissenting opinion to the common group think. Sometimes, do we see the discussion turn to towards political hate speech. But, more often the the tone of comments can be very denigrating and hateful. And, one can quickly find their comments downgraded to 0 or -1 by someone who simply doesn't like your point of view.
The moderation model used by /. has worked fairly well. Still, it isn't perfect. Allowing people to hide behind the mask of Anonymous Coward presents its own dilemma in dealing with trolls. A possible solution would be to require all anonymous posts to undergo moderation by several moderators (maybe 3?) before being visible and the reasons for a moderator's decision should be listed. Moderators should see a list of posts, per article, that are being moderate downwards. Posts only viewed and acted upon by a single moderator should be made visible after 12 hours to keep a single moderator from squelching the voice of others. And, moderators, themselves, should be ranked by the fairness of their actions. Unfortunately, I don't have a good model on how to do this, just some ideas. Maybe, having other moderators approve or disapprove of the moderation action of another moderator and ranking the results might be a start? It could be done on a running averages basis - allowing people who might not have moderated wisely in the past to regain trust. In some respects, it's like the concept of Karma points but for moderators.
Requiring all posters to have verified accounts linked to their real identity is another solution. AC positing would simply be an option when posting as a verified user. It's AC to the world, but still linked back to oneself. Yes, this would mean the end of true anonymity. But, it make people responsible for their actions even when they choose to hide their identity. Combined with a fair moderator system, it would all but eliminate Trolls even in a non-payment subscriber model.
A troll is someone who writes with the purpose of provoking responses. To this end they may employ various techniques, including but not limited to unpopular opinion, insults, supporting a popular opinion but with flawed reasoning, exaggerating a popular opinion, etc. A skilled troll is indistinguishable from from an honest person who is wrong, rude, ignorant, or supports an unpopular position.
Conversely, it is certainly possible to disagree while being polite and reasonable. If a site's moderation standards are high enough, only the most skilled trolls will remain, and they will all be polite and reasonable.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways