

Ad exec driven to suicide (partly) by trolls - pg
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/business/media/03blog.html?ex=1362200400&en=ea6520b890d00348&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

======
gruseom
I'm interested in what you say about trolls, but I don't think it's easy to
know why this man committed suicide. We interpret these things through the
filter of our own preexisting opinions. It's entirely conceivable that he
would have done so even if people hadn't said harsh things about him on blogs.

Something about the phrase "driven to suicide" bothers me. It reduces the
element of choice involved. Even if someone left a suicide note saying "Trolls
made me do it," it wouldn't make it true.

------
yters
Interacting with people online just doesn't feel real in the same way. I know
I'm guilty of being trollish and harsh, and it can be very easy when the other
person is just a handle. Without the tangible interaction of real life,
impulses and the desire to act like someone else can get the better of me.

The other side of the coin is that internet culture is also addicted to low
level trolling. To be noticed, you have to be cutting in what you say, just
look at who gets voted up on reddit and digg.

~~~
curi
I prefer AIM to voice chat. It's easier to write precisely than speak
precisely. And it's easier to understand just what someone is saying when you
can reread bits.

------
optimal
Cherish your privacy. The cost of fame (to any degree) is too high.

To the OP: be careful, you'll worry your peeps.

~~~
curi
I want fame. The cost of having important ideas, and not being listened to, is
higher.

~~~
yters
You sure you don't mean influence instead? You can be very influential without
any fame. Given the choice, I'd prefer influence.

~~~
curi
For example, if I were sufficiently famous, I would be invited to give a TED
talk. That's valuable.

Certainly there are different types of fame, and something more along the
lines of 'influential' is better than the type where people want to know who
you're dating.

------
cstejerean
"he was very intelligent, with lots of talents and skills, and this was not
his whole life. Pointing to blogging and the media just trivializes a man
whose life was not trivial.”

I'm not fully sure if bloggers drove him to this. On the other hand I have no
respect for folks who cowardly publish information to smear others without
identifying themselves. If I don't feel comfortable having my name associated
with something I write then I probably shouldn't write it.

There are of course exceptions, but if you feel you need to remain anonymous
let someone else post the information, someone who isn't ashamed to stand by
what they write.

------
cmars232
I don't buy it. You'd have to have some pretty thick skin to survive in the ad
industry anyway.

------
curi
It is unfortunate, but learning to disregard trolls (and serious personal
attacks that you don't find helpful) is worthwhile. Getting upset about that
kind of thing is a large cost (even if it just distracts you for a couple
hours per incident).

~~~
pg
Watching what happened at Reddit convinced me that the solution is not to
learn to disregard trolls, but to exclude them. They poison the atmosphere of
a community, and drive away the more thoughtful members. And while you can
make free speech arguments for them as you can for spam, in practice trolls
are almost as distinct from other posters as spam is from ordinary email.

Every successful community has rules of conduct. And rules are probably even
more necessary when the members are anonymous.

~~~
pkaler
The First Amendment (and the Bill of Rights) is a contract between the
government of the United States and its citizens. Free speech doesn't really
have a meaningful definition outside of that contract. Since you are the
benevolent leader of this community you define the rules of conduct.

For forums that I moderate, I am very aggressive with locking threads when
even an ounce of negativity is present. I prefer to be very terse with my
explanations too. I have my standard set of reasons and try not to elaborate
to much. I'll finish the thread with a very terse final post.

Locked: Spam. Locked: Negative. Locked: Troll. Locked: Offtopic.

But this probably wouldn't scale to reddit size. People would probably try to
get threads locked on purpose to quell discussion about topics they didn't
agree with (especially politics).

