Hacker News Reader

Comment by cubano | Hacker News Reader

Sure...propaganda generated for the direct purpose of trying to influence the masses. It has been around forever and is used by everyone from governments to multinationals to mom-and-pops up the road.

However, my question is this...is a "troll" just defined as someone who disagrees with you?

For example, I am sure, as unpleasant as it may seem, that there are plenty of people who sincerely think it's good that Russia invaded Ukraine...if these people voice their support, are they "trolling"?

How are you supposed to tell the difference?

Is calling someone a "troll" just a way to try to quickly marginalize any POV they may be trying to defend or promote? And if so, isn't it just a shortcut to censorship of any ideas you may not agree with? Is that the way we want discussions to work?

These are serious questions that I, personally, have about this issue. Am I considered a "troll" for having these questions?

View on HN

The point of this "trolling" is not to influence opinions directly, but to "work up" tribalism with the amplified/fake controversy. The goal here is to increase the divide between the West and Russia, and it seems to be working [0][1]. In this case, I think the activity could be called trolling.

[0] http://qz.com/341322/russian-hatred-toward-the-west-charted/

[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/181568/americans-increasingly-rus...

Edit: Changed [1] to a more recent poll.

The problem you are describing is due to the fact that the word "troll" is a semantic stop sign http://lesswrong.com/lw/it/semantic_stopsigns/

People judge someone as a troll and immediately stop thinking about the subject matter, e.g. "Russia invaded Ukraine" is that a fact or an opinion?

I believe this is one of the main reason people try to call out the presence of trolls (particularly as government or corporate shills) on forums, especially if they do it preemptively.

If you believe that an opposing point of view is objectively wrong and mostly upheld by propagandists, you want to prevent people from actually considering "the lie" for their own safety.

Of course, doing this usually leads to an argument and tea-leaf reading session that creates a bigger distraction than the trolls (whether they exist or not) probably could have managed.

His former job is most accurately described as "propagandist". The word "troll" is probably unsalvageable, one more victim of semantic creep.

a "Troll" on the Internet is someone who causes problems or conflict for you, but is doing so for reasons other than that he actually disagrees with you.

In this case, it's because he's paid by the government.

In (most) other cases, it's because the troll wants to see you get angry.

> In (most) other cases, it's because the troll wants to see you get angry.

Do people really do that?

I've been posting to newsgroups for 35 years...I have never once even considered betraying my personal beliefs just to make someone angry.

I guess that's why I struggle so hard with the whole "troll" meme.

Oh yes, and then there are the griefers, who just want to make you sad, afraid and/or frustrated.

I do think trolls have gotten an undeservedly bad reputation because of being conflated with griefers. To me, trolling is relatively harmless attention-seeking vs. GamerGate, which is definitely griefing.

Don't forget the contrarians.

> Do people really do that?

Yes, though true trolling is actually pretty rare. But yes, trolls try to completely disrupt an otherwise functioning forum by keeping a fake "discussion" going.

The most obvious one I know of is Mike Vandeman who has been trolling mountain bikers online since the 90s: http://www.bicycling.com/blogs/thehub/anti-mountain-bike-vig...

I was a professional gamer for a few years. You have peoples entire personas based on the fact they are good at getting people mad. Even happened at real life LANs too.

Yeah, although I wouldn't call that trolling because it's actually a valid tactic to gain advantage in competition.

Getting called a "nigger" and "faggot" roughly 600 times a day only dulls me, doesn't get in my head.

Yeah, and having a gypsy swab my windshield with a muddy rag doesn't clean my car, that doesn't mean car washes are useless.

Some people may really do that, but whenever I see the troll label applied during a forum discussion it's usually because the "troll" is simply not agreeing with the rest of the hive.

You never read alt.fan.warlord?

The word we're looking for may be "shill".

Presumably he's a "professional troll" because he's paid to go onto Web sites and post pro-Russian comments with the idea to make such views appear more common than they actually are.

Couldn't he then also be called a "public relations" specialist and make a very comfortable living in corporate America?

My experience with these trolls is that they not only do "PR work" or propaganda; they actively attack people who disagree with them, using very nasty language and smear tactics. That's something that "public relations" specialists don't regularly do.

Their modus operandi is not to convince people by the force of argument; their goal is to frustrate people who disagree with them and make any reasonable discussion of Russian policies impossible. They make excessively exaggerated claims; it is hopeless to refute those claims by reason because their goal is not dialogue at all, but to make all discussion about Russia obscure and distrusted.

If they manage to destroy trust in any regular media or reasonable discussion partners, they have achieved their goal. And that works quite well.

To For Russian Trolls (or Russia Today) to succeed, they don't need to be believable. It is enough if they make all media not believable so that no one trusts anything, even good sources.

look, everyone uses the same tired, predictable tactics against each other. what else do you expect? at the end of the day, you just have to decide which side you're on. except if you're switzerland.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com