Fighting Trolls

Span has a post linking to some discussion of the proposed code of conduct for bloggers, which was a response to the Kathy Sierra nastiness I mentioned a few weeks ago. My response to the questions at the end of the post spun a little bit out of control. So I’m gonna reproduce it here, because I haven’t got anything else to blog about just yet and why the heck not? Span asked:

A few questions for readers:
1. Do you think that unmoderated comments improve the dialogue or lead to degredation?
2. Does trolling tend towards the racist and sexist, and does it make blogging less attractive to those who aren’t part of the dominant demographic? Should we even be interested in creating a blogosphere that is more diverse?
3. Is trolling about bullying* people into conformity? Or do people just need to “harden up”?
And finally:
What can we do about trolling if we don’t like it? Should we do anything at all?

And I replied…
====
Hey Span, this one is a big deal for me. I’ve been intensely involved in online discussions pretty much non-stop since I arrived at university in February 1994, and I’ve seen a lot of horrible, horrible behaviour. I sometimes overreact. It’s a bit of a weakness.
That said – I can’t quite formulate an answer to your question one. (“Do you think that unmoderated comments improve the dialogue or lead to degredation?”) I need to reinterpret it slightly to get somewhere meaningful for me, so hope this makes sense…
It isn’t the presence or absence of moderation or otherwise that improves or degrades the dialogue – it’s the participants in the comments environment.
I think that, if a comments section has attracted participants who start its deterioration, it will inevitably continue along that track unless there is a moderation policy in place and followed (and even if there is it might still go that way).
By and large, I think there’s clear merit to comment moderation, and that objections to such moderation are usually made in ignorance. If you have a high enough profile, or if you have a large enough user base, or if you blog about contentious issues, you will find trouble in your comments. You will attract trolls, non-troll commenters will get angry at each other and say terrible things, etc.
There is a cost. Unmoderated comments do give an unrestricted window into a subject of debate. But, in all seriousness, anyone who thinks this cost is anything but trivial is deluded. *Everything* of value to a discussion can be contributed without attracting moderation. Everything.
Common responses to moderation are to deride moderators for cowardice, fragility, or outright intellectual dishonesty via censorship. These objections hit home because they tie into what we value about our ability to engage with ideas. These objections are also completely disingenous and meritless. Disregard them entirely.
That part-answers question 3, too. (‘Is trolling about bullying* people into conformity? Or do people just need to “harden up”?’) Trolling is a form of bullying, but its goal is rarely conformity; the goal is to emotionally hurt or confuse or degrade the target, and perhaps to silence them.
I honestly believe that many – most? – of the nastiest trolls rationalise their behaviour as part of a massive exercise in online social darwinism, where they are testing people to see if they are strong enough to say what they wish. Of course, they usually don’t have any supporting argument as to why anyone should prove their strength to random abusers; and if they do, it is bound to be founded on an assumption that online communication is not “real” communication, that it’s all a great game with gladitorial rules.
(There is nothing I hate more than someone being an absolute bastard online then when called on it say “it’s just online stuff, it doesn’t matter, forget about it”. You see less of that in 2007 than you saw in 1997, but it still turns up a lot.)
The social norms of the real world are enforced by powerful drivers – our reputation, our understanding of shared fates and future interactions, the network of acquaintances and friends between us and the responsibility we bear for a complex social network.
Online, we have a social system without these drivers for social norms. There is nothing wrong or weak in imposing them forcibly.
The best frame for this is one of host privilege and host responsibility. The owner of a place is entitled to set rules and enforce the tone and need offer no justification beyond “that is how I wish it to be; if you disagree, go play elsewhere”. Netiquette has already instituted this as the primary rationale for moderation of all kinds, and it’s a good one for a bunch of reasons, as sociologists/psychologists/communications people will all recognise.
Question two – does trolling work to suppress diversity online – absolutely. Bad behaviour online comes when someone feels their terrain is threatened, their turf is compromised, that someone is speaking untruths or insults about their tribe. The dominant demographic in any society will inevitably react badly to other voices, because those voices will as a matter of course tread on all of these spaces.
Furthermore, abusive online behaviour feeds on itself; the more of it there is, the more of it there will be. As the dominant demographic has an advantage of numbers, that sets up a feedback loop.
A diverse blogosphere is, to me, a self-evident good. I could try and muster an argument about why it is good, but it would be like trying to argue that pineapple tastes nice – it isn’t necessary, is it?
So, in summary, if you don’t like trolling – yeah, do something about it. Shut it down. Demand that trolls either be silent or express themselves better. Be unapologetic about protecting the tone of your virtual living room.
(Or, as I’ve seen you do here Span, engage with someone using a trollish and aggressive posting style and see if you can get decent contribution out of them. But that takes a lot of effort and there’s no shame in being ruthless.)
Doing nothing is not an option.
===
Go check out Span’s actual post for more from people who aren’t me.