Slashdot Mirror


Trolling Will Get Worse Before it Gets Better, Study Says (mashable.com)

If you thought that the internet had a chance of becoming a nicer place at any point in the near future, it might be time to give up hope. From a report: "Harassment, trolls, and an overall tone of griping, distrust, and disgust" will stay the norm on the internet over the next decade, experts told the Pew Research Center in a new report. The Pew Research Center and the Imagining the Internet Center at Elon University surveyed about 1,500 technology experts, scholars, corporate practitioners and government leaders in July and August 2016 for the study, and the results are pretty demoralizing. Forty-two percent of respondents thought the internet would stay the same sometimes less-than-pleasant place over the next 10 years, while another 39 percent said they thought the internet would become a more negative environment. Just under 20 percent of experts thought the internet had any chance of getting better over the next decade when it comes to harassment and trolling.

208 comments

  1. Troll post by fyngyrz · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This slashdot news story is clearly a troll.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Troll post by mellon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yup. Basically, "we asked a bunch of people to predict the future, and there was a significant degree of pessimism, although there was also a plurality of optimists."

      What meaning are we supposed to gather from this? It's not even a well-characterized sample—it's just "we asked a bunch of people with strong opinions." This is not news—it's noise.

    2. Re:Troll post by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The internet was a LOT nicer before all the 'common' folks got on (started with AOL?).....

      I really like the increased content, but ugh..the people that came with it.

      But that's what you get. If you've ever had a job that deals with the general public, you quickly realize how fscked in the head 90% of the public is.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:Troll post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Every now and then I go to archive.org and bring up the Slashdot front page from a decade ago.

      Here's the front page for 29 March 2007.

      Although I'm totally expecting it to be better, I'm still always stunned by just how much better the content was then than now.

      The submissions are interesting and relevant! They've actually got something to do with technology, rather than being irrelevant pro-leftist political submissions. A submission like this shitty one is nowhere to be found.

      This isn't a case of remembering the past through rose-colored glasses. No, we're actually looking at the front page itself from a decade ago, and we're comparing it against today's Slashdot front page. This is a direct, realtime comparison taking place!

      To top it all off, 2007 was well after Slashdot's peak. We can look at even earlier front pages, like this one from 5 March 2000, and see how it was even better then than it was in 2007.

      It's almost impossible to compare a 2000 Slashdot front page with a 2017 Slashdot front page, given how truly awful the submissions today are.

      We all know that Slashdot is a shadow of what it once was. But submissions like this one, along with looking at archived copies of the front page from years ago, really goes to show how bad things are today.

    4. Re:Troll post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd put it closer to 99%

    5. Re:Troll post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Internet, maybe. Slashdot was bad in the early days when ASCII goatse ruled.

      You proved the article correct. Trolling was creative, and at times humorous then.

      The ASCII goatse, hot grits, and the "Malda is a nullo" stories were a great part of the "charm" of slashdot then.

    6. Re:Troll post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      90%? That's pretty pessimistic, son, I think you'd better adjust your figures a little. If you've ever worked in computer support you'd know that figure is WAY off.

      99.999999999999999.............%.

      There, fixed that for you.

    7. Re:Troll post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In some ways the increased content is welcome, but it is a pity that much of the content has been 'dumbed down' and has so much vague 'marketing speak' that makes it difficult to find (if it there at all) the technical content.

    8. Re:Troll post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, fucktard, you want to shoot somebody?
      See? Nothing's changed, you fat piece of shit.

    9. Re:Troll post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It's almost impossible to compare a 2000 Slashdot front page with a 2017 Slashdot front page, given how truly awful the submissions today are.

      Good troll, dude.

      If you look at that 2000 page, except for the version numbers and cultural references, they could have been taken from today's front page. Slashdot has been remarkably consistent over the years.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:Troll post by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

      So, fucktard, you want to shoot somebody?

      I never threatened to shoot someone. I asserted my First and Second Amendment rights in a statement and some asshat took it as a threat. That was a month ago. Still waiting for the FBI to show up but I doubt they will.

      See? Nothing's changed, you fat piece of shit.

      I'm not fat. I'm buff. ;)

    11. Re:Troll post by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I took that AC post as pure irony, no need to comment.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    12. Re:Troll post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the headline should read "Some people we interviewed thought the internet will get worse." It's misleading to suggest that these opinionated people have some special predictive expertise.

    13. Re:Troll post by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Well said AC

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    14. Re:Troll post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's a good troll, the type predicted to be more common in the future. We should all be hopeful and moralized.

    15. Re:Troll post by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Whoosh?

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    16. Re:Troll post by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 2

      Yes, I remember those days, but it is not 90% of the population. The truth is that probably 90% of the trolls are gutless little 12-19 year old boys who get beat up at school every day and trolling makes them feel powerful the only way they know how. Trolling will always exist because there will always be assholes and sociopaths, but it's rampant nature right now is indicative of deep social problems in our society, and it will drop off dramatically if we address those problems.

      That or we can just go for universal ID and eliminate online anonymity. I hope this day never comes, but it is a solid fact that the risk/reward for being an asshole or worse online goes way down when the cops, or just some random guy might show up at your front door and make your life difficult.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    17. Re:Troll post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GNAA will return.

      We will moderately inconvenience your experience on this website.

      Expect us.

    18. Re:Troll post by penandpaper · · Score: 2

      Jokes on you. The trolls are letting you troll them to troll you so they can troll you more while they wait for their script to finish.

    19. Re:Troll post by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      You're talking about Eternal September. The Internet was a lot smaller back then, and had a lot less idiocy for sure, however I'm not so sure about "nicer". USENET was infamous for "flame wars". But the difference was that, back then, the flamewars were generally between intelligent academics, and were very nasty arguments between people but with actual reason and intelligence. Whereas today, you just need to read the comments below and mass-media news article (esp. anything political), or YouTube comments, and you'll see stuff that makes you wonder if those people ever even finished 6th grade or if they just got "social promotions" to graduate high school while being functionally illiterate.

      I have to disagree about dealing with the general public. I've had to do that a little, but not that much, but I did have a grocery-bagging job in high school back when they still had such jobs. Most people were fine; a few were jerks, more than a few were thoughtless, but overall they weren't horrible, certainly not 90%. However, that's based on a pretty limited interaction, in public. The thing that's different about the internet is that people can be anonymous or semi-anonymous keyboard warriors, and aren't personally accountable for their comments. Just look at some of the outright hateful, mean-spirited, and even downright racist or genocidal comments after a political news article, especially from the Trump supporters. People don't generally act that nastily in public, because if they did say such things, they'd very likely get punched. (And I'm not sure they'd even be prosecuted for assault, as I'm pretty sure courts and prosecutors take into account verbal incitement.) But behind a keyboard, some fat-ass POS can spew white supremacist drivel on a public message board anonymously without much fear of repercussions. So likely, many of the people you walk past in public really *are* "fscked in the head" much worse than you realize, but they're keeping it under wraps while they're in public. The Internet lets them show that side of themselves.

      And I don't see how that's likely to improve any time soon. Many (most?) people are nasty, vile, despicable creatures underneath, and the only way to hide that, the way we did in the pre-Internet days, is to severely curtail the forms of expression they have available to them, which means eliminating comment boards (as many sites have already done), or requiring people to post their real name, basically eliminating anonymity. Even that only has so much effect, because people can be anywhere, not local to those they offend.

      Face it; the Internet's power is democratization, letting anyone and everyone have great power of global, inexpensive communication is going to have both positive and negative effects.

    20. Re:Troll post by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Ha! Took a look at the Y2K page...

      SuSe CEO: 'Linux Still Not Ready for the Desktop'
      Update on 'Blame Canada' and the Oscars
      Ask Slashdot: Burning Money on Open Source
      Banner Ads on Your Cell Phone

      Yeah, SOS I guess. Or, SSDD...Same Shit, Different Decade

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    21. Re:Troll post by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Haha, thanks for that !

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    22. Re:Troll post by Dagger2 · · Score: 1

      Even just 99.999999999999999% would cover every single person on the planet except for about 0.0045g of the last person. That's the weight of a few hundred hairs. (And if you actually meant 99.9 recurring then it'd be equal to 100%.)

      You can't just hold the 9 key down without thinking. Numbers mean things.

    23. Re:Troll post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Not even close. The OP was not joking. He really thinks that Slashdot 2000 page differs somehow in content from today's.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    24. Re:Troll post by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      What's missing from the archived pages are the daily flame wars about the lack of lesbian eskimo transmidgets or whatever in STEM.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    25. Re:Troll post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      What's missing from the archived pages are the daily flame wars about the lack of lesbian eskimo transmidgets or whatever in STEM.

      So what you're saying is that Slashdot hasn't changed, but many of its readers have now grown up and moved out of their parents basement and aren't quite so scared of the world? I guess that's a big change, when women and gay people aren't quite so scary any more.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    26. Re: Troll post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree with you, especially the 90% figure. For me it was 5% or less in my public facing positions. Maybe gp worked at trump tower though?

    27. Re:Troll post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is impossible to harass someone over the internet. "Trolls" (ie. people you disagree with) aren't the problem. Delicate, overly sensitive snowflakes and the irresponsible, entitled assholes who raised them are the problem.

    28. Re:Troll post by Falos · · Score: 1

      "Trolling" is a hell of an umbrella, even without people spinning it to their agendas. Over in a forgotten wing of the umbrella, trolling was, yes, an art. At times an impressive show of our cleverest indulging the inescapable human craving to display prowess.

      Now we think the xbox tween screaming about cheaters is "trolling". We had several words to describe tantrums, but you wanted to sound internet-hip. Or worse, indulge a crusade. Either way, the word is now more scattered than "hacking".

      There's no escaping the eternal september, but if the price of escape was people calling each other "fucktards" a lot I'd gladly pay it ten times over.

    29. Re: Troll post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, that's early 00's trolling. Now, 90% tend to be "ordinary" people who mob together and find individuals or groups to denounce. If you want to recreate the "old internet", just isolate yourself from public social media and find smaller eclectic groups... kinda like what old denizens of the net used to do before media corps convinced everyone we needed to constantly communicate with everyone. Hell no! It's funny, nowadays to avoid talking to idiots, I just stay offline and speak to people in person!

    30. Re:Troll post by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      but many of its readers have now grown up and moved out of their parents basement

      It's adorable you think that.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    31. Re:Troll post by DontTrustWhatIType · · Score: 0

      What Internet were you using? USENET, dial-in BBSs, and even MUDs were full of self-righteous condescending jackasses, trolls, and ragers well before AOL. I missed the unicorns and fairy Internet train I guess...

    32. Re:Troll post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is "slacker news|", go job

  2. The future of trolling by lucasnate1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I suspect the future of trolling is something like this: https://sonichu.com/

    Entire wikis created on people, documenting every mistake they ever did on their life, allowing online collaborations between thousands in phishing/harassing. AI and data mining will probably make this much easier as they improve.

    1. Re:The future of trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Chris is an awful person though.

    2. Re:The future of trolling by lucasnate1 · · Score: 1

      I believe that for every person one can find a group of a thousand wackos with enough internet know-how and hatred. It is just a matter of organizing them and of showing that it can be done. Chris-chan's haters showed that it can be done, I suspect they will not be the only example.

    3. Re:The future of trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chris deserves every ounce of trolling he receives. This is a dude who routinely scams people on eBay. You don't get to have any victimhood status when you're a con artist like Chris.

    4. Re:The future of trolling by lucasnate1 · · Score: 1

      I am not saying he doesn't deserve it, I'm just saying that what happens to him is a precedent, and I think that wikis/forums like that will be created for other people too.

    5. Re:The future of trolling by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      So.. if various data breaches and other online information gets indexed and allows for at-will doxxing of anyone, with a wiki of things to shame them... would it stop having an effect? You'd have twitter bots auto-shaming everyone on the internet.

    6. Re:The future of trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to be an absolute genuine savant to get an entire wiki and a dedicated community focused on "trolling" you, although to call it trolling is disingenious, it's more of a public service announcement telling you to not do any business at all with Chris, and for very good reason.

      We're talking about a person who over the last 10 years has: scammed individuals out of thousands of dollars on eBay, scammed credit card companies out of tens of thousands of dollars of credit, sexually assaulted at least 3 people, physically assaulted one person with pepper spray, and attempted vehicular manslaughter against a dude who owned a boardgame shop. Everything on that wiki is there for a very good reason: to completely illustrate the point that Chris is terrible and will take advantage of you the first chance you give him, so don't let him.

    7. Re: The future of trolling by inking · · Score: 1

      I wonder what would happen if Chris made use of the right to be forgotten.

    8. Re:The future of trolling by lucasnate1 · · Score: 2

      Too bad the stalking started before the scamming. The scamming started once Chris realized that he can use the exposure he got to make some cash.

    9. Re:The future of trolling by lucasnate1 · · Score: 0

      Eventually, if it gets to everyone, you may be correct. But before it, when it will only be some of the population, you'll get some decentralized version of mccarthyism with people attacking others in the hope that they will not be exposed themselves.

    10. Re:The future of trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point being that there was plenty of opportunity for Chris to stop this himself, a long, long, long time ago. Don't feed the trolls, etc. But Chris being Chris, he constantly felt compelled to air his dirty laundry to the Internet. You can't fix stupid, sometimes. You especially can't fix stupid when you have a long history of engaging in felonious activity in public in front of everyone.

    11. Re:The future of trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      documenting every mistake they ever did on their life, allowing online collaborations between thousands in phishing/harassing

      In other words, same as Washington Post and Huffington Post.

    12. Re:The future of trolling by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 2

      I do wonder how effective shaming everyone would really be. Unless the broadcasted information proves reliable, won't it just demolish twitter (for example) as a public forum for discussion?

      Attempting to shame is one thing, and doxxing is another. I think what makes this shame campaigns intimidating is when they are followed up with death threats, swatting, etc. That actually takes a group of dedicated individuals to make it effective.

    13. Re:The future of trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My god, that site is one of the saddest things I've ever seen.

    14. Re:The future of trolling by Blades11 · · Score: 1

      This has been going on for well over a decade you know. Encyclopedia Dramatica, Kiwifarms, etc.

    15. Re:The future of trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, sorry, no. Speaking the truth isn't trolling and mistakes aren't purposeful actions. That kid is just disgusting and has harmed others.

  3. The only thing that will change is who is trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see how the left handles being the boogeyman everyone loves to hate.

  4. how will it get better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have a society that says "selfishness is good" so we get people acting like selfish jerks online, called trolling.

    Then we up the ante saying "narcissism is good" - as proven by the politicians we elect (we elected 2 narcissist presidents, for example).

    And you think that things will GET BETTER?

    No. Things will get worse, and worse and worse and worse until we as a society reject "narcissism is good" and "selfishness is good"

  5. Raise your hand if you're surpirsed... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    ... yeah, didn't think so.

    Hell we just gave an internet troll the nuclear codes. Now all the other trolls online have something even greater to aspire to.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  6. Re:The only thing that will change is who is troll by lucasnate1 · · Score: 1

    This is what we currently have in Israel, with right wingers doxxing and arranging attacks on leftists. Currently it seems the favored solution is migrating to germany (yes, I know, jews running away to germany, ironic).

  7. Before it Gets Better? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Trolling Will Get Worse; it Will Never Get Better.

    FTFY...

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:Before it Gets Better? by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      If trolling gets intolerable and pervasive enough, universal ID will get passed legislatively and all the trolls will wilt in the light of day. Trolls only exist because they can lurk in their mothers basement safe and sound. The minute you know that guy you are doxxing might come to your house and kick your ass, it stops being fun. This is why we can't have nice things.

      In the mean time, don't feed the trolls.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    2. Re:Before it Gets Better? by Blades11 · · Score: 1

      Trolls are far less hostile compared to the mid 2000s, notably GNAA / 4Chan. Only a small minority are a real malevolent nature, using tactics such as hacking and SWATTING. Otherwise, most trolls are soft. Look at Chan culture. If someone threatened suicide or fucked with a Raid they would likely have their lives ruined. Now, raids are mostly banned and half the posters try to talk the suicidal guy out of it. Only a weak minded lot is even negatively effected by the common troll. Who cares about some 15 year old spamming racist memes they got off DailyStormer or /pol/? Trolls are a good thing. They are a central asset to the cultivation of memes and internet culture. The average joe is the one to destroy most sites and communities. I prefer lulzy trolls over millions of mindless chads and stacies in the comments sections of a youtube video. About 25% of trolls are genuinely truly evil. They're the ones who make fun of cancer victims or other innocents. We have seen how troll culture has occasionally broke through to the mainstream. Take for instance Anonymous back in 2003~2008. Or the hijacking of Pepe and triggering the ADL / MSM. It'll be fun to watch an alt-right rise to be equal to feminism and SJWism in power, clashing hard and going down in the history books.

    3. Re:Before it Gets Better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If trolling gets intolerable and pervasive enough, universal ID will get passed legislatively and all the trolls will wilt in the light of day.

      Why does anyone actually think that? Did insults start because of the internet? What existed before the internet? Did that stop anyone from being an ass with their real identity? Did it prevent wars, mean-ness, segregate, whole sale slaughter, lynching?

      The minute you know that guy you are doxxing might come to your house and kick your ass

      And with Universal ID and surveillance, they are going to know exactly who's kicking his ass, which is assault and battery.

      Also, with "National ID", there is no more "Doxxing" because everyone is doxxed if a default state of being. If a national id is what you want, then what really happens is everyone gets "Doxxed".

      So what happens then? The bullying goes back to the toughest people, those with government protection, and of course the police.

      Lets be real frank, ever since the "Anonymous" crackdown on the commies on 4/7chan, the nationalists look more and more like the FBI, the NSA, and of course CIA contractors. If not, they are very close, and very much similar people with similar means and ends. They fit the same opperundis modi

      So you get their address, and you figure out the people talking shit have connections to shadowy intelligence, law enforcement groups, then what?

      There will still be many people who will be anonymous. Those people will be criminal hackers. They, along with the cops, will all have your doxx, because they will be mandated online by law. You won't have theirs.

  8. POTUS Twitter Account... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Trump's trolling will get worse as his popularity ratings continues to slip.

    1. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you libtards actually think about nothing but Trump 24/7, or do you just pretend to?

    2. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Oh he'll be alright. Popularity ratings will be highly suspect/fake news etc. until he's out of office in which case they might be golden again (depending on who is in charge of course).

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    3. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Do you libtards actually think about nothing but Trump 24/7, or do you just pretend to?

      I'm a moderate conservative. Trump is neither a conservative nor a Republican, and, until a few short years ago, was a Clinton Democrat. The Republicans inability to govern in the White House and Congress is a grave concern for every American.

    4. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Popularity ratings will be highly suspect/fake news etc. until he's out of office in which case they might be golden again (depending on who is in charge of course).

      Trump's popularity rating is in the toilet. I don't think he can't stop himself from hitting the flush over and over again. Unlike George W., I don't think history will look too kindly on Trump and rate him at the bottom of unsuccessful presidents.

    5. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      One of my local papers has been publishing articles based on interviews with Trump readers.

      "I know he's lying, but it's good and I'd vote for him again"

      Today's was even better... "I have black lung and would die without Obamacare so I'm glad it didn't get scrapped, but I'd vote for Trump again even if he got rid of it".

      Real people. Saying incredibly stupid things that actually go up to and including an expression of willingness to DIE in order to have the Republicans win.

    6. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Trump is one of the most popular US presidents in recent history. At least, if you poll real Americans and ignore the illegals that the so-called media in this country like to poll.

      Don't forget, the "approval ratings" you're reading are being determined by a media that absolutely hate Trump. They're fake news. Trump is extremely popular, despite the continued attempts to smear him by the left.

    7. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      One of my local papers has been publishing articles based on interviews with Trump readers.

      My favorite — if you want to call it that — is people believing that Trump will bring back the 1980's manufacturing jobs that require a high school diploma or minimal education. The reality on the ground is that newer factories are automated, requires fewer workers and a college diploma. When John Deere opened a new factory, they got 10,000+ applications for 800 jobs.

    8. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      > I don't think history will look too kindly on Trump

      Given that the right didn't anticipate him taking the top spot in the party and the left didn't think of him as more than a joke candidate until the very end, given the way most of the world reacted to him... the PRESENT isn't looking too kindly on him.

      However, partisan (mostly) support and weirdly dedicated voters who will vote against their own self-interest without even an altruistic reason... I don't think he's leaving any time soon.

      I'm still waiting for the press to ask Spicer why they should bother reporting what he says when he's consistently lying to them and treating them like shit on Trump's behalf.

    9. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by Highdude702 · · Score: 0

      You're problem is you're so biased it has turned you into a bumbling moron.

    10. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Republican party has been actively promoting ignorance because it gets them votes. It worked right up until Trump got elected.

      Now they need to deal with an ignorant and irrational support base that is unpredictable and could turn on them at any time for any reason... though I think it's when they finally cripple the ACA and their voters start actually dying. It could also be when 4 years have passed and their kids haven't gotten black lung yet.

    11. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You're problem is you're so biased it has turned you into a bumbling moron.

      This is Slashdot. You must be new around here.

    12. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget, the "approval ratings" you're reading are being determined by a media that absolutely hate Trump. They're fake news. Trump is extremely popular, despite the continued attempts to smear him by the left.

      This line of delusional thinking is why I left the Republican Party.

    13. Re: POTUS Twitter Account... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, the partisan democrats voted blindly for the wall-street owned corrupt politician, leaving us with the troll that the progressives banded together to vote for on the republican primary tickets. Genius.

    14. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the Democratic party has been actively promoting leftist ideologies that even Hugo Chavez would've considered "out there."

      Major parties have sucked for decades. When a 3rd party tries to invade their little club, the DNC/RNC rewrite the rules to shut them out. WE the voters should nail their scrotums to the post for it... but noooo we keep this "binary" rule in our voting that pits one against the other. And stupid partisan nonsense like your "insightful" post are the reason we still are in this fucking mess.

    15. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stand down Ivan, Golden God is goin' to prison no matter how many times you cry "buttery males" and accuse Obama of haunting the microwave.

    16. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      The Republicans inability to govern in the White House and Congress is a grave concern for every American.

      Inaction by the government when there is widespread disagreement is a feature not a bug.

    17. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by admin7087 · · Score: 1

      There you go! You sure showed him! He will think twice before insulting your president again!

    18. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      My take on this is that in general, republican voters don't care as much about politics and for that reason are less informed, not less intelligent. I've met my share of trump supporters and there's on thing they all had in common: They weren't aware of half of what is going on in the news (when it comes to politics) and they aren't willing to take what they hear against Trump at face value regardless of the sources.

      Having said that, other than the blind follower, you need to find a common ground with a Trump supporter before you can't discuss politics. Once you do, you need to understand what they think about it without criticize their opinion. You can then get into a reasonable conversation because you didn't demonize them.

    19. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      These voters will be *happy* to die because of GOP policies, as long as the GOP continues to blame some minority for all their problems.

    20. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      I believe it is irrational to vote in ignorance and to willfully maintain that ignorance. That I'm applying the label 'stupid' to unshakable Trump voters isn't a partisan thing - I would say the same about anyone approaching voting for any political party (we have different ones up here in the Great White North) the same way.

      I don't expect everyone to be an expert in politics (that's why we elect politicians - to be specialized experts in that field so we can do other things), but you have to learn enough to intelligently elect your representatives.

      Anything less is just stupid. Blue or red.

    21. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Inaction by the government when there is widespread disagreement is a feature not a bug.

      That's a serious flaw that needs to be fix in the 2018 elections. If politicians don't want to work, they can find another job.

    22. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Depends on how you look at it. If you don't like the current politicians it would be a win if they find another job. If you elected that politician to obstruct then their job is to do nothing.

      It doesn't need to be fixed any more than in prior elections.

    23. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't be surprised if at least 10-20% of these diehard Trump supporters here weren't either the same few people creating the impression of there being more than there are or if their job was to shitpost all day to support Trump and everything he favors and spew hatred towards those who don't and /. just happened to be one of the sites they were assigned.

    24. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Yes this is slashdot. I've been around for a while. And you're one of the users that never really fit in anywhere and wanted to be "like the cool kids" and this is the only place you can do that. Well maybe your Social Media sites also since you get to choose who you interact with and who can talk to you.

    25. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      And you're one of the users that never really fit in anywhere and wanted to be "like the cool kids" and this is the only place you can do that.

      Seriously? Are you in high school or something?

      Well maybe your Social Media sites also since you get to choose who you interact with and who can talk to you.

      I have a Twitter account that I use to post announcements. That's for social media.

    26. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      That doesn't make you not a piece of shit

    27. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      That doesn't make you not a piece of shit

      No, I'm an asshole. Otherwise, I wouldn't be in IT.

    28. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to keep going back and forth. from what I've seen of your posting, you're not what you think you are. but you are something.

    29. Re:POTUS Twitter Account... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to keep going back and forth.

      Yet you can't resist putting in the last word.

      from what I've seen of your posting, you're not what you think you are. but you are something.

      Nope, 100% asshole. :P

      Eli The Computer Guy: Being An "Asshole" As A Technology Professional
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_YaNGzplbE

  9. Re:The only thing that will change is who is troll by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    The left knows how to pass legislation (see ObamaCare). The right can't get past "no" (see their aborted healthcare bill).

  10. The solution is also a problem by Baron_Yam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Solution: Find sites that are moderated so trolls and the merely very uncivil are ejected.

    Unfortunately, proper implementation requires identity verification which stifles discussion since few people worth talking to are willing to put their entire life on public record for all eternity.

    There's a secondary problem in that most people will end up gravitating to echo chambers, which most often ends up reinforcing ignorance which is kind of the opposite of the Internet's optimal use - sharing information.

    1. Re:The solution is also a problem by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Yeah all we need are a few islands of civility to cling on to. They do exist to some extent. Ars has a very mature commenting base compared to the shrill, opinionated whining you see on here.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    2. Re:The solution is also a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Identity verification I think only blocks out professional and robot trolls (see the earlier article on how to astroturf fake news). But there is still enough dogpiling in non-anonymous settings that I don't think it helps.

      There are probably more creative ways to deal with this.
        * Enforce reading the article before commenting. The article quizzes seem like a pretty good way to do that. This stops drive-by trolling and slows down "ops", since most chan oppers are looking for low-resistance ways to flood places.
        * Stop making "the comments" a separate place from the article that everyone is taught not to read. News Genius puts comments *in* the article as annotations, contextualizing comments and allowing a more rigorous and nuanced discussion.

    3. Re:The solution is also a problem by tinkerton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd certainly prefer to get rid of the Anonymous Coward habit on here. People act a bit better (statistically) when they have a name on a forum. It doesn't have to be completely impossible to post AC. Just imagine you have to log in anyway but can choose to post as anonymous, possibly with a much longer waiting time before your post is committed. Sometimes people post as anonymous because they are scared. These people have a good reason and they still have the possibility to post AC.

    4. Re:The solution is also a problem by Angst+Badger · · Score: 1

      Identity verification is not necessary for moderation. It is simply necessary to give new users a probation period during which their posts are invisible until cleared by a moderator. This -- and moderation in general -- is labor-intensive, but labor is the difference between a forum and a dumpster fire.

      The echo chamber effect happens when moderation goes beyond preventing abusive and uncivil behavior. Most community moderation systems tend to fail in this way, especially on political blogs. There's an old saying about management that a fish rots from the head down, and this is just as true for moderators as it is for any other kind of management.

      Maybe AI will eventually automate this but, for now, if you want a fair, unbiased forum full of polite, well-informed participants, you need human moderators with those same qualities putting in time and effort. It's not magic, but it is hard work, so we rarely see it.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    5. Re:The solution is also a problem by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Civility is left for the real world or at least that is how it should be. I don't come to the internet to necessarily be civil. I may or may not. Incivility is on the internet precisely because I cannot be uncivil IRL. Sometimes it is fun to troll an idiot.

      Sadly, it seems that the uncivil nature of the internet is creeping into the meat space. If there is ever a place for civility it is IRL. Civility online, while nice, is not necessary and any forced behavior online would be to the detriment of the internet and the users. (excluding harassment, doxxing, threats, etc. )

    6. Re:The solution is also a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody on Slashdot was an AC in the beginning. It was only later that user accounts were added.

    7. Re:The solution is also a problem by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Identity verification need not involve people putting "their entire life on public record for all eternity" if you allow pseudonyms but just one per person per forum. Then the identity verification is only to ensure that you aren't already registered in the same forum under a different name.

      It's also helpful to be able to verify a person's credentials so that the claims of trolls and of experts aren't given equal weight in a discussion.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    8. Re:The solution is also a problem by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      Civility , as in a form of respecting the others, matters everywhere. If it's absent the some guys can't handle it. Others may put up with it for a while, but then decide 'remind me again why I should I put up with this?' and leave. I've seen Kuroshin die like that. All the time while it was deteriotating there were the foulmouthed pricks convincing each other that they were just weeding out the wussies and once that was finished they'd have this really great site.

    9. Re:The solution is also a problem by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      While I generally agree, each site and person has their own definition of acceptable behavior. Perhaps I should have worded the post a little different. I do not expect civility online. Nor do I look for it online (save business related matters). Any media or social interaction I have online is not something I expect respect from nor demand. My candor and civility will be a reflection of your interaction with me.

      I don't go online looking for great interactions because interacting with people is generally a shitty thing especially online. Anonymity, while an enabler of shit behavior, is an important corner stone to freedom and liberty. Just ask the authors of the Federalist Papers why they used pseudonyms.

    10. Re:The solution is also a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trolls on Slashdot are the registered users with moderation points. They game the system to silence opinions they disagree with, not to mod GNAA posts into oblivion.

      It is NOT the ACs who are the problem on Slashdot.

      One improvement would be to remove the ability for users to ban other users from posting. I only post AC, so that I cannot be banned by other users who don't like what I have to say.

    11. Re:The solution is also a problem by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 1

      Something Awful requires a one time payment ($10) to post on the forums. Getting banned costs another $10 to reinstate your account. You can get put in forum-hell/time-out, where you can only communicate with other shit posters. You can get permabanned, where your account is not eligible for recovery, and your future accounts will be banned if the mods find out they belong to you.

      I haven't been active in years, but when I was, this was very effective at weeding out/discouraging bad behavior.

    12. Re:The solution is also a problem by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      > Unfortunately, proper implementation requires identity verification...

      That might not necessarilly be true. I'm working on a site called kr5ddit, which doesn't require any verification, but has a moderation system that cannot be gamed by having multiple sock puppets.

      You must earn your right to moderate, so no amount of sock puppets can give you any advantage.

    13. Re:The solution is also a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only ever post AC. I made an account once, back in the day, but I never bother to log in. I never troll, I just like my privacy.

      but push come to shove...ACs are more honest.

    14. Re:The solution is also a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whats the point of this site if you dont come here to troll?

      half of the content is advertisement, the other half lame, and some propaganda sprinkled all over it

      and then theres the collection of chromosomatically odd people, like the guy below that speaks about every comment that he does not like being a russian operative

  11. usenet trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I miss the classic usenet trolls. The Archimedes Plutonium guy. Biff. Kibo!

    They at least had some class. Modern trolls mostly are an inferior breed.

    1. Re:usenet trolls by Maritz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Modern 'trolling' is just abuse. The meaning of the word has changed, to the detriment of subtlety.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    2. Re:usenet trolls by timftbf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This. I know it's one we've almost certainly lost, like "hacker" meaning anything other than "cracker" or "computer criminal", but "trolling" was a fine distinction of taking a deliberately inflammatory position (whether you actually held it or not) in an attempt to goad others into taking completely unreasonably positions on the other extreme in response, and laughing at the nonsense that ensued.

      Degrading and broadening it to a simple "someone who's mean on the Internet" is another little piece of our culture slipping away...

      I know, kids on my lawn and all that.

    3. Re:usenet trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modern 'trolling' is just abuse. The meaning of the word has changed, to the detriment of subtlety.

      Incorrect, trolling is a art. Abuse is something totally different.

    4. Re:usenet trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GOOD trolling is an art form, most of what we see today is akin to feces-flinging baboons. It's embarrassing to share DNA with that sort of troll.

    5. Re:usenet trolls by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Way to spectacularly miss the point. Give yourself a gold star.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  12. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Social Media is what really ramped this up.

    I will never forget in 2009 when a guy I knew years before messaged my wife asking if I was in FB. He wanted me to get on FB. She showed me his profile and it was rife with right wing, nationalistic, xenophobic blather, conspiracties, etc; I was instantly turned off by the whole thing. As the years went by and I have gotten the pressure to join social media(and haven't) I am glad in my decision.

    Social Media, whether FB, Twitter or whatever, encourages Troll like behavior and political extremism. You would think that once people aren't anonymous anymore they would temper their "Yea, Cruz' dad killed Kennedy!" tweets, but they don't.

    I have access to a FB account, that I jump onto every couple of months or so, just to see whats up, and everytime I get on there I'm disgusted by what I see and read.

    1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My fear is that this will all turn into censorship. This will just give them more ammunition for Facebook/YouTube/Twitter to censor anything that is not approved corporate speak. Now that YouTube is creating a TV channel with all of the rest of the other TV channels they will follow there narrative. Fake news will flourish (CNN/FOX/MSNBC) Maybe Rachel Madow will get another page of the 2005 Trump tax statement. I will hold my breath.

    2. Re:Good by Blades11 · · Score: 1

      Social media is cancerous, and its where the vast majority of normal / average joes (See: hostile, anti-nerd fools) congregate. If you're still using facebook I STRONGLY recommend you cease usage and delete your data off there. You do know what (((Zuckerberg))) does, right? Only problem is that if you aren't using social media (especially Facebook) it automatically flags you as a weirdo or serial killer to the masses.

    3. Re:Good by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      Overzealous... use of parentheses flags you for sure.

    4. Re:Good by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      How are you disgusted by what you read on FB?

      I have a FB account too. I rarely use it. My main reason for having it before was for services which used it as an authentication mechanism, namely Tinder. I have a gf now (no thanks to Tinder, but rather OKC), so I don't even need it for that now, but I'll keep it around just in case this one fails. Anyway, I also have a small handful of "friends" on FB, mostly family members, and some other friends of friends who got in there. I only do this really to seem "normal" and have a way of contacting these people just in case. Most of them just post stupid but harmless crap: family photos, "look at us on vacation!", "Junior at his baseball game!" type BS, and "liked" junk such as some cooking recipe or whatever. There have been some that started spewing a bunch of political crap (always right-wing like you mention), so I de-friended them. In short, I don't keep any "friends" there that spread that crap, and don't have very many friends, so I don't have to be disgusted. I'm disgusted enough with all the right-wing, nationalistic, xenophobic conspiracy-theory garbage right here on Slashdot and various other sites, but at least on FB I can filter it by defriending those people. Of course, that doesn't leave much of a reason to bother using the site, but that's OK. It's there in case I need it for something (sometimes someone will send me a link on there), and to make sure someone doesn't create a fake account in my name.

  13. Ignore/Mod Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I fully realize the irony of posting this as AC but...

    Seriously, people, can we all agree not to respond to, and to mod down, all the AC trolls which are out in force on any topic which even remotely touches on politics or culture? I don't care if they are just idiots, paid by the Russians, or just in it for the lulz. I'm over it, and ./ would be a better place if we followed these simple rules.

    Logged in users, I'm happy to have a discussion with even if I don't agree. AC trolls though should be shut down, and we have the tools to minimize their visibility. Let's use them.

    1. Re: Ignore/Mod Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who trolls as an AC, I do it as a form of civil disobedience. It is hypocritical for Slashdot to post numerous articles critical of advertising while including numerous tracking and deriding scripts on their site. Some of those ads have include malicious comment at times. Furthermore, Slashdot is basically an echo chamber and opposing views often get suppressed by moderation. This is particularly true when it comes to matters such as the anti-American bias in moderation and many comments. When I troll, and I do plenty of it, I view it as a form of civil disobedience. Slashdot used to be a great place for nerds to discuss technology and open source. My trolling is a protest against what Slashdot and the community on this site have become.

  14. harassment and trolling are not getting 'worse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's that 'sensitive' people are being triggered. It's really sad to see the the entire civil rights movement so completely taken over by this phony social justice thing and political correctness, which I think were designed by right wingers to sabotage the movement. Thanks Obama!

  15. Trolling and Fake News = same by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The basic problem is that we have not realized that Internet's anonymity's lets people say anything they want to.

    It is compounded by humanity's innate trust, and the misunderstanding of exactly how full of garbage the internet is.

    The existence of valid news sources on the internet make it worse - they give the appearance of validity to the general internet.

    To make it even worse, Pravda, the Soviet Union's old ministry of propaganda, changed it's name to RT, and hired a bunch of anonymous posters, making it one of the single most effective propaganda organizations the world has ever seen.

    Their stated goals of disrupting the US, breaking the European Union up, and retaking the Ukraine are having an unprecedented success.

     

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Trolling and Fake News = same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make an excellent point about the internet being full of garbage.

      That's why I don't believe a word you say, except for the above.

    2. Re:Trolling and Fake News = same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really sucks that PepsiCo, Raytheon, and Monsanto have competition now. The United States was once the indispensable nation of propaganda, what the fuck happened?

    3. Re:Trolling and Fake News = same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got me, Mr. Npc. RT is paying me to post on slashdot in order to destroy the US and EU.

    4. Re:Trolling and Fake News = same by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      stated goals of disrupting the US

      Does that make Hillary a Russian troll for being so hateable and sabotaging her own campaign by having so many skeletons in the closet?

      Whenever I hear about Russian propaganda (a nation that does not value free speech and historically has stifled it) affecting the narrative in a nation like the US. I have to wonder how that is any different to any yellow journalism, corporate propaganda, commercial salesmanship or any other dishonest party trying to sell me bullshit that is against my own interests. I would think that a people that are subjected to every retarded idea under the sun will have some mechanism to to either find the signal in the noise when pressed or ignore it. After all, if you value free speech everything will be said and you as the individual must decide. I think that is a good thing.

      I think there is a certain level of pessimism I refuse to take part of when people say 'Russian propaganda works better than any other form of yellow journalism' because I like to think that individuals are better able to decide for themselves than any other purveyor of "truth" (tm). Whether that purveyor is the government, news outlets, or a salesman.

    5. Re:Trolling and Fake News = same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pravda still exists. It did not morph into RT.

      https://www.pravda.ru/

      RT was established in 2005. I don't see where their "stated goals" include disrupting the US or breaking up the EU.

      https://www.rt.com/about-us

      And even if those were their goals, how the hell would they go about accomplishing them? If RT can successfully "disrupt the U.S." simply by airing TV programs and publishing things on a web page, then the U.S. has some serious problems. Who knew it would be so "disruptive" to report news that the Western media refuse to cover and offer perspectives that don't otherwise get represented?

      "The basic problem is that we have not realized that Internet's anonymity's lets people say anything they want to."

      Where have you been? I'd say pretty much everyone else realized this a long time ago. When you live in a climate where people can be physically assaulted for speaking unpopular opinions, having a forum where people can say anything they want to is not a "problem" it's a solution.

      posting as AC just because I can!

    6. Re:Trolling and Fake News = same by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      Trolling happens when people make things personal, not when people take things personally.

      The trolls aren't the RTs of the world broadcasting lies and making you frustrated, it's all the shrill "centipedes" in our midsts.

      They work towards the same ends, but aren't the same thing.

    7. Re:Trolling and Fake News = same by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      In my experience, most Trolls claim they are making jokes and laughing at the outrage they create. They are not
      'making' things personal, they are outright lying for the purpose of enraging others for their own amusement.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    8. Re:Trolling and Fake News = same by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      To make it even worse, Pravda, the Soviet Union's old ministry of propaganda, changed it's name to RT, and hired a bunch of anonymous posters, making it one of the single most effective propaganda organizations the world has ever seen.

      You think that's bad? Fox News, USA Today, and CNN haven't even had to change their names!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Trolling and Fake News = same by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      I don't think you have to lie to troll. Call the target names? Egg them on? Sure. But you can be an epic jerk while telling the truth. That's part of why I think there's a difference. Trolls enjoy driving people nuts and the resulting negative attention is their source of amusement. Lies might make you mad, but no one is the sole arbiter of truth - you might be mistaken about some things, and there's more than one reason to lie, so while I think that qualifier might cover most trolls in most conversations, it's not a set limited to them.

      When people call everything that doesn't settle well with them something inaccurate, that muddies the waters and confuses the issue. Phrases like Fake News and Social Justice Warrior fell to this fate. When everything is Fake, nothing is. When SJWs are just people who disagree with you, then there's a real epidemic of SJWs who must be fought for "great justice" and kiks, leaving a troll all the excuse they need to be what they are.

      I'd just like people to be more precise when it comes to this. They would like nothing more than for the label to lose meaning like everything else has.

  16. Barbarians are winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's as simple as that. Superstition is winning over science. Misinformation is winning over reality. Tribalism is winning over democracy. Anti-vaxers are winning over public health. Climate-deniers, moon-landing-hoaxers, 9/11-hoaxers, chemtrail-loonies, holocaust-deniers and other conspiracy-theorists are winning over history.

    All the pillars of civilization: Truth, justice for all, science, democracy, are being attacked at once.

    Barbarians have declared open war against Civilization. And they're winning.

    1. Re:Barbarians are winning by Maritz · · Score: 1

      You have a point. But don't mistake how it appears for how it really is. Most media and commenters have a vested interest in making things seem worse than they are.

      It's obviously not all sweetness and light. But the likes of the anti-vax dickheads will come full circle, sadly only after they hurt and kill a lot of people. Watch how many of them claim to never have been a part of it after the fallout. I know this because vaccines work, and no amount of FUD can ever change that.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  17. Re:The only thing that will change is who is troll by Maritz · · Score: 1

    You, doubtless, have already made up your mind about how the 'left' would handle it, so that's what you'd see. Pointless exercise.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  18. Re:The only thing that will change is who is troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well... Originally, the ACA was going to be single-payer and get the US back into the list of first world countries for health care. But it wouldn't pass and they had to do a whole reconciliation effort (well televised and reported) with the republicans basically designed to gut the single-payer and keep the high health care industry profits (yachts for CEOs) intact. If the left would have known how to pass legislation they would have been able to get the original one through and the republicans wouldn't be there crowing about how it was the worst legislation ever and is going to blow up (of course this is because of the hand they had in re-crafting it, but you don't hear them mentioning that).

  19. No identity = no consequences by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

    Unless there is a universal identity source that can have a reputation tied to it, there is no incentive for people to play nice with others.You can get a good sense of how socialable people really are by looking at their anonymous behavior.

    Things do seem to be going downhill. Even the AC posts on this site have gotten worse. This suggests a new wave of miscreants. I am curious as to the nature of these miscreants.

    Are they simply children coming of age and venting their angst without fear of consequences from their parents or community?

    Are they social rejects who eschewed the internet until social media compelled them to choose between engagement and isolation? (I.e., non-nerdy outcasts who are building themselves a home here now that everyone is on the internet.)

    Are they idiots who are now present because the technical and social barriers have been lowered?

    --

    ---
    According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    1. Re:No identity = no consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Websites that allow/encourage discussion need to take responsibility and step up their game. They do not benefit financially from cracking down on this activity because it leads to their stats appearing much higher, which looks good to investors. Investors should start demanding that they track where activity is coming from among other things so these companies can't take advantage of what's going on for their own gain.

      Yeah, the sockpuppets and bots will raise hell as well as the nuts who think cracking down on the propaganda army that benefits their extreme views is censorship, but what's the other option? It will keep getting worse and participating in online discussion will seem like a waste of time as you have absolutely no idea if you're talking to a person who is reasonable or one who exists purely to spew propaganda and increase divisiveness and nothing else. Then we're all fucked or people will collectively decide to boycott the discussion sites and social media that do nothing about it.

  20. "More negative environment" != trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trolls don't affect me. They post on public or spazzy forums like twitter that I don't take seriously. Trolls are a problem for journalists, so we have to hear about them constantly. They're not a problem for ordinary people.

    Entitled normies spilling racist hatred about "white men" and validating each other, outrage-fapping over clickbait, and trying to "educate" each other about hate speech when "hate" is the only thing I see them ever do, create a negative environment that affects me.

    1. Re: "More negative environment" != trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How wonderful that you have created your own safe space. I agree that people should ignore FUD, unfortunately most people don't and society suffers. I expect the solution to involve empathy and education, not isolation.

  21. As on Reddit by notsteve · · Score: 1

    It was very interesting to watch Reddit's administrators actively support Russian interference in the US elections through their support of bots, trolls, and repeated Reddit policy violations. It was here on Slashdot, too — but Reddit actively supported it — Slashdot merely tolerated it. And these are forums where we'd expect the audience to be the least tolerant of such behavior—and indeed there was much anger. But not enough to change anything.

    1. Re:As on Reddit by zedaroca · · Score: 1

      It is very interesting to see this kind of comment (I'm assuming you are not trolling or a paid user). If you check on what happened on Reddit against the Trump supporters and on censoring good part of what was being discovered on the Wikileaks files you will see a very different narrative.

      I'm not American (Brazilian), but for various reasons that are irrelevant here I was against Hillary in your elections (remember that the US does interfere in every country, eg. your president decides if we get to keep the president we elect - we didn't). Also irrelevant, but I had preferred candidates in Ds, Rs and Greens.

      Boards were having rules changed to ban posts by Trump supporters and users. Posts that were mere reproductions of what was being discovered in WL dumps were being prevented from getting to front page, etc. At a point the banning and the censorship of facts (I'm talking WL, not "alternative facts" or bogus intelligence reports) was so serious that there was a lot of talk about where people should go to do the collective work of going through the data and publishing the discoveries without censorship.
      Before the election I used to browse Reddit for news. By the end of the election I had completely lost my faith in Reddit as a place to look for information, they are as good as Imgur right now. Fun for memes, interesting for the occasional research post, but will hide the serious stuff.

      There was one day when FP didn't have any of the news in every major newspaper in the world, including the Hillary supporting ones like NYT and WP. I'm sorry but I couldn't find the post showing that, here are some posts to support some of my claims, from r/The_Donald, r/SandersForPresident and r/undelete.
      https://www.reddit.com/r/The_D...
      https://www.reddit.com/r/The_D...
      https://www.reddit.com/r/Sande...
      https://www.reddit.com/r/Sande...
      https://www.reddit.com/r/undel... (even today WL is being modded out)

    2. Re:As on Reddit by notsteve · · Score: 1

      A paid user of what? That doesn't even make sense. The rest of your response is copypasta - it doesn't warrant a response. As I said, they're here on Slashdot, too. Enjoy the weather in Kiev.

    3. Re:As on Reddit by zedaroca · · Score: 1

      A paid user of what?

      If you are going to accuse people of stuff, don't pretend you don't know what we are talking about. That's just dumb.

      I wrote the whole comment and searched the links to point to you. I did not expect a response, just wanted to inform you that the complains about Reddit go the other way too.

      You are an asshole to assume I'm lying about my origin. I explicitly pointed out where I'm from. OTOH, I have no doubts about your origin. This kind of dumb asshole only breeds in America.
      It's clear I was wrong to assume good faith in you.

  22. From what I remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From what I remember of the internet 15+ years ago, there was always some level of trolling but the signal:noise ratio was a lot more favorable then.

    Some time around 2007-ish everything started to get more accessible to the average person(smartphones?), larger centralized social sites like digg got going and everything kinda rolled slowly downhill. There was a time when facebook was just a "less shitty myspace" and some of the youtube comments were actually readable.

    I don't think there's a technically solution to the problem other than quite literally making another internet(with blackjack and hookers).

    We need a decentralized network with some built-in barrier to entry, like having the user solve a problem that can't be solved by a bot easily. I remember an old satirical text-based RPG called Kingdom of Loathing that made you take a spelling and grammar test before you could use the chatroom.
    Why can't this concept be applied everywhere?

  23. Re:The only thing that will change is who is troll by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    If the left would have known how to pass legislation they would have been able to get the original one through [...]

    I wouldn't blame the left for that. It took Obama a long time to figure out that the Republicans were never serious about negotiating anything in good faith on anything.

  24. This is a human problem. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    I'm inclined to believe that trolling is merely the outcome of removing consequences from bad behavior. The Stanford prison experiment showed how power can corrupt individuals and it seems like trolling is the internet equivalent outcome. Sadly, it may come down to needing to develop AI that can police internet forums for us if we want to keep things civil. It's a dangerous solution but it's the only way I foresee things drastically improving without radically overhauling how the internet functions.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  25. Why is this difficult to understand? by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

    Online bullies are the only variety where "just ignore them" actually works. If you don't like the internet, go the fuck outside.

    1. Re:Why is this difficult to understand? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      I always thought that way until I realized that for the new majority of people on the internet today, the net is a tool for communicating mostly with people they know in person. So, to use old tech to give a loose analogy, online bullying is more like a real life bully who has put attack ads against you in all the commercial breaks on every channel of your TV. Even if you just want to disengage from the real world and distract yourself with electronic media, the real world jackasses can follow you there now too.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    2. Re: Why is this difficult to understand? by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

      The only reason "online bullies" of that variety wouldn't just be the same people you deal with in real life is if you make a point of being inflammatory with your real name. It's almost like this is the entire purpose of pseudonymity, and why it's been the norm on the internet until quite recently when it became popular to use trolling as justification to censor and surveil.

  26. Other way of putting it by physburn · · Score: 1

    We are likely to keep freedom of speech on the internet. All speech, including hate and abuse. And i'm happy with that.

  27. SO FRIGGIN WHAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People need to quit being so sensitive and deal with life and the crap it throws at you.

  28. Creimer is a liar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mr. I support Hillary Clinton moderate conservative? I don't think so. Republicans not going lock step with Ryan is a GOOD thing, I would rather have a local representative than be only represented by Pelosi and Reid, like the DNC supporters are. Ryan proposed a bill no one liked, just like Obamacare was, and it WASN'T passed, unlike Obamacare. That is the CORRECT way to run things. Its probably beyond your ability to understand.

    But I need to be careful arguing with creimer. He will threaten to shoot me and then write a blog about how I am the one bullying him. Yea, that's how bad he is at debating. I trounced him so hard he went to physical threats. I keep repeating what he did and apparently him threating to shoot me has now become me bullying him.

    liberals just suck.

    1. Re:Creimer is a liar by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      He will threaten to shoot me and then write a blog about how I am the one bullying him.

      Have I Threatened To Shoot You Today? Read the blog post and thanks for the ad revenues!

      https://www.kickingthebitbucket.com/2017/03/21/have-i-threatened-to-shoot-you-today/

    2. Re:Creimer is a liar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr. I support Hillary Clinton moderate conservative?

      Sounds about right to me, even if 'support' goes beyond 'not Trump.'

    3. Re:Creimer is a liar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different AC, but I find it curious how you state "What comment provoked this accusation? I asserted my belief in the First AND Second Amendment rights." but then fail to actually link the comment. At least, until I thought about it a little more. Maybe it's because you don't actually know which comment, because this troll never bothered to link it to you. The fact that they didn't link it in this thread would certainly support that theory.

      I am still curious about exactly how the comment that started this was worded, but if you don't know which comment that was, I can believe it.

    4. Re:Creimer is a liar by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's because you don't actually know which comment, because this troll never bothered to link it to you.

      I really need to write a Python script to scrape out my comments from Slashdot and dump them into a database. Thanks to your request, I may have found the URL pattern to pull that off.

      I am still curious about exactly how the comment that started this was worded, but if you don't know which comment that was, I can believe it.

      Here's the comment. I'll update my blog post with the link when I get home from work.

      https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10280401&cid=53913793

    5. Re:Creimer is a liar by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Thanks to your request, I may have found the URL pattern to pull that off.

      I have ~12,000 comments that go back to 2009. Looks like the comment history from 1999 to 2009 is not available. All I need to do is write a Python script to scrape those comments, put them into a CSV file and then import into FileMaker. This would be easier if Slashdot had an export function.

    6. Re:Creimer is a liar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for that link. On the one hand, yes, all you said was that you will exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, which last I checked, can be done without shooting anyone. So simply saying that you will exercise your 2nd Amendment rights does not by itself imply that you will go a-shooting people.

      On the other hand, it doesn't look like that thread had anything to do with guns until your comment. Replying with "I'm going to exercise my 1st Amendment rights" makes sense since the AC was telling you to shut up. But replying with "I'm going to exercise my 1st and 2nd Amendment rights" is like "what? When did this topic become about guns?" If I overlooked the relevance of the 2nd Amendment to that thread, then please let me know.

      I'm not saying you meant it as a threat, but I can at least understand why someone else would think it a threat.

    7. Re:Creimer is a liar by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying you meant it as a threat, but I can at least understand why someone else would think it a threat.

      Most people would say "Whatever?" and moved on. This asshat AC is still complaining that I threatened to shoot him even though he has enough information to file a police report, calling me liar and playing the victim game six weeks later. The best way to deal with bullies is to confront them at every opportunity because they're cowards at heart. Eventually they get the message to stop being an asshat and move on.

    8. Re:Creimer is a liar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people would say "Whatever?" and moved on.

      No arguments here. I mean, just for the sake of argument, lets say it was a threat. How would you even know who to go after? It was an AC. For all you know, I could be that same AC.

      Thank you for not assuming that I am that same AC btw, and for taking the time to reply to me.

    9. Re:Creimer is a liar by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      How would you even know who to go after? It was an AC. For all you know, I could be that same AC.

      Write a blog post, hope that the asshat AC writes a comment with identical language as the Slashdot posts, and report the username and/or IP address to the FBI.

      Thank you for not assuming that I am that same AC btw, and for taking the time to reply to me.

      You're welcome!

  29. Russia uses NON anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russian propaganda isn't based on anonymous cowards, it's based on real accounts with real reputations. When you datamine the reputation, it comes from endorsements by others in the propagand group. You don't get reputation with ACs.

    Those posters don't work for RT BTW, they are under Putin's office, and state media including RT is under another office under Putins office.

    "Their stated goals of disrupting the US, breaking the European Union up, and retaking the Ukraine are having an unprecedented success."....

    That's not even a fraction of it. Assination attempts on pro-NATO leaders by Russian soldiers given new identities. e.g. Montenegro's PM was nearly killed in February:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/25/montenegro-investigating-russia-alleged-election-coup-plot

    Rable rousers (Russian military dressed as civilians, put into Russian speaking areas as fake protesters), this has been a feature in the Baltics recently.

    Pure deal making, Russias Vnesheconombank (Putin connected) making 'business' loans that make no business sense and are simply to buy favor. Or Putin connected Oligarchs being liberal with Rubles e.g. see Kushners Vnesheconombank deal, or see Mar a Lago's worthless guest house sold for $95 million to an Oligarch with Putin connections.

    Putin does FAR FAR more than simply troll the internet.

    1. Re:Russia uses NON anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not ruble rousers?

  30. Not sure this is necessarily a bad thing by computational+super · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As far as I can tell, the only "solution" to trolling is the heavy-handed reddit-style safe-space morality police one where we trade trolls for the massively high and mighty self-righteous. I'll take trolls, actually, thanks.

    --
    Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    1. Re:Not sure this is necessarily a bad thing by Angst+Badger · · Score: 1, Troll

      If Reddit strikes you as a troll-free safe space, it is possible that you are a troll.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    2. Re:Not sure this is necessarily a bad thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha. Seems likely.

      Whining about safe spaces too.

    3. Re:Not sure this is necessarily a bad thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not "troll free"... it's "approved ideology trolls". I'd rather have it like the good old days of usenet than reddit's asinine and often draconian fascist groupthink.

    4. Re:Not sure this is necessarily a bad thing by Blades11 · · Score: 0

      You're the troll faggot

    5. Re:Not sure this is necessarily a bad thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is what people consider "trolls". We've considered them part of the internet since the beginning. But overly sensitive little prisses who have only been online for the most recent few years don't have a fucking clue and to them a "troll" is anyone who says anything they don't like or that is mean. Also, they think they have some inherent right to never be criticized, encounter thoughts and opinions other than their own, and never to feel bad.

    6. Re:Not sure this is necessarily a bad thing by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      Want to speak your mind without consequence? Go outside.

      If some guy cuts you off on the road, flip him off. It's a free country.

      If he then gets out of the car and starts walking towards you, give him the business. It's a free country.

      If he then pulls out a crowbar, tell him about himself. It's a free country.

      Don't forget to give him a peace of your mind when he pulls you out of your vehicle. Though he's liable to take all of that and then some, at least outside you're free to escalate without moderation from pesky liberals.

      Being a dick without consequence though, is the tricky bit. For that you'll need Voat. *cringe*.

    7. Re:Not sure this is necessarily a bad thing by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Subreddits are moderated by their owners. Reddit is very permissive, it still allows hate groups like MGTOW, red pill, white nationalists... The bans were only really for subs that posted stolen photos from social media or raided other sites, stuff like that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Not sure this is necessarily a bad thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, if they think Reddit is some safespace, they have to be really out there. Pretty much anything goes there unless someone or a subreddit violates some law. If you really can't deal with Reddit, there's Voat where the few super assholes and mega racists whose subreddits got banned from Reddit migrated to. Or any of the almost completely unmoderated chans. Or Breitbart. Or Youtube. Or various hate group and alt-right websites.

  31. Regression to the mean by swb · · Score: 0

    In the "old days" (like 1991 or so), the Internet was mostly populated by smart/talented people tied to academics or the computer industry and most discussions seemed to reflect this bias in user population -- well educated, professional, etc.

    Now it's much more reflective of the general population, which is all too often stupid, mean and reactive.

    1. Re:Regression to the mean by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Nice pun, whether you meant it or not.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    2. Re:Regression to the mean by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure the change in population is the reason the Web can be such a nasty place. For example, Slashdot seems to skew to the same population (tech professionals and academics) and I wouldn't call it a bastion of civility. Neither would I just bellyache and whine that it's a snake pit.

      Much more interesting to me than whether trolling/hostility is getting worse or better in general, is what are examples where it is better and what can we do to be like them.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    3. Re:Regression to the mean by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I would argue that Slashdot has gotten less civil due to the same normalization of trolling/hostility as is happening on the web at large. The Libertarian/stupid mentality on Slashdot is no dumber than it is on Breitbart - except that now it has a whole new pool of unthinking trolls to quote from ;-)

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    4. Re: Regression to the mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice troll post.

    5. Re:Regression to the mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The political related comments discussions here look straight out of Breitbart these days. Hardly any "Libertarian" viewpoints in comparison, unless they're the ones the former are shouting down as SJW libtard globalist leftist cucks. Just look at the comments in the couple of political related articles posted here in the past 24 hours.

    6. Re:Regression to the mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ". For example, Slashdot seems to skew to the same population (tech professionals and academics) and I wouldn't call it a bastion of civility."

      You forget that young people lurking do the modding, so as new kids are born who are ignorant, they upvote all sorts of nonsense. Older people know mankind is generally full of shit and historical events happen because there is usually genuine grievances. The politics of the left was birth from the criminality and warlike hostility of the wealthy, aka left wing politics is the natural response to corporate aggression, a right wing response to corporate aggression means the population is stupid and ignorant of history. When criminal corporate types are getting bailouts and then getting elected afterwards, the population is too ignorant and indoctrinated to be political.

  32. profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How hard can it be to set up an A.I. to dump all the troll posts in a bit bucket?

  33. Normal people will troll. Age groups will troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the pizzaria will troll. There will be a butcher that spins his meat while standing on the counter. There will be a cream-centered caramel candy shaped like Goatse. Aged men will brings bags of lemons in court to drink while prosecuting anyone who copies the image of productivity they own and never understood what in hell a pseudocode diagram or electrical schematic does.

    And how will it get worse? Cunning coders will pretend to be editors and talj about it like they dont know what and how: anyone that contradicts their opinion will be censored bya peerage pretending to be just like you; Expansion begins with your broken heart, mind, an soul. Service guaruntees citizenship!

  34. Bullshit == bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's already been pointed out that trolls using names tend to be worse than anonymous trolls. Why I'm going to leave as the homework you obviously didn't do before spouting your nonsense. But here is a hint: You could consider what the incentive really is. "Playing nice" in a discussion forum gets you a nice discussion forum, and if that's what you want, then that's your incentive.

    Anyway, the rest of your rhetoric is as poorly researched as your premise. Go on, do some quantitative analysis on all the comments since the site's beginnings, classify by anonymity and trollishness, and share some pretty graphs, eh? Sharing is caring.

  35. No such thing as Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you idiots are the same that yell Fake News as idiots that give exemptions to public intoxicated individuals as drunkards.

    US Code Title 18 section 1343 is Fraud by Wire, Radio, or Televsion and that is what is supposed to be applied, enforcing existing law, not violating 1st Amendment Speach rights.

    Treat CNN stories like a typical weather forecaster, a gypsy, National Enquirer, or like Nostradamus, not infringe Free Speach.

    The Onion is fake news, of which Trump appeared regularly on there.

  36. What is considered trolling nowadays? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are alot of people being constantly butthurt over opinions, which weren't even remotely intended as trolling. Then there are a bunch of idiots who just can't quit bitching about Trump, mostly totally offtopic. There is the app guy, who actually is a troll, and an idiot with long posts who is trying, but isn't any good at. The problem isn't the trolling, it's the idiots who can't deal with other people, and I don't mean autistic, I mean too dumb and too cowardly to deal with other people, who are the loudest crowd on the internet, because they are in safety. Trolls belong here, idiots don't.

  37. It will resolve by sycodon · · Score: 1

    I think that eventually all this will self correct.

    Watching monkeys fling poo or being one the monkeys flinging poo is only interesting for so long.

    I would not be surprised to see a net decrease in the number of social media posts. I would also not be surprised to see Facebook, Twitter, etc. to all go the way of AOL.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:It will resolve by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      True, monkeys eventually get tired of scat porn. But there are a hell of a lot of monkeys that never tire of watching other monkeys throw their balls at each other.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    2. Re:It will resolve by sycodon · · Score: 1

      LOL!

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  38. It will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    especially if you try to censor them.

  39. Re:The only thing that will change is who is troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Derp, go look at who voted on the bill. Tell me how many republicans voted for it.

  40. Facebook is for Trolling by PauloftheWest · · Score: 1

    This past election is all the proof I need.

    --
    ~Less think, more do
  41. given that our President is a Troll by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 1

    I imagine it will continue to get worse.

    1. Re: given that our President is a Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whose president isn't?

  42. Re:The only thing that will change is who is troll by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Currently it seems the favored solution is migrating to germany (yes, I know, jews running away to germany, ironic).

    Maybe, maybe not.

    Germany really seems to be a good example of the saying about how sometimes you need to burn something down to create something much better. Nazi Germany obviously was a horrible place in many ways, especially for certain people. Modern Germany seems to be one of the best nations in the world to live in. But it also seems to show the sad truism that the only way to normally make a change for the better like that is through a lot of violence and destruction.

  43. Re:The only thing that will change is who is troll by sysrammer · · Score: 1

    ...and that's not fake irony, either.

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  44. Re:The only thing that will change is who is troll by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Derp, go look at who voted on the bill. Tell me how many republicans voted for it.

    Look at what went into the final ACA bill: 200+ amendments that were sponsored or cosponsored by Republicans. Since the Democrats had the votes to carry the bill, the Republicans sat on the sidelines while eating cake. The making of the final bill was a bipartisan affair.

  45. Re:The only thing that will change is who is troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Derp, go look at who voted on the bill. Tell me how many republicans voted for it.

    As I recall, none. Your point?

  46. Competing forces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Companies want to know who everyone is, so they can monetize them. The government wants to know, so they can control them.
    This makes people want to have Anonymous Coward as an option.
    AC - lets people be Trolls.
    A middle ground has to be found. One where we know who you are, so threats can be dealt with. But not get spammed by everyone who wants to use your opinions for marketing sake.

  47. You are a liar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Post where he tells everyone he works for the government.
    Then some discussion turned to Obamacare, and in order to make a point you SUDDENLY have been working at a small business for years so you can tell everyone how great it has been for your small business.
    Post2

    You literally change your story in order to make your fake points. And when people point out you are lying you threaten to shoot them and then cry that they are the ones bullying you. Me making fun of you for lying is not bullying. You threatening to shoot me IS assault with a deadly weapon. You trying to make money off of threatening people is disgusting.

    1. Re:You are a liar by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You threatening to shoot me IS assault with a deadly weapon.

      Have I Threatened To Shoot You Today? Read my blog and thanks for the ad revenue!

      https://www.kickingthebitbucket.com/2017/03/21/have-i-threatened-to-shoot-you-today/

  48. APK back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't APK get banned by pimping his website multiple times in every story like this guy is?

    Maybe he is APK come back.

    1. Re:APK back? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Didn't APK get banned by pimping his website multiple times in every story like this guy is?

      Maybe he is APK come back.

      I gave APK grief for hounding me for a month. He backed off. Since he had a named account, I generally avoid commenting on his comments unless he comment on mine (which haven't happened).

  49. Re:The only thing that will change is who is troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure what point the AC was trying to make, sounded like the were attacking "the left". But trolls tend to lean pretty far right politically in the US as well, though some aren't old enough to care much about politics yet.

    I think some of the factors that lead a person to find trolling entertaining and a good use of their time likely contributes to them also finding far right politics appealing. Ie, they hate regular people (which as adults they see as standard supporters of Democrats and Republicans) and they hate hipsters and activists (which as adults they see as liberals/leftists/SJWs) and more likely have trouble dating and maybe issues with women in general, so what better way to troll those people as as an adult than align yourself with the far right politically?

  50. Re:The only thing that will change is who is troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Germany would be a nice place if it weren't for all of the censorship.

  51. before deleting your account... by scatbomb · · Score: 1

    Before deleting your account, fill it with spaces, tabs, numbers, or some irrelevant information. Because, you know, those profiles are never *really* deleted.

  52. Titties titties titties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im not a troll, I'm a concerned ogre that just wants to do its part in speeding up the processing. I'm making the world better by making it worse first.

  53. THREE WAYS TO AVOID TROLLS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is top-secret FBI shit, I could get in deep trouble for even knowing about it but this is a risk I'm willing to take. My typing has alreasy tipped off the NSA and they've dispatched their best men to stop me. They're kicking the door down as I type this.

    1: Don't make yourself a target.
    2: Don't respond, even if you have a fantastic comeback. Ignore.
    3: If on a moderated platform, report.

    It's been a good run Slashdot but they got me. I've taken two gunshots to the back. It will be ruled a suicide.

  54. Not 90% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, I disagree, and quite strongly. 90% of the public are actually reasonable, approachable people. You may not agree with their views on some things but at least you can understand those views.

    Only 10% of the public are terrible people. The issue is, terrible people are unremittingly terrible their whole lives. They never quit with their negativity, criminality, shit disturbing, economic dysfunction, ignorant-and-proud-of-it, or whatever their issues are.

    That's all it takes to disturb and disrupt society, is that 10%. And their behavior is so prominent and consumes so much of your time that you wind up thinking most people are like that. Or you have perspective but still hate dealing with the 10% so much you reject all public facing jobs.

  55. Indeed. by denzacar · · Score: 1

    I'm looking at that page and thinking "What am I supposed to be looking at here"?

    My mistake was clicking the link without reading the full post of that Anonymous Coward.
    I.e. Without reading the "rather than being irrelevant pro-leftist political submissions. A submission like this shitty one is nowhere to be found." bit.

    Apparently the AC above doesn't realize that the "Troll" issue is not just an integral part of Slashdot - it's a fucking moderation category.
    But I guess when all you have is a hate hard-on for "leftists" to get you through the day, all you see are leftist conspiracies.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens