Trolling in context (essay)

When we speak about the Internet, we refer to it as a place to which we go – to chat, to surf, to watch videos, to read the news, visit online communities, and so on. But to conceptualize the Internet in terms of physical locations is really just to draw imperfect comparisons between the activities of real life to similar, virtual activities. People who are chatting with each other are not physically in the same room, and virtual communities have no geographical coordinates; no one actually lives on the Internet. An individual is not restricted to one name; in fact, it is commonplace to use several different screen-names that are often not associated with each other or the person’s real life identity. Conversely, in real life having multiple names is generally illegal. But anonymity on the Internet is automatic; everybody starts out as a nobody online. It is an entirely different context. Consequently, online social interaction is not equivalent to social interaction in real life. Sometimes, there is no truly comparable online version for a real life activity. The opposite is also true, as in the case of trolling. Trolls, as well as other discord-causing individuals of the Internet such as griefers and haters, at first glance seem like social deviants who have nothing better to do but use the anonymity of the Internet to their advantage in order to aggravate other people for fun. But are trolls simply pranksters? Is trolling merely done for entertainment, or are there other motivations for trolling? Whatever the reasons, trolling is prevalent on the Internet, but much of their behavior is uncommon or impossible in real life, making trolling (in large part) unique to the context of the Internet.

To begin with, the definition of trolling is vague at best. There are several different types of trolling behavior, some of which have very little in common with each other. However, all trolling involves the troll setting “bait,” usually a comment or a picture, intended to provoke a certain reaction from another unwitting person, and deriving amusement from their victim’s response. A person cannot be the victim of a troll without taking the bait; trolls are harmless to those who ignore them. It is important to note that not all trolls are the same, and neither are their victims. Trolling is generally regarded as deviant behavior. However, that which is deviant is determined by the opposite, that which is normal. What is normal is established by a community’s social norms. On the Internet, however, social norms vary from community to community (Denegri-Knott & Taylor, 2004); that is, social norms on a message board for cancer patients will be exceedingly different from the social norms on 4chan. There can be no definitive archetype of ‘normal behavior’ for the Internet, and therefore none for ‘deviant.’


Sometimes a virtual community’s established members will troll for newbies. That is, they will bring up an old topic that has already been thoroughly discussed or refer to an injoke, neither of which would be recognized by someone new to the community. In this case, the troll is a member of the ingroup, and the trolling serves to solidify group connections (with others who ‘get’ it) and identify outsiders.

In other cases, a troll is an outsider who attacks a community. The goal can be to start a fight, to create doubt within the community, or to instigate some other aggressive or defensive reaction. The troll might post controversial information in order to ignite a heated debate. Alternatively, a troll might verbally attack an individual (such as a celebrity) or a particular group in order to provoke the community’s members into defending them. For instance, the troll might insult an ethnic group, hoping that the community will rush to defend it. The troll may not agree with the opinion he/she expresses about the ethnic group, or even care for that matter; the real target is the community.


Sometimes trolls will attack an individual. These trolls employ many of the same tactics as the trolls who attack communities, but the target is instead a specific person. Trolls comment on blogs, videos, and so on for the purpose of inciting a response for the entertainment of the troll. This is distinct form flaming, however. Where a flamer makes an obvious ad hominem attack on someone by posting insults, a troll will set bait to provoke a reaction without that person realizing he/she is a troll.

Why do people troll? “For the lulz” is the obvious answer, and the one that many trolls give when asked. But the issue is deeper than simple entertainment. What is it about the context of the Internet that makes trolling such an appealing activity for so many? Is there some niche that trolls fill in online society?

Anonymity is the norm on the Internet. Even when users have names, they are generally made up names, not their legal names. People may also portray themselves however they like (to the extent of their acting abilities). Identity is therefore fluid online, and it is this aspect that trolls use to their advantage.

Sometimes trolls manipulate information about their identity (Donath, 1999). They might creatively construct a false identity either by directly lying or by subtly providing misleading information, such as adopting linguistic traits that make them appear as if they are a different age or gender in their typed messages. Identity trolls may also operate under multiple usernames. For example, a troll may employ a ‘sock puppet,’ another username purportedly belonging to a different individual but in reality controlled by the troll, in order to provide support. Another type of troll who manipulates identity is the concern troll. A concern troll poses as a person in support of a particular group, but expresses doubts or concerns about the group’s beliefs or actions, with the goal of planting those feelings of uncertainty into the group’s members. In all these cases, anonymity is the primary tool of the troll, who manipulates information about his/her identity in order to fool the target into taking the bait.

A consequence of online anonymity is a lack of accountability. When no one knows who you are, you don’t have to worry as much about getting caught as you do in real life. Only in serious cases, such as child pornography, fraud involving money, and occasionally stalking, will legal action be taken against the perpetrators. The law has limited authority on the Internet; in the case of a serious offense, it takes enormous amounts of time, energy, and money to track down Internet culprits. Any type of regulations regarding most asocial behavior is simply not enforceable at this time. Social rules about acceptable behavior (sometimes called netiquette) are left up to individual communities that can reject or ban users who do not conform. This is not a serious consequence to a trolls, who generally do not have a strong attachment to communities they target.

Everyday trolls, whose words might get them in trouble were they spoken out loud in real life, generally go unpunished aside from a potential ban from a community. When you have the freedom to act without consequences in a way that is generally socially unacceptable, would you not be tempted to try it? John Suler’s Online Disinhibition Effect (Suler, 2004) describes the phenomenon in which people are more likely to act out in (what would be in real life) socially inappropriate ways online, not because such behavior is more true to their personalities, but rather because they are in a new context and thus exhibit behavior according to the characteristics of that context. Anonymity and lack of accountability for one’s actions are two characteristics of online social interaction.

But what exactly is the context of the Internet? The technological capabilities change daily at a rapidfire pace; possibilities for social interaction change accordingly. For instance, fifteen years ago online social interaction primarily took place on Usenet and in email; ten years ago chat rooms and message boards were booming; today, people can build a complete, virtual world (as in Second Life) in which to interact. How can we define a context in which potentially all information from everyone everywhere may be available to everyone all the time, on every device? Perhaps trolls, while targeting unsuspecting users and reaping amusement from those take the bait, are attempting to clarify the social context of the Internet by applying real life social norms and pushing the limits by violating them. Where no rules are written, breaking them can be the best way to discover where the lines are really drawn.

Then again, perhaps trolls intentionally break the rules to show how meaningless the rules are. What point is there to social norms that cannot be enforced beyond banning a user, when all that person needs to do to get around the ban is get a new account with a new IP address? What point is there to maintain social norms when no one knows who you are, where you are from, or if anything about you is even true? Trolls who manipulate information about their identity reveal this issue on a regular basis. Perhaps trolling behavior identifies an inherent characteristic of the Internet as a social venue: that social norms there have yet to be established.

Presentation Outline

Here is a brief outline of what I will be discussing in my presentation tomorrow, including four major points of my research..

What is trolling? I will distinguish trolling from flaming, hacking, etc.

When/where does trolling happen? I will briefly focus on message boards – from strictly moderated to completely unmoderated.

Who are trolls? Here I will talk about several types of trolling that I have identified so far – sometimes a troll can be more than one of these!

Why troll? This depends on the type of trolling.

Methodology

Research Objectives:

1. Define trolling. What different types of trolling are there? I have read about two so far, but could there be more? Who trolls, and who are the victims of trolling? When and where does trolling occur? What is the form and content of (the various types of) trolling? Also, is trolling deviant behavior? If so, when?

2. Explain trolling. What are the consequences of trolling? Why do people troll? Specifically, what motivates trolls, and what purpose is fulfilled by trolling? How does the anonymity of the Internet contribute to trolling behavior?

Methodology:

1. Background research. Obviously, there will be a lot of background research involving lots of reading. Some progress has been bade on this front already (see previous literature review and reading reflection posts). A lot of this background research will be in the areas of social psychology and computer mediated communication (CMC) research on online social interaction and deviant behavior.

2. Data and analysis. This is the tentative part of the project; I'm still not 100% sure how I want to do this. Hopefully I will collect information on specific instances of trolling, possibly specific to certain online communities. The advantage of this approach is that I will be able to collect detailed information on trolls/trolling events within the context of a community. The drawback is that focusing on a small number of communities restrict the scope of my research objectives: I may only see limited variation in trolling behavior that is not at all representative. Whatever the focus, I plan to record details of trolling events and possibly even interview some trolls for first-hand accounts. All of this will be done in accordance with research ethics regarding privacy and confidentiality.

Finally, I want to qualitatively compare and contrast the characteristics of trolling events (who/when/where/form/content) and, from this, discuss the potential implications for the purpose and meaning of trolling on the Internet.