![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 77. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by doxogenic boy on March 1, 2014, at 12:21:35
First I want to say, this is a post about trolls and freedom of speech in suppport groups and other Internet forums _in general_.
I am a strong supporter of unlimited freedom of speech. But does this mean that I have to think that all support groups should be 100 % unmoderated/uncensored? As long as there are uncensored discussion boards where trolls can speak freely other places on the Internet, and as long as everyone, including trolls, can start their own uncensored blogs, I think there are room for censored forums too.
It isn't that difficult to know if a poster is a troll - basically, if a person makes a lot of noise with his/her provocative, aggressive and/or insensitive posts, it most likely is a troll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29In fact, I think censored support groups/discussion boards can give more freedom of speech, because then will people who are afraid of aggressive posters, dare to use the forum. If trolling was allowed everywhere, these people would rarely or never be able to use a support group, because of a rational fear of being harassed.
So allowing trolls to use support groups blocks the ability for a lot of people to use their freedom of speech. And for some people, it is so hurtful with the trolls that they even have to stop reading the support group.
There is no reason for giving the troll a second, third, fourth, fifth ... chance, because they are often cyber psychopaths, who hurt other people for fun. And psychopaths never learn, it is a waste of time to try to heal them with love and forgiveness.
If a poster on a support group earlier has been harassed by a troll on Usenet, [1] such as in alt.support.depression.medication (search the Google Groups archive here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.support.depression.medication and click on the small arrow at far right in the search field to find advanced search [2] ), and therefore has left the newsgroup, it will be terrifying to meet the same troll again on a moderated support group.Then the harassed, earlier Usenet poster, has nowhere else to go. He or she may even commit suicide, and no one knows that it was the troll who caused it. If a troll harasses a person for a long time, he/she also is a cyber stalker. When the cyberstalking cyber psychopath can post within a moderated support group, then the worst case scenario has turned into reality.
So, therefore it should be allowed to say in a support group that a troll is a troll, a cyber psychopath is a cyber psychopath and a cyber stalker is a cyber stalker, to warn other users on the support group, and to stop the troll from posting.
If this is not allowed, then the moderated support group just as well can be made into a completely unmoderated forum. Generally, I think the existence of both censored and uncensored Internet forums gives freedom of speech to both the trolls and to anxious and vulnerable people. Exposure therapy works, but it is a human right to choose when and where and with whom the exposure therapy should take place.
[1]
About usenet in general: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
[2]
Read this thread to figure out how to find advanced search in Google Groups - you have to go into a group, and then you find it:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/news.software.readers/IdRY8FQh8xE/L1mW99PwL1kJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/news.software.readers/IdRY8FQh8xE/6f-vB93z82oJ- doxogenic
Posted by Phillipa on March 1, 2014, at 18:39:29
In reply to Trolls and Freedom of Speech, posted by doxogenic boy on March 1, 2014, at 12:21:35
So you feel that first submitting a post, having it reviewed before posting is what babble should do? An Author I read does this on her site on facebook. You post a question but it has to be reviewed before Posting? Is this what you mean? Phillipa
Posted by doxogenic boy on March 2, 2014, at 11:49:34
In reply to Re: Trolls and Freedom of Speech » doxogenic boy, posted by Phillipa on March 1, 2014, at 18:39:29
> So you feel that first submitting a post, having it reviewed before posting is what babble should do? An Author I read does this on her site on facebook. You post a question but it has to be reviewed before Posting? Is this what you mean?
No, I mean moderation after the post is published. If moderation is done often or fast enough, this will keep trolls away. What do you think about such a no-troll-policy? No provocations allowed.
- doxogenic
Posted by Ronnjee on March 2, 2014, at 19:49:48
In reply to Re: Trolls and Freedom of Speech, posted by doxogenic boy on March 2, 2014, at 11:49:34
> If moderation is done often or fast enough, this will keep trolls away.
>
> - doxogenic
>That is so adorable
Posted by Phillipa on March 2, 2014, at 19:58:32
In reply to Re: Trolls and Freedom of Speech, posted by doxogenic boy on March 2, 2014, at 11:49:34
Were you here when the deputies were? I don't remember trolls then. So it would work to again have deputies to moderate the board. Phillipa
Posted by 10derheart on March 2, 2014, at 21:44:59
In reply to Re: Trolls and Freedom of Speech » doxogenic boy, posted by Phillipa on March 2, 2014, at 19:58:32
> So it would work to again have deputies to moderate the board
Might be nice as I would personally love to see some new Babblers take that on. But...good luck with that because IMO it would be impossible at this point since Dr. Bob's criteria, or standards, or line in the sand, or civility policies, or whatever terms you want to use are far, far, FAR too hard to understand.
For example, I was allowed to post several rude things when my temper got the best of me in the past few days and no action whatsoever. (Do I have to unofficially PBC myself? maybe) Yet, Eric and willye were warned and/or blocked for incivility in the same threads.
Why?? <shrug> No clue, and the problem is, if I ask Dr. Bob and he replies, I can't decipher what he means any more. Pretty much never. :-(
And I thought we were all supposed to develop shields and walk away and not read and all this stuff...what happened to that? This time (Why just THIS time?) Dr. Bob came on and requested civility and issued blocks. Think of what HC posted in recent months with NO action...makes my head ache trying to see the difference.
Posted by 10derheart on March 2, 2014, at 21:49:24
In reply to Trolls and Freedom of Speech, posted by doxogenic boy on March 1, 2014, at 12:21:35
This is a really great post. I don't know that I can agree with it all since I am in favor of the old/original civility rules from when I was a deputy, and I also haven't fully digested all you said yet. But even in one read through I can see it is a thoughtful and logical contribution.
Thanks for taking the time :-)
Posted by doxogenic boy on March 3, 2014, at 3:04:41
In reply to Re: Trolls and Freedom of Speech » doxogenic boy, posted by Phillipa on March 2, 2014, at 19:58:32
> Were you here when the deputies were?
No, I can't remember that. What years had Babble deputies? Was it for a long time?
> I don't remember trolls then. So it would work to again have deputies to moderate the board.
That sounds like a good idea. Maybe then the deputies could define in practice what is a troll and what is not a troll, with the Wikipedia definition as guidelines?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29Then I think posters who react to trolls shouldn't be treated like trolls.
- doxogenic
Posted by doxogenic boy on March 3, 2014, at 3:22:24
In reply to Re: Trolls and Freedom of Speech » doxogenic boy, posted by 10derheart on March 2, 2014, at 21:49:24
> This is a really great post. I don't know that I can agree with it all since I am in favor of the old/original civility rules from when I was a deputy, and I also haven't fully digested all you said yet. But even in one read through I can see it is a thoughtful and logical contribution.
>
> Thanks for taking the time :-)Thank you very much for your answer! :)
I have thought a lot about this. What do you think about letting deputies decide what is a troll (with the Wikipedia definition as guidelines), with the right to block the trolls for ever in severe cases?Maybe it can work in addition to the civility rules, so that those trolls who aren't blocked by the civility rules, can be blocked by the deputies' no-troll-policy?
- doxogenic
Posted by SLS on March 3, 2014, at 7:21:53
In reply to Re: Trolls and Freedom of Speech » 10derheart, posted by doxogenic boy on March 3, 2014, at 3:22:24
I think it would be a big mistake to judge and identify anyone as being a "troll" for the purpose of website moderation. It is sort of like identifying someone with borderline personality disorder (or any other mental illness) and banning them from the website once they display problematic behaviors consistent with the description of that disorder. What if a deputy or moderator misdiagnoses someone? I think it is safer for the community to concern itself less with what a person is versus what a person does.
How does a troll become a troll? Were they formally educated by the public school system to be a troll? Are there college classes for trolling that include lab work to practice troll behaviors? Can one be officially certified to be a troll? Are there blood tests we could use to differentiate a troll from a mentally ill person who does troll things?
If a troll does troll things, then they will very likely be in conflict with the civility regulations for communication of Psycho-Babble. It really is a matter of if, when, and how the moderator decides to take action once they become aware of the violative posting behaviors. You can use the "Notify administration" function at the bottom of the posting page to convey your concerns. Ultimately, it is the role of the moderator to judge civility and not the deputies. It really doesn't matter that the deputies should try to make policy by defining what a troll is. It might be the deliberated decision of the moderator to allow uncivil behavior in a given circumstance.
Can you list a few objectionable things a troll will do that would NOT be a violation of this website's posting regulations?
Maybe a troll can learn not to be a troll? If so, blocking him from posting for a year will not optimize his chances of accomplishing this.
There is a delicate balance between acting on behalf of the individual versus that of the community. Sometimes, the best interests of the community are served by allowing someone to post uncivil material. This is for the moderator and owner of the website to decide absolutely, regardless of popular vote. The balance scale is Dr. Bob, and his eyes are not blindfolded.
I think Dr. Bob has demonstrated his willingness to act, even if most of us don't like the timing.
Having said all of that, it is still my intention to offer resistance to what I feel is undesirable behavior by posting my usual confrontational silliness. If my behavior becomes undesirable, Dr. Bob usually lets me know about it.
- Scott
Posted by Ronnjee on March 3, 2014, at 10:07:21
In reply to Trolls and Freedom of Speech, posted by doxogenic boy on March 1, 2014, at 12:21:35
"Trolls" in quotes, because it's a subjective judgement. "Defensive people" because I have seen many who I would characterize that way, and it appears that the most defensive are the ones who want a third-party solution the most. I am often perplexed at how incredibly defensive some are about posts that do not involve or are not directed at them. Why do they feel the need to defend? Why are they so sure that someone or the website need defending? Are they as defensive in real life, and do they expect third-party intervention? Are they unable to let something pass without action? Is it about virtue and nobility, ala Don Quixote?
These are just questions that occur to me.
Posted by SLS on March 3, 2014, at 14:23:54
In reply to Re: 'Trolls' and Really Defensive People, posted by Ronnjee on March 3, 2014, at 10:07:21
> "Trolls" in quotes, because it's a subjective judgement. "Defensive people" because I have seen many who I would characterize that way, and it appears that the most defensive are the ones who want a third-party solution the most. I am often perplexed at how incredibly defensive some are about posts that do not involve or are not directed at them. Why do they feel the need to defend? Why are they so sure that someone or the website need defending? Are they as defensive in real life, and do they expect third-party intervention? Are they unable to let something pass without action? Is it about virtue and nobility, ala Don Quixote?
>
> These are just questions that occur to me.I would feel that it be an abdication of my responsibility as a fellow human being to say nothing when innocence is attacked by injustice, bullying, or worse.
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." - Albert Einstein
To each his own.
- Scott
Posted by Ronnjee on March 3, 2014, at 14:56:32
In reply to Re: 'Trolls' and Really Defensive People, posted by SLS on March 3, 2014, at 14:23:54
Where does that assumption of responsibility come from?
What I'm really curious to explore is the interestingly subtle relationships of "victim" and "victimizer".
Posted by SLS on March 3, 2014, at 15:11:04
In reply to Re: 'Trolls' and Really Defensive People, posted by Ronnjee on March 3, 2014, at 14:56:32
> Where does that assumption of responsibility come from?
My personal choice to assume responsibility is a manifestation of my spiritual morality. I thought that the Einstein quote portrayed this very well. I subscribe to it. Do you?I think that what we call "morality" (knowing right from wrong) is innate and actually hard-coded into our biology. When this is absent, we are looking at a psychopath.
> What I'm really curious to explore is the interestingly subtle relationships of "victim" and "victimizer".
Okay.
- Scott
Posted by Ronnjee on March 3, 2014, at 15:11:38
In reply to Re: 'Trolls' and Really Defensive People, posted by SLS on March 3, 2014, at 14:23:54
>
> "The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." - Albert Einstein
>
This, coming from a man who's work and words contributed to the creation and use of the atomic bomb.On the contrary, attributed to Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (c. 1150) is the quote, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
As always, the grey between the black and the white is where reality resides.
Posted by SLS on March 3, 2014, at 15:29:45
In reply to Re: 'Trolls' and Really Defensive People, posted by Ronnjee on March 3, 2014, at 15:11:38
> > "The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." - Albert Einstein
> This, coming from a man who's work and words contributed to the creation and use of the atomic bomb.The history of the development of the A-Bomb (and war in general) is not so simple. Shall I interpret your reaction to Einstein's words to be a repudiation of them?
> On the contrary, attributed to Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (c. 1150) is the quote, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".How do you interpret this quote? How does it relate to one's desire to help others?
> As always, the grey between the black and the white is where reality resides.
Were I to be blind, I would still see the universe in color.
Do you find anarchy at all attractive?
- Scott
Posted by Ronnjee on March 3, 2014, at 15:56:01
In reply to Re: 'Trolls' and Really Defensive People, posted by SLS on March 3, 2014, at 15:29:45
>
> > On the contrary, attributed to Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (c. 1150) is the quote, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
>
> How do you interpret this quote? How does it relate to one's desire to help others?
>
I think about unintended consequences occurring from seemingly well-intended action. Idealists of every stripe have often been ultimately proven to have done more harm than good. Desire to help others is nice, but like all desire, needs to be tempered with caution and pragmatism.>
> Do you find anarchy at all attractive?
>
In fact, I do. But I question the possible negative consequences. Revolution seems to be a good thing only in rewritten history that makes it look prettier and more noble than it is.I'm trying to keep this discussion about this thread, more or less. I'm thinking about a psyche version of "give a man a fish.......", where learning to deal with the "slings and arrows" may be better than expecting to control the slingers. I think of road rage, and learning how to avoid it, starting with the acceptance that other drivers will always, at one time or another, do stupid or careless things on the road (as will we sometimes). We can't control that but we can learn to not be so surprised by it and not freak out about it.
Posted by doxogenic boy on March 3, 2014, at 16:31:23
In reply to Re: Trolls and Freedom of Speech, posted by SLS on March 3, 2014, at 7:21:53
> I think it would be a big mistake to judge and identify anyone as being a "troll" for the purpose of website moderation. It is sort of like identifying someone with borderline personality disorder (or any other mental illness) and banning them from the website once they display problematic behaviors consistent with the description of that disorder. What if a deputy or moderator misdiagnoses someone? I think it is safer for the community to concern itself less with what a person is versus what a person does.
I value your objections, and I will try to further explain my point of view.
A deputy or a moderator can misdiagnose uncivility too, so I don't think it will be more arbitrary with a no-troll-policy. A troll is a troll because of what he/she does - no one can be a troll if he just thinks of trolling. The reason why I think it can be of importance to know if a poster is a troll is that he can be dangerous for other posters' mental health because of his sadistic and psychopathic personality. It is a big difference between a poster who is temporarily angry because he lost his job, and a troll that purposefully tries for a long time to mentally break down or destroy other users in a support group. And they may have met the troll before in other forums.
Canadian researchers have made the study "Trolls just want to have fun", which is published in the academic journal "Personal and Individual Differences":
----------------------
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914000324
Quote:
AbstractIn two online studies (total N = 1215), respondents completed personality inventories and a survey of their Internet commenting styles. Overall, strong positive associations emerged among online commenting frequency, trolling enjoyment, and troll identity, pointing to a common construct underlying the measures. Both studies revealed similar patterns of relations between trolling and the Dark Tetrad of personality: trolling correlated positively with sadism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, using both enjoyment ratings and identity scores. Of all personality measures, sadism showed the most robust associations with trolling and, importantly, the relationship was specific to trolling behavior. Enjoyment of other online activities, such as chatting and debating, was unrelated to sadism. Thus cyber-trolling appears to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism.
KeywordsSadism;
Dark Tetrad;
Dark Triad;
Trolling;
Cyber-trolls;
Antisocial Internet behavior;
Personality
End quote.
----------------------
So trolling is much more dangerous for others' mental health than most people are aware of.> How does a troll become a troll? Were they formally educated by the public school system to be a troll? Are there college classes for trolling that include lab work to practice troll behaviors? Can one be officially certified to be a troll? Are there blood tests we could use to differentiate a troll from a mentally ill person who does troll things?
There exist measuring instruments for this (it isn't a joke), such as the "Global Assessment of Internet Trolling"
I will quote from a news article about the above-mentioned study:--------------------------
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/02/science-confirms-online-trolls-are-horrible-people-also-sadists/Excerpt from the article above:
"Though it sounds awesome in an "evil magician" sort of way, the Dark Tetrad is actually a set of four "noxious" personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism. Professors Eric Buckels, Paul Trapnell, and Delroy Paulhus hypothesized that online trolls would rank highly in Dark Tetrad traits, and they set out to test the idea with surveys administered both to Canadian students and to random users of Amazon's Mechanical Turk program (the latter group receiving fifty cents per person for their trouble).Respondents answered survey questions drawn from the Short Sadistic Impulse scale, the Varieties of Sadistic Tendencies scale, the Short Dark Triad scale, and the newly developed Global Assessment of Internet Trolling. Some of the statements that researchers asked the group to respond to included:
I have been compared to famous people (narcissism)
It's not wise to tell your secrets (Machiavellianism)
Payback needs to be quick and nasty (psychopathy)
Hurting people is exciting (sadism)
In video games, I like the realistic blood sports (vicarious sadism)"
End quote.
--------------------------
As you see in the quotation above, it is possible to assess trolling scientifically, but I think most people understand when they see a troll. But everyone can be fooled, therefore I propose this no-troll-policy.
> If a troll does troll things, then they will very likely be in conflict with the civility regulations for communication of Psycho-Babble. It really is a matter of if, when, and how the moderator decides to take action once they become aware of the violative posting behaviors. You can use the "Notify administration" function at the bottom of the posting page to convey your concerns. Ultimately, it is the role of the moderator to judge civility and not the deputies. It really doesn't matter that the deputies should try to make policy by defining what a troll is. It might be the deliberated decision of the moderator to allow uncivil behavior in a given circumstance.
The moderator can allow deputies to block trolls, if he wants to.
> Can you list a few objectionable things a troll will do that would NOT be a violation of this website's posting regulations?A troll can sometimes behave nicely, as a part of the troll strategy, such as posting apologies, and shortly thereafter going back to harass other users, and this way hurt them even more, because they have been fooled to defend the troll, and then are attacked again. I don't mean that one should block anyone because of a apology, but as a part of the larger picture, it shows that it is a person with evil intentions.
I think it should be allowed to warn other users by telling them that it is a troll. For a suicidal person this could be very helpful, to avoid being trolled.
> Maybe a troll can learn not to be a troll? If so, blocking him from posting for a year will not optimize his chances of accomplishing this.
A person with psychopathic personality traits is biologically unable to learn empathy.
- doxogenic
Posted by Ronnjee on March 3, 2014, at 16:50:34
In reply to Re: Trolls and Freedom of Speech » SLS, posted by doxogenic boy on March 3, 2014, at 16:31:23
Then there are those of us who think that applying empirical scientific method to human behavior is a fool's errand.
Posted by doxogenic boy on March 3, 2014, at 16:52:03
In reply to Re: 'Trolls' and Really Defensive People, posted by SLS on March 3, 2014, at 14:23:54
> I would feel that it be an abdication of my responsibility as a fellow human being to say nothing when innocence is attacked by injustice, bullying, or worse.
I respect this principle very much, but when it comes to trolls, it may worsen the situation. Trolls have one goal: to get as much response as possible, and mostly angry response.
The only thing that works is extinction. Without any food, the troll will leave the forum.
Quote:
"If an unfortunate person falls into their trap, trolling intensifies for further, merciless amusement. This is why novice Internet users are routinely admonished, 'Do not feed the trolls!'," the study warned.
End quote.-doxogenic
Posted by doxogenic boy on March 3, 2014, at 16:56:49
In reply to Re: Trolls and Freedom of Speech » doxogenic boy, posted by Ronnjee on March 3, 2014, at 16:50:34
> Then there are those of us who think that applying empirical scientific method to human behavior is a fool's errand.
If we couldn't do that, then we had no psychiatry.
- doxogenic
Posted by doxogenic boy on March 3, 2014, at 17:18:17
In reply to Re: 'Trolls' and Really Defensive People, posted by Ronnjee on March 3, 2014, at 10:07:21
> Why are they so sure that someone or the website need defending? Are they as defensive in real life, and do they expect third-party intervention? Are they unable to let something pass without action?
I think vulnerable people should have at least one safe place to go.
- doxogenic
Posted by Ronnjee on March 3, 2014, at 17:51:26
In reply to Re: Trolls and Vulnerable People » Ronnjee, posted by doxogenic boy on March 3, 2014, at 17:18:17
> I think vulnerable people should have at least one safe place to go.Others have stated the same wish, and while I understand the desire, I sincerely doubt that such places truly exist.
In one breath, you stated your desire to have "trolls" quickly banished, while in a more recent post, you mentioned "don't feed the trolls", which seems to indicate simple non-response as a tactic - reinforcing my view that there are no pat answers.
Posted by doxogenic boy on March 3, 2014, at 18:05:21
In reply to Re: Trolls and Vulnerable People » doxogenic boy, posted by Ronnjee on March 3, 2014, at 17:51:26
>
> > I think vulnerable people should have at least one safe place to go.
>
> Others have stated the same wish, and while I understand the desire, I sincerely doubt that such places truly exist.We can make them exist, if we want to, or are allowed to.
> In one breath, you stated your desire to have "trolls" quickly banished, while in a more recent post, you mentioned "don't feed the trolls", which seems to indicate simple non-response as a tactic - reinforcing my view that there are no pat answers.If it comes a troll to a support group, and he isn't blocked (immediately), then extinction is the only thing that works. But it is difficult, since there always is someone who replies to the trolls' posts.
A combination of blocking trolls and extinction (whilst we are waiting for the blocking) is still the best medicine.
And the statement 'Do not feed the trolls!' was a quote:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1061756.html- doxogenic
Posted by Ronnjee on March 3, 2014, at 18:08:03
In reply to Re: Trolls and Freedom of Speech » Ronnjee, posted by doxogenic boy on March 3, 2014, at 16:56:49
> > Then there are those of us who think that applying empirical scientific method to human behavior is a fool's errand.
>
> If we couldn't do that, then we had no psychiatry.
>
> - doxogenic
>
Really? I wonder what empirical studies Freud and Jung used and cited.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.