# Ιστορίες καθημερινής τρολιάς



## nickel (Jul 11, 2013)

Στο CNN έχει ένα τεράστιο άρθρο για τα τρολ και τις τρολιές, αλλά γέλασα με την αρχική ιστορία, του μποξέρ.

*Internet trolls: What to do about the scourge of the Web?*
By Nick Thompson, CNN
July 11, 2013

London (CNN) -- Curtis Woodhouse earns a living punching people in the face, so it's fair to say he's one of the last men you'd hurl insults at if you saw him on the street.

But people tend to be a bit braver once they don the anonymity cloak the internet provides, and the 32-year-old English boxing champ faced a flurry of ugly abuse from trolls online after he lost his most recent bout in March.

One particular troll, @Jimmyob88, had been harassing the boxer in tweets and in direct messages for six months, according to Woodhouse. "He'd threatened my children saying 'be careful where you send them to school,' he threatened my wife. He'd written me saying he hoped I'd die in my next fight so I could go and see my dead dad ... it just went on and on."

But after the bully branded the boxer a "disgrace" and a "complete joke" and urged him to retire following his fight last month, Woodhouse finally snapped and, rather than trade blows online, he used Twitter to turn the tables on his troll.

Woodhouse put a "Twitter bounty" out on @Jimmyob88's head, offering anyone £1,000 for information about the user's real identity. Within minutes he had his troll's real name -- James O'Brien -- some photos of O'Brien and his home address. Woodhouse decided to make a house call.

"I wasn't going to beat him up or anything," Woodhouse told CNN. "I was going to knock on his door and say 'listen, this stops today -- I'm not going to put up with this abuse, you have no right to abuse me and my family.'"

[Έχει ενδιαφέρουσα συνέχεια η ιστορία αυτή και ακολουθούν και χίλια δυο άλλα για τους τρολ, αλλά στο τέλος το άρθρο ξαναγυρίζει στον μποξέρ.]

Whatever you do, hopping in your car and driving to your troll's house may not solve all of your problems, as boxer Curtis Woodhouse found out.

"Ever since I did that the abuse has been 10 times worse," he said with a laugh. "Now I've got people saying, 'If I call you a crap boxer, will you come round my house for a cup of tea?'" 

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/11/world/internet-trolling/


----------



## drsiebenmal (Jul 11, 2013)

Η παρ' ημίν τρολιά της ημέρας δεν είναι η «ανακάλυψη» ότι η κάρτα της ΕΔΤ είναι αντιγραφή από τη σοβιετική τηλεόραση;


----------



## Palavra (Jul 11, 2013)

Διάβασα και το παρακάτω στη Γκάρντιαν. Στάθηκα στο κομμάτι που απομονώνω (τα έντονα δικά μου):
Internet trolls: a guide to the different flavours

Where we need greater understanding is in the world of covert trolling. This craftier breed is neither obviously hateful, nor openly offensive. Instead, these trolls live in the twilight between what we think their intentions are, and what they really intend. The fact is that we never know another person's intentions. We are only ever guessing, based on the evidence they present us with, and *a crafty troll will present just enough evidence of being credible that to block them would seem like a dangerous step towards infringing free speech*. Such trolls will even use this defence, and accuse those who block them of cowardice, censorship, and losing the argument. The average individual is left stuck between doing the morally upstanding thing (upholding free speech, engaging in a debate) and the wise thing (protecting their own peace of mind).​


----------



## SBE (Jul 12, 2013)

Το άρθρο της Γκάρντιαν μου φάνηκε ανούσιο και διαφήμιση του διδακτορικού της τύπισσας άλλα δε μας δίνει κανένα παράδειγμα και είναι όλο αοριστολογίες και τερατολογίες (π.χ εξομοίωση της σεξουαλικής βίας και της τρολιάς) , όπως παρατηρούν άλλωστε κι οι 1000+ σχολιαστές του. Από τα σχόλια επιλέγω το εξής:



> It's often forgotten that the whole idea of the internet is that it's a public place and when a stranger suddenly pops up on a thread and disagrees with the particular consensus of opinion on certain blogs that individual is often labelled as a 'troll'. In that sense, "*troll" has become a lazy catch-all term to dismiss any outsider who presents with an opinion or online identity that is unacceptable to the dominating group*. If it's even difficult to define what a terrorist is - i.e. one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter - then it's at least equally impossible to be 100 per cent accurate when labelling another internet user a troll.



Νομίζω ότι η Παλάβρα χρησιμοποιεί τον όρο ακριβώς έτσι.


----------



## Palavra (Jul 12, 2013)

Κι άλλο ένα πολύ ενδιαφέρον άρθρο. Online disinhibition and the psychology of trolling

Πέρα από τον ψυχολογικό παράγοντα, στο συγκεκριμένο άρθρο διατυπώνεται η άποψη ότι το τρολάρισμα απουσιάζει σε μεγάλο βαθμό σε χώρους όπου υπάρχει αυστηρότερη επιτήρηση. Συνδέεται δε η απουσία τέτοιας συμπεριφοράς με την κοινωνική της απόρριψη: όταν η συμπεριφορά ενός ανθρώπου που ενεργεί έτσι τον θέτει αυτομάτως εκτός της κοινότητας της οποίας επιθυμεί να γίνει μέλος, η συμπεριφορά φαίνεται να εκλείπει. 

Κι αυτός εδώ γράφει ένα κάπως ενδιαφέρον άρθρο, χωρίς βέβαια αναφορές σε επιστημονικές έρευνες. Το ενδιαφέρον εδώ είναι ότι συνδέει τη συμπεριφορά αυτή με τη διαδικασία του self handicapping (_αυτο-υπονόμευση_ το βρήκα σε διάφορες εργασίες σπουδαστών ψυχολογίας): το άτομο για κάποιο λόγο θεωρεί ότι δεν μπορεί να εισπράξει την αναγνώριση και την προσοχή που του αξίζει, έτσι προσπαθεί (ασυνείδητα, υποθέτω) με τις πράξεις του να την αποκτήσει έστω και με αρνητικό πρόσημο, καθώς αυτό του δίνει την αίσθηση του ελέγχου. Οι άλλοι τον απορρίπτουν, κι έτσι δικαιολογεί την αρχική του συμπεριφορά (με την οποία προκάλεσε βέβαια την αρνητική αντίδραση). Δεν ξέρω κατά πόσο είναι αυτό σωστό, και φαντάζομαι ότι θα διαφέρει η εξήγηση από άτομο σε άτομο. Πρόσφατα διάβασα και αυτό το βιβλίο (έχει μεταφραστεί και στα ελληνικά), το οποίο πραγματεύεται τα σχήματα που προκαλούν δυσλειτουργική συμπεριφορά στον άνθρωπο και τους τρόπους αντιμετώπισής τους. Εκεί λοιπόν δίνεται και η εξήγηση ότι η ανάγκη να τραβά κανείς την προσοχή, έστω και με αρνητικό τρόπο, ενδεχομένως οφείλεται σε σχήμα συναισθηματικής στέρησης: όταν κανείς δεν εισπράττει την προσοχή και τη φροντίδα που θα ήθελε, του δημιουργείται η ανάγκη να προκαλέσει αντίδραση, έστω και αρνητική, με σκοπό να την αποκτήσει. Όλα αυτά ανάγονται πάντα στην παιδική ηλικία και σίγουρα είναι πιο σύνθετα από ό,τι γράφω εγώ εδώ.

Σε κάθε περίπτωση, το σημείο το οποίο απομόνωσα πιο πάνω συνοψίζει, κτγμ, το ζουμί του προβλήματος: η αντιμετώπιση συμπεριφοράς όπως βρισιές ή τρομοκράτηση των άλλων είναι απλή, ενδεχομένως μάλιστα μπορεί δευτερευόντως να είναι αποτελεσματικότερη με την προσφυγή στις αρχές. Ωστόσο, η συμπεριφορά που παίζει με τα όρια, είναι κατάφωρα προκλητική και δεν θα ήταν κοινωνικά αποδεκτή δια ζώσης, συχνά μεγεθύνεται στο διαδικτυακό μέσο και προκαλεί προβλήματα στις διαδικτυακές κοινότητες. Προσπάθειες περιορισμού της συνήθως σταμπάρονται ως «λογοκρισία», «καταστρατήγηση της ελευθερίας του λόγου» και άλλα τέτοια, κτγμ όμως αποτελεί απόρροια της μεταφοράς προσωπικών προβλημάτων του χρήστη στην κοινότητα των πολλών και δυστυχώς συχνά διαταράσσει την ομαλή ανταλλαγή απόψεων αυτών των δεύτερων.


----------



## Palavra (Aug 10, 2013)

Hellegennes said:


> Εννοείς αυτόν που ηθελημένα ή μη καταστρέφει συζητήσεις; Προσωπικά δεν θα χρησιμοποιούσα την λέξη _τρολ_, γιατί όπως το βλέπω εγώ προϋποθέτει εμπαιγμό. Ο σκοπός δεν είναι απαραίτητα η διασκέδαση του τρολ, μπορεί να είναι ο "επαγγελματικός" αποπροσανατολισμός της συζήτησης, η επίκληση επιχειρημάτων που αποτελούν λογικές πλάνες και γενικά η συνειδητή προσπάθεια να μην υπάρχει σοβαρός διάλογος. Τον άλλον, που δεν το κάνει υστερόβουλα, νομίζω πως θα τον χαρακτήριζα αλλιώς.



Εγώ νομίζω ότι όλα αυτά κρίνονται εκ του αποτελέσματος. Δεν νομίζω μάλιστα ότι το πρόβλημα είναι η συνειδητή ή ασυνείδητη προσπάθεια να μην υπάρχει σοβαρός διάλογος, αλλά ότι το εκάστοτε τρολ θέλει να προκαλεί την προσοχή και να επικεντρώνεται η συζήτηση στο ίδιο, είτε επειδή είπε κάτι πολύ ωραίο που πρέπει να αναγνωριστεί ακόμα κι αν είναι ανορθόδοξο, είτε επειδή αποτελεί το ίδιο την πηγή της δυσθυμίας των συνομιλητών του.


----------



## Zazula (Sep 26, 2013)

πηγή: http://unrealitymag.com/index.php/2010/02/18/dantes-internet/


----------



## SBE (Sep 27, 2013)

Ωχ, ωχ, αυτός ο τέταρτος κύκλος πολύ σχετικός με τη Λέξι μοιάζει...


----------



## daeman (Sep 27, 2013)

SBE said:


> Ωχ, ωχ, αυτός ο τέταρτος κύκλος πολύ σχετικός με τη Λέξι μοιάζει...



I think that maybe you're pushing your luck in the lions' den. You want grammar nazis? :devil:












Careful what you wish, you just might get it.

You gotta ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky?


----------



## daeman (Mar 27, 2017)

...
*[Aristotle], On Trolling

**Abstract*

That trolling is a shameful thing, and that no one of sense would accept to be called ‘troll’, all are agreed; but what trolling is, and how many its species are, and whether there is an excellence of the troll, is unclear. And indeed trolling is said in many ways; for some call ‘troll’ anyone who is abusive on the internet, but this is only the disagreeable person, or in newspaper comments the angry old man. And the one who disagrees loudly on the blog on each occasion is a lover of controversy, or an attention-seeker. And none of these is the troll, or perhaps some are of a mixed type; for there is no art in what they do. (Whether it is possible to troll one's own blog is unclear; for the one who poses divisive questions seems only to seek controversy, and to do so openly; and this is not trolling but rather a kind of clickbait.)

That trolling is a shameful thing, and that no one of sense would accept to be called ‘troll’, all are agreed; but what trolling is, and how many its species are, and whether there is an excellence of the troll, is unclear. And indeed trolling is said in many ways; for some call ‘troll’ anyone who is abusive on the internet, but this is only the disagreeable person, or in newspaper comments the angry old man. And the one who disagrees loudly on the blog on each occasion is a lover of controversy, or an attention-seeker. And none of these is the troll, or perhaps some are of a mixed type; for there is no art in what they do. (Whether it is possible to troll one's own blog is unclear; for the one who poses divisive questions seems only to seek controversy, and to do so openly; and this is not trolling but rather a kind of clickbait.)

Well then, the troll in the proper sense is one who speaks to a community and as being part of the community; only he is not part of it, but opposed. And the community has some good in common, and this the troll must know, and what things promote and destroy it: for he seeks to destroy. Hence no one would troll the remotest Mysian, or even know how, but rather a Republican trolls a Democratic blog and a Democrat Republicans. And he destroys the thread by disputing what is known to be true, or abusing what is recognised as admirable; or he creates fear about a small problem, as if it were large, or treats a necessary matter as small; or he speaks abuse while claiming to be a friend. And in general the troll says what is false but sounds like the truth—or rather he does not quite _say_ it, but rather something very close to it which is true, or partly true, or best of all merely asks a simple question about the evidence for climate change. Hence the modes of trolling are many: the concern-troll, the one who ‘sees the other side’, the polite inquirer into the obvious. For the perfected troll has no need of rudeness or abuse, or even of fallacy (this belongs rather to sophistic or eristic, and requires making an argument): he only makes a suggestion or indication [_sêmainein_].

And this is how the troll generates strife. For what he indicates is known to be false or harmful or ignorant; but he does not say _that_ thing, but rather something close. In this way he retains the possibility of denial, and the skilled troll is always surprised and hurt, or seems to be, when the others take his comments up. And so he sets the community apart from each other, and introduces strife where before there was scarcely disagreement. For each person who takes up what was said grasps only a part of it, and insists on that, and is annoyed when others affirm something different. For some indeed see that the troll trolls, and are harsh; but others think that they ought to be more gentle, and others again do not even see the falsity, but grasp the truth which is nearby and insist that the troll ‘has a decent point’. And this is excess of charity and the death of the board.

The end of the troll is not in his own speech, then, but in that of the others, when they take up his comments in as many ways as bring regret. For there is excess or deficiency in each response, and then more again in each response to that; and every responder chooses his own words lightly but demands exactitude from the rest, and while correcting the others he introduces something new and questionable. And so resentment is built up, and the slighting begins; and the strife is the work of the troll but the origin is not clear.

Trolls differ primarily in their for-the-sake-of-which: at any rate some troll for amusement, and a few for profit, but most as enemies and members of a faction. (Hence the troll is thought to be weak, and one who sits in pyjamas: for the advantage to the faction is not worth much, and a courageous enemy would fight in some other way.) And of these the amusement-troll is in a way the worst, for he aims only at his own gratification. But this one is also the least harmful; for he is careless and easy to discern, coming close to being a lover of controversy. And since trolling is in each case a matter of choice, no one is ever a troll involuntarily or by accident, but only an idiot who has posted in the wrong thread.

One might wonder whether there is an art of trolling and an excellence; and indeed some say that Socrates was a troll, and so that the good man also trolls. And this is in fact what the troll claims: that he is a gadfly and beneficial, and without him to ‘stir up’ the thread it would become dull and unintelligent. But this is incorrect. For Socrates was speaking frankly when he told the Athenians to care for their souls, rather than money and honors, and showed that they lacked knowledge. And this is not trolling but the contrary, exhortation and truth-telling—even if the citizens get very annoyed. For annoyance results from many kinds of speech; and the peculiarity [_idion_] of the troll is not annoyance or controversy in general, but confusion and strife among a community who really agree. And since the one who does this on every occasion must act with knowledge, and on the basis of practice and care, he has a kind of art—just as one might speak of the art of the hack or of the grifter. But it is not really an art, being without any function; and it belongs not to the serious person to be a troll but to the one who lacks education.

What the troll is, and in what way he trolls and for what, has now been said. And it is clear from this that there can be trolling outside the internet. For every community of speakers holds certain goods in common, and with them the conversation [_dialegesthai_] as an end in itself; and the troll is one who seeks to damage it from within. So a questioner can troll a political meeting, and academics troll each other in committees when they are bored; and a newspaper columnist may be a profit-troll towards a whole city. But blogs and boards and forums and comments sections are where the troll dwells primarily and for the most part. For these are weak communities, and anyone may be part of them: and so their good is easily destroyed. Hence the saying, ‘Trolls <are> not to be fed’. But though everyone knows this, everyone does it; for the desire to be right on the internet is natural and present to all.

Rachel Barney (University of Toronto), Journal of the American Philosophical Association, Vol 2, Issue 2, July 2016, pp. 193-195


----------



## dharvatis (Mar 27, 2017)

Ah, he was indeed wise, the old one!  
Thank you, daeman!


----------

