The Anatomy of a Troll
August 6th, 2008 by Joanne
Jonathan Kay’s column in today’s National Post bemoaning the decline of print media is a story in itself, but his example of what we would be missing without it is equally fascinating (You’ll miss us when we’re gone ).
Having always been interested in psychology I was intrigued to read the NY Times article to which he was referring – The Rise of Malwebolence by Mattathias Schwartz.
Kay argues that without the financial resources of a strong print media and old-fashioned "shoe-leather reporting", great stories like Schwartz’s will be missing.
Since I already touched on the future of MSM a few months ago, I’d like to focus on Schwartz’s column.
What is a troll?
Kay provides the following definition, borrowed heavily from Schwartz’s piece:
They are the juvenile cretins who infest Internet message boards, taunting the earnest types chatting away about Gossip Girl, or Barack Obama, or Scientology. Their method is to post willfully ignorant, insulting messages, then sit back and enjoy the righteous, impotent fury aroused among the true believers.
Trolling is an inherently nihilistic activity — which is why most trolls tend to be adolescent males, the sort of specimens who would otherwise entertain themselves by using bathroom graffiti to libel the sexual habits of high-school classmates. But there is a small elite that has turned trolling into a full-time calling. They congregate on anonymous Web sites such as 4chan.org, and informally tally the "lulz" they’ve earned by humiliating others.
One of the ‘trolls’ that Schwartz interviewed explained:
"Lulz is watching someone lose their mind at their computer 2,000 miles away while you chat with friends and laugh…"
Nice.
Kay admires Schwartz for being able to acquire the confidence and trust of the "cynical, nihilistic misanthropes who, by their own professed creed, don’t trust anyone. They met him, in the flesh, showed him where they live and even let him watch as they went about their trolling."
Kay interprets Schwartz’s investigation of what makes a troll tick with the following observations:
…As they warmed to Schwartz, the trolls dropped their macho facade and revealed themselves as damaged souls. One troll prince Schwartz met had been molested by his grandfather and had shut off communication with his mother by sending her a letter instructing her to kill herself. Another is an apocalyptic hatemonger, who fantasizes about putting the Web’s "retards" "in the oven." These are sad, sad people, trying desperately to medicate their self-loathing by imposing it on others …
Well, self-loathing may indeed be part of it, but I think the real key can be found at the end of Schwartz’ piece:
…Weeks later, after talking to his longtime friend Zach, Fortuny began considering the deeper emotional forces that drove him to troll. His mind-set, he said, "allows me to find people who do stupid things and turn them around. Zach asked if I thought I could turn my parents around. I almost broke down. The idea of them learning from their mistakes and becoming people that I could actually be proud of … it was overwhelming." He continued: "It’s not that I do this because I hate them. I do this because I’m trying to save them."
The way I see it, the more aggressive trolls believe that they have far superior intelligence compared to the rest of us and feel compelled to save us from ourselves. In their minds, they are doing us a favour. They are pointing out our stupidity with the hope that we may someday see the light.
And they will keep trying until they succeed – which is to say, until we agree with them.
* * * *
Update: Sandy has a great column up at Jack’s Newswatch – A follow-up to trolls & Canadian Cynic.
Yesterday Jack posted this story as it appeared in the final version of the NY Times. The link I provided above is obviously an earlier, shorter version. Check out Jack’s Newswatch for the whole story. (Kinda catchy, don’t ya think Jack?)
Big City Lib addresses Jonathan Kay’s concerns about the future of MSM. And related to that, Lawrence Martin muses on the fate of the National Post. A Liberal Senator wants to buy it? NOOOOOOOOO!!!!
This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 6th, 2008 at 9:48 am and is filed under Don't feed the trolls, MSM. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:03 am
I find it quite amusing that these sad , little basement dwellers go to no end to protect THEIR identity, and THEIR home addresses,lest they become a target of loathing and/or hate.
Getting ‘lulz’ by making so many people mad at you that they want to inflict bodily harm is a dangerous business.You want to play the game, prepare for the consequences.
I have it on good authority (my nephew..) that these trolls absolutely freak when you portray them as mumble mouthed brace faces, with just enough knowledge to make them dangerous.They wish to be taken seriously, and will lash out when they feel they have been disrespected….
[edited]
August 6th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Kursk, I had to delete that last bit because it might be construed as inciting violence. I really hate editing a reader’s comment, but the way things are these days, bloggers can’t take a chance.
I hope you understand.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:18 am
- even though it has been done to various female Blogging Tories, I might add.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:22 am
[...] 2: Joanne at Blue Like You also has a great article on the same New York Times article. Don’t miss [...]
August 6th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Joanne, thanks for the link. As you can see by the trackback, I have linked to you from my piece at JN. Isn’t it amazing, we all decided to write on the same topic, including Jonathan Kay?
Perhaps this is the start of a “take back the Internet.”
August 6th, 2008 at 11:40 am
“And they will keep trying until they succeed – which is to say, until we agree with them.”
Hmmm, no wonder the NYT was ’sympathetic’ to this annoying twerp in this article. They both appear to operate from exactly the same philosophical baseline. Now I know why I especially loath that paper above all the others. They are really in the ‘trolling’ business not the information business.
And I really dislike trolls.
August 6th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
”Their method is to post willfully ignorant, insulting messages, then sit back and enjoy the righteous, impotent fury aroused among the true believers.”
Hence: Don’t Feed the Trolls
And what do we do when a blogger posts an ‘opinion’ that is obviously trolling for trolls? Don’t Feed The Trolling?
August 6th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
And what do we do when a blogger posts an ‘opinion’ that is obviously trolling for trolls?
Was that aimed at me, Wilson?
August 6th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
NO, absolutely not aimed at you. I was thinking of how hard it is to resist some Liblogger posts when you know they are trying to get Cons to react and then sic Ti-Guy on yah.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
NO, absolutely not aimed at you.
Whew! Guess I’m just feeling a bit shell-shocked from a few posts ago.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Joanne — Just to let you and your regular readers know, who often stop by COTM, that I have put yesterday’s post on a related topic as “private” now because my site is primarily about education, parenting and disability.
Meaning I have kept the article and comments should I ever need them, but they are just not in the public domain any longer.
It’s as though I have to wash my site from the contamination.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Me again. The contamination I was talking about in my previous comment was obviously regarding CC. I was VERY appreciative of all the comments I received in support. I thought I should clarify what I said.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I’m surprised and a bit disheartened at how seriously Sandy is taking someone who doesn’t deserve even a thought. IMO it’s a mistake in judgment for her to acknowledge that what CC writes upsets her; by doing so she simply elevates — feeds — CC’s otherwise laughable sense of self-importance.
He doesn’t merit acknowledgment. Suppose some drunken bum makes an obscene gesture at you as you drive by on your way to work. One might find the gesture rude, of course, but if it actually *upsets* you for the rest of the day, or week, and if you demonstrate that you feel an emotional need to respond, to make people around you understand how rudely you were treated, then at that point the issue isn’t the bum, it’s *you*.
Sandy is showing CC that she takes him seriously; if there’s an upside to that, I’d like someone to spell it out for me.
Look at it this way: there are almost certainly bloggers extant who are even more offensive, sexist, cowardly and inane than CC, and who no one’s ever heard of, but if credible voices started linking to them all of a sudden these bloggers would be treated as legitimate interlocutors in our national discussions.
No one should ever link to or acknowledge the likes of CC. His tone makes him not worthy of any consideration or promotion whatsoever. Don’t read him, don’t think about him. Problem solved.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
I’d say that Kay’s article over generalizes to a great extent.
Although there are the simple minded trolls who merely interject and run away. There are others who play an ongoing game that is aimed at undermining the perceived credibility of those who they pester.
The psychology is surely complex and mostly pathological.
Good luck with understanding Joanne.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
EBD — Your heart is in the right place. But, bullies don’t operate on normal standards.
I have been ignoring the sexual innuendo and put down abuse for literally months on end now, as have many other Tories. And, what good did it do?
So, I took a stand which I don’t regret for one minute. And, I will continue to recommend bloggers e-mail abuse@blogger.com to complain.
Of course there are far worse than CC — I get enough pornographic spam on my website to realize that. It is the wild west out there.
But that’s no excuse and is beside the point. One does not have anything to do with the other — particularly since it not you who are in the line of fire. Always easy to recommend ignoring when you are not being subjected to CC’s brand of ridicule.
However, my not wanting to contaminate my blog with anything about CC when I write about more important topics — such as education and parenting — is effectively what you are recommending.
I will not, therefore, be writing about this topic again.
Signing off now for the day. Thanks for the soapbox Joanne!
August 6th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I guess what surprises me the most is the following that CC has.
I would be interested to know what people find so appealing there.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
got me Joanne. Maybe it’s like watching a train wreck or a kin to rubbernecking a car accident. Certainly can’t be for the stimulating and intellectual discussion?
August 6th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
“I have been ignoring the sexual innuendo and put-down abuse for literally months on end now, as have many other Tories. And, what good did it do?
Ignoring it did far more good than responding to him does. And the question “what good did it do?” presupposes that it’s possible to do something that will changes CC’s — rather pathetic — behaviour. There isn’t.
“Bullies don’t operate on normal standards.” That’s it. Bullies pathologically want attention, they want to convince others that they’re big, important people who are taken seriously by others who are more credible than them, and they look for confirmation that their tactics work. As soon as they see that their tactics work, it tells them that they are as important as they want people to think they are.
One thing I’ve always wanted to ask you, Sandy, on a related topic: when Kate exposed Warren Kinella’s habit of publishing laudatory emails of dubious provenance lauding him as an heroic defender of Canadian Jews, by sending him a non-believable one which he of course published forthwith as a tribute to himself, you took the trouble to go to his site and throw your support behind him.
Now, Warren Kinsella has insinuated on his site that Kate engages in unnatural acts with her pets; he said she’d been sending him “come-hither” emails suggesting, ermm, congress; he called Kathy Shaidle a “dwarf” and an “unsightly gnome” and other such things; he described another female blogger as ugly, and as having no neck; he put up a photo of a respected woman in Canadian public life with a cartoon-type caption that had her saying something like “oh dear, I should have just stayed home and baked cookies.” Etc., etc.
Your opinion on Kate’s antic is clear, and you’re entirely entitled to it — no need to beat that OT dead horse here — but why would you throw your support behind someone who’s sexist attacks on other women have a far greater audience and impact than, say, CC’s on you? I know it’s not because those attacks were on other women, as opposed to yourself, so let me ask you: if CC, too, had voiced his displeasure at the manner in which Kate’s exposed Kinsella’s mo — I suspect he did — would you go to his site to join in his attacks?
Just curious.
There IS no excuse for CC’s behaviour, as you say, and I’m glad you’re not going to contaminate your blog with anything about CC. Good choice.
P.s. Your list of the Conservatives’ achievements is an absolute go-to resource. Keep up the good work!
August 6th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
EBD — I thought I should come back to answer your question about SDA and WK. I honestly don’t know what has happened beyond the initial “number on the arm” business — which was like a sting operation and why I supported Kinsella — because I don’t read all the blogs, conservative or otherwise very often.
Obviously I read a few — although not every day: Jack’s Newswatch, Joanne, Stephen Taylor, Kinsella, James Bow, Steve Janke, Phantom Observer, Raphael, BBS, Out of the Dark and Step to the Right. Then I stop by National Newswatch.
But, I find that the amount of research and writing I choose to do on COTM, JN, my gardening blog and now with the HGA site, I have all I can handle and still have a life.
In fact, I may have bit off more than I can chew! But, thanks for your kind words about the list.
I think that I will start writing one post a day, alternating between my blogs — meaning a new post every third day — and hopefully I won’t lose regulars with that kind of schedule.
Maybe then I will have time for my family, my gardening, my jewellery design (yes I actually do that)and some freelance writing and consulting that I am contracted to do. And, of course there is the expected arrival of a great-grandchild at the end of next month!
But I’m retired — right? Nothing to do. LOL
August 6th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
got me Joanne. Maybe it’s like watching a train wreck or a kin to rubbernecking a car accident.
That’s what I was thinking, Sol. Rather pathetic, isn’t it?
August 6th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Sandy, one post a day is plenty! I don’t know how you could do more than that.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
It’s unfortunate that you moderate to the extent that any discussion about the issue is utterly pointless. Quite ironic actually, given the subject, which I’d be happy to elaborate on, but won’t waste my time doing so given your notorious penchant for censoring comments and flushing them down the toilet.
August 7th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Speaking of flushing things, I remember someone who wrote a post called “Socons Say the darnest things” or something to that effect.
I wonder what happened to it?
August 7th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
RT – Decoded ..
I don’t like what you do so I won’t play with you.
You should feel bad about this.
I use many words so I am smart.
I’d like to prove how smart I am by using more words but it is too much work and besides I don’t like your game or your rules …
I’m leaving now so you should feel bad.
p/s I hope you feel bad … because I proved I am smarter than you … so you should fell bad….
ad infinitum
August 7th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
OMMAG, – Red Tory’s intelligence pales in comparison to the comments CC and company left at Jack’s Newswatch.
Good thing there are a few smart people in the world to tell all us dummies how stupid we are.
August 8th, 2008 at 3:30 am
I don’t quite get the criticism of OMMAG (a fellow whose posts largely consist of paens to beer and nubile young women) about using too many words. This is a rather amusing and novel line of attack, I have to say.
As for your statement that my “intelligence pales in comparison to the comments CC and company left” this is quite puzzling. Sorry, but this doesn’t compute. Are you dissing the comments of CC & Co. or my supposed intelligence?
August 8th, 2008 at 8:07 am
On a sliding scale of bloggers who have a delusional, misguided notion of their own self importance and superior intellect compared to what they actually demonstrate on their blogs, I would place CC and company at the extreme end of the continuum.
Shorter BLY – I’m dissing CC.
August 8th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I sort of figured that was the case, but I don’t think you’re using that expression properly. (And yes, there I go nit-picking again…)
August 8th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
but I don’t think you’re using that expression properly.
Which expression?
August 8th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Ugh. This is like when you have to explain a joke…
You said that my “intelligence pales in comparison to the comments CC and company left”
When something “pales in comparison” it means that it’s outshone by the other thing. So, if you were meaning to say that, relatively speaking, my comments were more somewhat more intelligent-sounding than those left by CC & Co., this wouldn’t be the proper way of saying that.
Example: The charisma of Gordon Brown pales in comparison to that of Tony Blair.
August 8th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
O.K. Mmmm. I guess I wasn’t being very clear.
Well, we’ll let it go. As you say, it’s like trying to explain a joke, and not worth the effort.