I was on the Interent before most people knew that it existed. Back then, there was no www (World Wide Web), but there was email and Usenet. Usenet was a text-based bulletin board system where you could post thoughts and questions about just about any topic you can imagine...politics, computers, science, hobbies, etc.
"Troll" is double entendre, a term intended to be interpreted in two ways. It came into use on Usenet to describe people who posted just to upset others. Troll never made it into common use, but it's email counterpart, "flame" has been used here and there.
What does "troll" mean?
It refers to someone who posts something inflammatory, something that is obviously intended to upset someone else. A troll is fishing (i.e., trolling), casting something into the waters with the hope of hooking someone. The troll is looking for a fight. Troll also refers to the work of the troll - the post, email or letter.
We all know the other definition of a troll - an ugly, evil creature that cannot live in the light of day.
Not everything inflammatory is a troll. There are always controversial topics, but a troll seems unusually harsh or vague. It lacks specifics and is strong in emotion. It is intended to generate strong feelings, to get the reader to avoid thinking logically about the issue.
How do you get people to think about the facts when there are trolls out there formenting trouble?
1) Just don't respond - don't feed the trolls. As I've told my children, it takes two to fight, and if there's no response the troll won't be able to say anything more without looking the part.
2) If you insist on responding, remember that trolls make sweeping arguments based on emotion. Your response should ask for specifics. If they're sincere, you'll get specifics. If they only wish to get a response, you'll get more sweeping arguments and emotion.
Or silence.
2 comments:
All your insights at the bottom... so very true!!
There are always controversial topics, the Falmouth wind turbine is no exception. If made for easy public media distribution, there is an equal amount of science/medical data supporting arguments of negative health impact from turbines.
Controversy is typically strong in emotion, and lacking specifics. The experiences offered by the Falmouth neighbors are very specific. And yet, these few remain restrained in their emotion for fear of the NIMBY effect.
Someone said recently, “it’s a matter of changing perspective”, “ What is annoying noise today will fade into the background of tomorrow”. The best perspective gained, if the best possible change is sought, is when all information is tabled. Answers and research, not given the full spectrum of light, leaves little chance for meaningful change.
The question is this particular controversy; will the Falmouth neighbors, their concerns fade into the background? Inciting strong emotion for those few in Falmouth, seemingly so easily expendable, is valiant? Generating a wider public perspective and dissuading those hoping for a public “blind-eye” is.... vital.
Post a Comment