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

What trolls

[simplypeachy]

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.

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

[DoofusOfDeath]

I agree. I've made a few Slashdot posts that were contrary to the majority view, but meant in good faith and with the goal of advancing the discussion, which ended being modded as Trolls. Fortunately this happens to me rarely, suggesting that only a small fraction of moderators

My experience on BoingBoing was much worse. There, even after having a discussion with admins about why I made my comment, they still labelled me a troll and banned me on the site. I think any fair-minded person would have judged me to be not trolling - as far as I can tell that administrator's definition of troll included views that he/she didn't agree with.

Re:Very subjective

[ultranova]

If there were a real-names policy (an actual, checked, real-names policy, not bullshit like what Google tried to pull), one would surely see less trolling.

One would also see less insightful posts, since any kind of insight typically steps on the toes of some entrenched interest. And even on Slashdot posts expressing unpopular opinions typically end up downmodded because, after all, if it provokes you, it's a troll.

A forum with real-names policy is basically worthless, which is precisely why the Powers that Be try to push them. Stripping people of the shield of anonymity makes dissenting opinions easier to silence through chilling effects. And of course this is marketed for our own good, after all we all know that having someone get away with posting something offensive on the Internet is the worst thing ever.

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

[Vitriol Angst]

I couldn't agree more. In an insane world, the sane blogger must appear as a troll!

Huffingtonpost.com forced a policy change that required a Facebook login. I don't want my opinions to tag me, like my credit rating. Eventually, if I've got any opinions that don't follow the "common and popular" I can create a self-reinforcing negative reputation.

Having what you really think follow you isn't good for being employed. And being unemployed isn't good for a credit rating. And a bad credit rating means insurance costs more. It's a really effective way to make dissidents "non persons" over time.

Anonymity on the internet is the last refuge of Democracy. If we cannot protest and voice our complaints anonymously -- then the only people who will get good reputations and jobs will be those that agree with the status quo.

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.

Slashdot becomes a subscription site!?!?

[olsmeister]

Dice, is this your way of testing the waters?

Re:Slashdot becomes a subscription site!?!?

[penguinoid]

Let's see if the next article is titled, "How Much Would You Pay to Get Rid of Beta?"

We do not do that here?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Trolls == Necessary Evil

[CanHasDIY]

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.

No real need.

[LWATCDR]

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.