10-14-2021, 08:37 AM
The well of public discourse, that is.
As a consequence of "progress" (very much in the eye of the beholder), western societies have left the era of villages and small towns in which most people knew each other. In those days, someone who willfully spread false information took the risk that they would face social sanctions for doing so. Even a sanction such as shunning could ultimately prove fatal to trouble-makers. In brief, we knew we would be held accountable for what we said and what we did.
Today, we barely know our immediate neighbors. Our "gathering" in the "town square" has become interaction via the internet. There is an inherent lack of accountability to this communication over distance with people unknown. Some take the interaction seriously; others not at all.
This leads me to wonder about the role of internet trolls.
Trolling online is nothing new. When the internet was but a shiny new bauble, the CNN discussion boards were full of calculated provocation. This is getting nigh on 30 years ago now.
Which leads to a question. Was society full of wannabe trolls, just waiting for their chance to provoke others with a vanishingly small chance of any real retaliation?
I have read, I think, in these forums, that trolls are often sock puppets of moderators and other forum administration personnel. The reasoning given, IIRC, is that some mods seem to think the use of such sock puppets makes the forums more "interesting".
Yet, the sheer amount of internet users obviously acting as trolls, shills, and agents of various stripes makes clear the water in the well of public discourse is so murky and manipulative as to be poisoned. The English-language Wikipedia, to which I contributed various articles at one time, is thoroughly compromised by agents and shills. There is no remedy because the administration of Wikipedia, from the top down, is part and parcel of the agent, shill, and sock puppet activity. Truly a shame, because a freely accessible encyclopedia on the internet -is- a good idea. But Wikipedia is in too many cases a tainted source.
I have to wonder, given the everyday frequency of social dysfunction outside of the internet, why anyone would think that such activity is productive on the internet ... most especially those who are more or less the "gatekeepers" -- moderators, admins, and so on. Those who provoke or agitate on the internet are hardly sly about their activity; it can usually be spotted after a few comments on their part. Perhaps it all boils down to clicks and views and associated advertisement revenues.
Cheers
As a consequence of "progress" (very much in the eye of the beholder), western societies have left the era of villages and small towns in which most people knew each other. In those days, someone who willfully spread false information took the risk that they would face social sanctions for doing so. Even a sanction such as shunning could ultimately prove fatal to trouble-makers. In brief, we knew we would be held accountable for what we said and what we did.
Today, we barely know our immediate neighbors. Our "gathering" in the "town square" has become interaction via the internet. There is an inherent lack of accountability to this communication over distance with people unknown. Some take the interaction seriously; others not at all.
This leads me to wonder about the role of internet trolls.
Trolling online is nothing new. When the internet was but a shiny new bauble, the CNN discussion boards were full of calculated provocation. This is getting nigh on 30 years ago now.
Which leads to a question. Was society full of wannabe trolls, just waiting for their chance to provoke others with a vanishingly small chance of any real retaliation?
I have read, I think, in these forums, that trolls are often sock puppets of moderators and other forum administration personnel. The reasoning given, IIRC, is that some mods seem to think the use of such sock puppets makes the forums more "interesting".
Yet, the sheer amount of internet users obviously acting as trolls, shills, and agents of various stripes makes clear the water in the well of public discourse is so murky and manipulative as to be poisoned. The English-language Wikipedia, to which I contributed various articles at one time, is thoroughly compromised by agents and shills. There is no remedy because the administration of Wikipedia, from the top down, is part and parcel of the agent, shill, and sock puppet activity. Truly a shame, because a freely accessible encyclopedia on the internet -is- a good idea. But Wikipedia is in too many cases a tainted source.
I have to wonder, given the everyday frequency of social dysfunction outside of the internet, why anyone would think that such activity is productive on the internet ... most especially those who are more or less the "gatekeepers" -- moderators, admins, and so on. Those who provoke or agitate on the internet are hardly sly about their activity; it can usually be spotted after a few comments on their part. Perhaps it all boils down to clicks and views and associated advertisement revenues.
Cheers
![[Image: 14sigsepia.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/9yxWwxj/14sigsepia.jpg)
Location: The lost world, Elsewhen