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.

121 of 208 comments (clear)

  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: 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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.

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

      Well said AC

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    8. Re:Troll post by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Whoosh?

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    9. 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
    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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
    13. 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.

    14. 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.

    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.

    19. 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.
  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 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.

    4. 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.

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

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

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

  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. 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.
  5. 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).

  6. 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.

  7. 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).

  8. 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 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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. )

    5. 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.
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

  9. 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 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.

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

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

    3. 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.

  10. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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.'"
    5. 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.

  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.
  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.
  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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 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*.

    3. 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
  27. 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.

  28. 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/

  29. 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.

  30. 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?

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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."
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. 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...
  37. 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.

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

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

  39. 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.

  40. 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.

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

    This past election is all the proof I need.

    --
    ~Less think, more do
  42. 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

  43. given that our President is a Troll by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 1

    I imagine it will continue to get worse.

  44. 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.

  45. 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
  46. 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.

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

  49. 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.

  50. 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.

  51. 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.

  52. 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.

  53. 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/

  54. 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.

  55. 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).

  56. 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!

  57. 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.

  58. 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.
  59. 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.

  60. 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.

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

    That doesn't make you not a piece of shit

  62. 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.

  63. 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.

  64. 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

  65. 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