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

[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

[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?

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.