
The conventional wisdom about not feeding trolls makes online abuse worse - pavel_lishin
https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/12/17561768/dont-feed-the-trolls-online-harassment-abuse
======
kadenshep
I think a lot of people who actively moderate truly public forums/media
channels understand this. Not doing anything is the worst thing you can do. At
this point in my online life, claiming that "if you ignore them they'll go
away" paints you as a co-conspirator/pseudo-supporter or just foolishly naive
in my mind.

>there has always been a myth about the time and place where things were more
innocent, when trolling was all in good fun.

And it IS a myth. It's a do nothing attitude and it's easy to take when it
doesn't affect you personally. Summed up perfectly by the very next statement
in the article:

>But what everyone really remembers about these proverbial times isn’t their
purity. It’s how they didn’t see the big deal back then. They remember how
they felt a sense of permission, a belief that it was all okay. But that was
only true for those who were like them, who thought exactly like they did.

It was refreshing to see this view point espoused on a rather large technology
site.

~~~
notacoward
People who weren't online in an earlier time should probably refrain from
making statements about how it was different, just as people who weren't
actually at a company, in a battle, etc. should refrain from making statements
about how it was for the participants. It just makes them look ignorant and
quick to judgment. From my own experience, trolling back in the Usenet _was_
generally less serious back then. There was more of a tacit understanding that
_you were there voluntarily_ , that you could leave or even come back under
another name. Trolling was usually transient, didn't spill over into people's
real lives, and only worked because somebody _chose_ to be invested in the
subject matter. That doesn't make any of it OK, but it _was_ different.

As for the point about feeding or not feeding trolls, I think another
commenter already made the important point that it's different for users vs.
administrators. Users should ignore trolls, for all the reasons historically
given. It _does_ work. I've seen it hundreds of times, even when I was a
moderator on a millions-of-posts political site. On the other hand,
administrators need to take a more active approach. Back on Usenet, or even to
a large extent on early web forums, there were no administrators. The approach
for users was the only approach. Nowadays, when trolling has much more serious
affects on people's lives and it's harder to get away, a more active approach
is called for. The OP's basic thesis is right, if you make the distinction
between what users should do vs. what administrators should do, but some of
their and your facile generalizations about the past are still rather amusing.

P.S. It should also be noted that there are legal issues affecting whether a
site owner should be involved in moderating content, and those legal reasons
change all the time, but that's a whole separate thread.

~~~
kadenshep
I think your view point is directly addressed in the article. Are you saying I
was not around during the time periods discussed?

Also you have a rather lengthy response but most of it is just vague
dismissals based on aggressive assumptions. Care to get into specifics?

~~~
notacoward
> Are you saying I was not around during the time periods discussed?

I wouldn't presume. Such assumptions are the OP's game, not mine.

> most of it is just vague dismissals

That's simply untrue. I was _quite_ specific about how trolling was different,
about the distinction between what users should do vs. what administrators,
and why they should be different. Far more specific than you have been.
Apparently an imagined slight in one or two sentences prevented you from
reading the rest before you replied, but that's not the same as it not being
there.

~~~
kadenshep
> People who weren't online in an earlier time should probably refrain from
> making statements about how it was different

> But some of their and your facile generalizations about the past are still
> rather amusing.

Would you care to contextualize these statements in a manner that upon first,
second, or third reading doesn't qualify as assumptions and/or general grand
standing?

