Recently an anonymous commenter
responded to an Acculturated article I had written back in February entitled “Why
Have Kids? They Make Life Meaningful.” The commenter stated, among other
mean-spirited things, that “I hate kids. Always have. See humanity as a disease.”
He (or she, but statistically speaking, it was most likely “he”) finished by
saying that “women who birth children are dumb farm animals without exception.”
I always try to respond to
Acculturated comments, which are almost invariably well-considered and -intended,
but I didn’t waste time on this one. It was the very definition of trolling:
irrational, hateful, and designed only to provoke and/or bully, not to
contribute to a meaningful online conversation. Trolls don’t respond to reason;
they seek to agitate, not debate. Responding would have served no purpose
except to feed the troll’s perverse need to suck me into a time-wasting,
enervating black hole from which even the light of reason cannot escape.
Such a comment may be rare on
Acculturated, but the internet at large is hip-deep in trolls waging such (usually)
anonymous, virtual guerrilla warfare. Political websites are particularly infested
with them. I spend a great deal of time – too much – reading articles online,
and have resolved recently not only to be more discriminating about that, but also
to liberate myself from the negativity of reading article comments too, partly
due to the high concentration of trolls spreading hate and ugliness for the pathetic
satisfaction it gives them.
Studies
show that trolls poison online articles, driving out more genteel,
respectful, thoughtful commenters, who tire of threads being hijacked by losers
with destructive agendas. “Trolling
normalizes abuse,” says cultural anthropologist Olivier Morin, who has studied the
phenomenon, “and that’s what’s frightening.”
It’s easy to dismiss trolls as lonely losers typing away feverishly in
their parents’ basement, but the disturbing fact is that they come in all
shapes, sizes, colors, and occupations. “Most people who troll are
people who are just like you and me, but just a bit more intense,” says Morin. I
can’t agree that intensity is behind it. One can debate a topic very intensely
without devolving into hateful goading and insults.
Apart from those who simply take pleasure in being mean, then, what motivates someone to take the time to seek out, say,
a website of one’s opposite political persuasion with the purposeful intention
of spewing ugliness and gleefully sowing discord in online conversations? Two
words: anonymity and powerlessness, a volatile combination.
Even for those who use their real names online, the absence of face-to-face
confrontation is still a reassuring measure of anonymity. In the real world,
bullies have to at least be willing to face their victims down, which narrows their
numbers considerably. And real-world bullies need either to be physically
imposing enough to pick on people, or to have enough bully cohorts to gang up
on their victims.
But the internet shelters bullies, so even 98-lb. weaklings can strut
fearlessly and feel the rush of power that accompanies the unrestricted freedom
to fire volleys of verbal, virtual
hit-and-runs. So in that sense,
trolls are indeed life losers, whether they’re actually inhabiting Mom and Dad’s
basement or not.
When I say I’m weaning myself from
reading internet comments, I’m not suggesting that we abandon cyberspace to the
little cowards. Trolling can be reduced by requiring commenters to register on websites
and to log in or connect through social media to comment. Moderating
comments is another helpful safeguard. Removing the shield of anonymity entirely
is problematic, because many polite and reasonable people may have legitimate
cause to remain anonymous on certain sites.
Beyond that, one surefire tactic
for the rest of us to use against internet insurgency is to refuse to feed the
trolls – if they are denied the reaction they so desperately crave, most will
wither and die.
(This article originally appeared here on Acculturated, 10/17/13)
