I think it depends on the type of “troll” tbh. The traditional kind, looking to get a rise out of people for amusement? Sure, they need you to interact, and starving them of that attention kills the point. But nowadays we also use that term for people trying to shape public discourse in a dishonest fashion, such as when governments attempt to manipulate foreign public opinion, or politically motivated people pretend to be a different position in order to discredit it.
These kinds are slightly different I think, because their goal isnt necessarily to get a rise out of people, just getting seen enough times is enough to normalize their message in people’s heads.
For that kind, it might be a good idea to present a counter-narrative, so that people that come across them dont subconsciously get the idea that the troll’s message is one with wide public support. You wont change their mind by arguing with them of course, but that just means that the point is not to change their mind, but to drown them out essentially.
Ehhhh, nope tbh. Disengage, downvote, report for all trolls. You have the right instinct but here’s why:
their goal isnt necessarily to get a rise out of people, just getting seen enough times is enough
Correct. And responding to trolls who have this need increases views by making the thread longer, by bumping up the thread in some sorting algorithms, and by generating meta-commentary in different posts or communities. Responding to trolls gets them seen.
If you can absolutely handle not letting it become an argument, straightforward “fact check” comments that keep it short and sweet can be effective. But if you truly suspect a troll, paragraphs of lengthy response will often encourage responses and draw other trolls like a magnet.
Keep it simple. Handle with care. Block if you can’t trust yourself to keep it in hand.
The trouble is, these sorts of trolls will take no issue with simply replying to themselves on multiple accounts, gaming engagement algorithms by buying popular accounts or stealing popular content, etc. Theyre almost certainly going to get the visibility they want either way, if they know what they’re doing.
Hence I think that it is important to visibly show dissent against them, especially if you get enough people in a community to do it as to leave them visibly in the minority (okay, moderation would be even better, but the viability of that depends a lot on the space), to combat the effect wherein people go along with views that they perceive as being typical of those around them. Such a thing isnt truly an argument, at least not a good faith one.
I get where you’re coming from, im just not really convinced that it works as well as the conventional wisdom about trolls suggests.
Visibly show dissent simply and precisely, and I agree. If you show dissent and a chain of comments follows, you have failed.
Just wanting to be very specific here because I know many have the instinct to respond with stinging satire and commitment to defending the right thing. That’s a natural reaction! But it is textbook troll feeding and will always make things worse.
I think it depends on the type of “troll” tbh. The traditional kind, looking to get a rise out of people for amusement? Sure, they need you to interact, and starving them of that attention kills the point. But nowadays we also use that term for people trying to shape public discourse in a dishonest fashion, such as when governments attempt to manipulate foreign public opinion, or politically motivated people pretend to be a different position in order to discredit it.
These kinds are slightly different I think, because their goal isnt necessarily to get a rise out of people, just getting seen enough times is enough to normalize their message in people’s heads.
For that kind, it might be a good idea to present a counter-narrative, so that people that come across them dont subconsciously get the idea that the troll’s message is one with wide public support. You wont change their mind by arguing with them of course, but that just means that the point is not to change their mind, but to drown them out essentially.
Ehhhh, nope tbh. Disengage, downvote, report for all trolls. You have the right instinct but here’s why:
Correct. And responding to trolls who have this need increases views by making the thread longer, by bumping up the thread in some sorting algorithms, and by generating meta-commentary in different posts or communities. Responding to trolls gets them seen.
If you can absolutely handle not letting it become an argument, straightforward “fact check” comments that keep it short and sweet can be effective. But if you truly suspect a troll, paragraphs of lengthy response will often encourage responses and draw other trolls like a magnet.
Keep it simple. Handle with care. Block if you can’t trust yourself to keep it in hand.
The trouble is, these sorts of trolls will take no issue with simply replying to themselves on multiple accounts, gaming engagement algorithms by buying popular accounts or stealing popular content, etc. Theyre almost certainly going to get the visibility they want either way, if they know what they’re doing.
Hence I think that it is important to visibly show dissent against them, especially if you get enough people in a community to do it as to leave them visibly in the minority (okay, moderation would be even better, but the viability of that depends a lot on the space), to combat the effect wherein people go along with views that they perceive as being typical of those around them. Such a thing isnt truly an argument, at least not a good faith one.
I get where you’re coming from, im just not really convinced that it works as well as the conventional wisdom about trolls suggests.
Visibly show dissent simply and precisely, and I agree. If you show dissent and a chain of comments follows, you have failed.
Just wanting to be very specific here because I know many have the instinct to respond with stinging satire and commitment to defending the right thing. That’s a natural reaction! But it is textbook troll feeding and will always make things worse.