Don't Click The Last Link: Response to the NYT

You can read the first two responses here:

Weev: Response to NYT article, part 1

Excerpt:

"I typically am cautious of the press. Every time the press and I cross paths, it simply causes trouble for me or those around me. I while ago I met with Matt Schwartz from the New York Times Magazine, under the explicit condition that I would be covering philosophy and history and not my personal business. I feel I didn't really get what I want out of this exchange, as the important philosophy I conveyed to him was only conveyed in short bits that I think were taken out of context."

The Medium: Guest Post: Mattathias Schwartz Responds

Excerpt:

"Trolls have a parasitic relationship with their targets - that is to say, a relationship of dependence. As much as trolls like to abuse their targets, they need them to stick around and stay angry. A homogeneous community of trolls is like the 4chan random bulletin board, /b/, meaningless noise. So in a sense, a bit of trolling can be taken as a sign of a healthy community, because it needs a backdrop of sincere users and shared norms to feed on."

As you can see, the views are diverging dramatically already. But that's the reality of magazine stories. We would all like to have our personal views espoused and glorified in a mainstream media piece; even me. What greater validation can one receive than to have his views endorsed by one of the world's largest rags? And what greater betrayal is there than to discover your views have been condensed and marginalized in favor of someone else's agenda? I admit: I was a little disappointed that many of the finer points of trolling that Matt and I talked about didn't make in to the article. But, like I said before: that's life.

We all need to remember that Mattathias answers to an Editor, and that Editor has to balance the sincerity of the piece with the practical needs of the readers. As intelligent as NY Times readers are, this trolling thing is relatively new to them. The facts and opinions that Weev and I put forward have to be distilled down into something manageable and accessible to the general public.

That's why I'm actually glad to see Mattathias and Weev follow up they way they have. This is one of the rare times you'll see two-way journalism. How often do reporters take responsibility for their pieces by addressing subjects' concerns? This is rare and extraordinary. Most people read an article, and that's the end of the perspective. Now they get to actually interact with the people they're reading about. The internet is simply marvelous this way.

I, too, have responded to the piece. However, I put my responses in the comments sections of The Medium articles, where they were quickly drowned out by dozens of other responses. I'm reposting my thoughts here (with a couple of editing tweaks) so they're easier to find and link to.

In Response to Trolling for Ethics

From The Medium: Trolling For Ethics on 7/31/2008:

I've read this article three times now, and I'm still absorbing it. I think it's an amazing piece of reporting. It was accessible and painted a good generalized picture of the online trolling universe. It earns tremendous merit as a piece that showcases what balanced, ethical reporting should look like, as well as a piece that forces the reader to engage in critical thought.

Trolling has a spectrum of personalities, and I think they're faithfully represented here. When it comes to trolling, it's true that there's nothing funnier than watching an emotionally or intellectually unstable person have a dramatic, public meltdown to a few pokes & prods. It only gets better when the target escalates the situation with even more drama.

You know how on your favorite basic cable reality shows the camera captures some crazy person's meltdown? You squeal with delight at the sheer entertainment value of it. Same thing here. Trolls love a good online meltdown. It brings the lulz. (And just like how The Soup on E! documents all the best TV drama of the week, so EncyclopediaDramatica.com documents all the best drama of the Internet.)

Of course, there's the extreme edge of all that trolling, like with the Hendersons and Megan Meier. That's probably more like a premium cable show. The morality is ambiguous. There are no clear good guy or bad guy characters. The lulz are less obvious. But you tune in anyway because it's captivating and challenging.

The only thing that I'm sad wasn't covered is the one troll ethic: you'll never see us go after someone who has their act together. If they say or do intelligent, clever, witty, insightful things, we'll be the first to cheer and shower them with praise. We love smart people.

But God help you if you're a drama queen who complains about having a broken back that's prevented you from seeing the world in one blog post and the next day posts an ugly naked arched-back-on-a-jungle-gym photo talking about how worldly you are. You are batshit crazy, and we're going to troll you until you break.

(Edit: That's not to say telephone harassment is just playful trolling. That's the realm of /b/ and Anonymous who readily proclaim themselves far more than just garden variety trolls. I address this distinction in my next response further down.)

All that having been said, there are only two ways to deal with a troll:

1. Don't reply. Don't privately address him. Don't acknowledge his comments. Don't even make a "he who shall not be named" style reference in another blog post. Just pretend the troll doesn't exist. This gets rid of 90% of the trolls out there instantly. Then, if you're smart, shut up and quit blogging for a few days and logically re-evaluate the post that set the troll off. Chances are, there is a glaring flaw in your post that makes you look like an idiot or a nutjob, and that's why you got trolled. Don't post again until you're ready to amend it or defend it with better logic.

2. With the other 10% of trolls, you have to play the game. For every insult you receive from a troll, play along and join in the joke. If someone tells you're fat (because you probably are), don't get offended and rant. Just reply with a photo of a whale and say, "You damn skippy I'm fat! I would say this photo is me, but that wouldn't be fair. The whale isn't that big." If you can successfully take yourself and the insults less seriously, you will win the good graces of the troll and he'll either go away, or he'll chill out, knock off the insults, engage you in surprisingly intelligent and witty conversation, and you'll have made a new online friend. And trust me, it's good to have a troll for a friend.

Of course, now that I've revealed this, no troll is going to let up because you've all been warned and can no longer claim ignorance as an excuse. So, your only recourse is to just not be stupid and/or batshit crazy on the Internets. If you can do that, everything will be just fine. However, just so I can be absolutely clear about this: if you escalate a war of words with a troll, you WILL lose. We know all the tricks. We have access to all the resources. We know all the laws. We're all friends with each other. We have done this thousands of times.

Yeah, we're total assholes. And we don't care.

In Response to Mattathias Responds

From The Medium: Guest Post: Matthias Schwartz Responds on 8/1/2008:

So, it's the second day of this article's life, and I still regard it as an exemplary piece of journalism. Mattathias should be proud of his work, and people should really take time to reflect on his message.

However, I think if there is a weak point in the article, it is that /b/ gets painted with the same brush stroke that Weev and I do. Let's be clear: there are distinct differences among us.

/b/ members who engage in harassment are quick to point out that they aren't merely trolls. They acknowledge the nature and seriousness of their actions, and the impunity with which they carry out their deeds. They know who and what they are and they don't pretend to be innocuous. I won't cast a moral judgment on them simply because their value system is so vastly different from anything the rest of us know that criticism is nearly meaningless.

Weev is someone to be feared for obvious reasons. I know a lot of people have tried to argue that he trolled the NYT with his outrageous statements. There's no way he is all he says he is. All I have to say is: are you sure? Let's assume Weev rented that Rolls Royce Phantom. He would have had to have it come down from L.A. and be around for two days for $395/hr. How many trolls do you know are willing to spend that kind of money just to get their kicks messing with a bright young reporter from New York?

And then there's me. I make no excuses for me: I troll every once in a while, and I'm not nice about it. Even though I don't phone harass or do anything that crosses into /b/ territory, I know I'm a jerk. Years ago, I trolled indiscriminately for kicks & giggles without realizing what a fantastic and informing tool trolling can be. These days I troll when I want answers about human behavior. Even though it didn't make it into the article, Mattathias and I talked about this extensively.

The trolling that keeps my attention is the stuff that reveals human nature. Yes, I can have a civilized conversation with you, and take what you say at face value. However, as we all know, people are too often wrapped up in their own politically correct notions to say what they really think and feel. If I want to know what you really think, all I have to do is troll you for a bit, and your true colors will light up like a Vegas billboard. That's something you can't get by harassing someone over the phone.

Does the thought of a troll prying into your head make you uncomfortable? It should. Nobody wants to have their secret thoughts and feelings known, much less exposed, especially online. But I will share with you one observation I've had over the years: the more you try to hide who you really are, the more miserable you'll be whether you're talking to me or not. Take what you will from that.

Again, this is a good article with questions about morality that readers should contemplate carefully. Mattathias has taken the time to craft a masterpiece that encourages you to look inside yourself as much as you look outward. That's a gift you don't run across everyday.

Update (8/4): Correction

I just read a comment somewhere that said, "If Mr. Fortuny truly wants to 'save' his victims, he should somehow make his purpose known to them."

This commenter is absolutely correct, and I feel foolish for not thinking of it myself. I absolutely have a duty to inform people of why I do what I do. But, how should I go about doing it? Oh, if only I had a way to communicate my message on a massive scale to millions of people. Perhaps I should talk to a reporter for a mainstream media publication and discuss my views on this subject. That might do the trick. I'll keep everyone posted on how that goes.

Related Links

NY Times Magazine: The Trolls Among Us

The Medium: Trolling For Ethics

Weev: Response to NYT article, part 1

The Medium: Mattathias Schwartz Responds

The Zen of Lulz: Did You Know You Have Green Hair?

4chan /b/

President George W. Bush on Cyber Crime and Cyber Terrorism (response to NY Times article)