by Carol J. Bova
In March 2022, The Atlantic published an article, “Trolls Aren’t Like the Rest of Us,” by Arthur Brooks, a contributing writer at The Atlantic and the host of The Atlantic podcast “How to Build a Happy Life.”
Brooks wrote:
If you use the internet, the odds are about even that you’ll be mistreated there. A 2021 Pew Research report found that 41 percent of U.S. adults have personally experienced some form of online harassment. Fifty-five percent think it is a “major problem.” Seventy-five percent of the targets of online abuse say their most recent experience was on social media. I can’t think of any other area of voluntary interaction—with the possible exception of driving in rush-hour traffic—where people so frequently expose themselves to regular abuse.
But we are not helpless in the face of either online abusers or the ones flipping us off on the highway. In fact, they are mostly one and the same: bullies with personality disorders. And you can protect your happiness by dealing with them both in some tangible, practical ways.
He points out that “people try to reason with trolls or appeal to their better nature” and shares this link to research that explains why those approaches don’t work. Why? Because trolls usually want “to attract attention, exercise control, and manipulate others.”
I might have some strong notions, but I wouldn’t presume to diagnose a stranger’s mental quirks, so I suggest you read the research paper and the article for details on the maladjustments that lead people to engage in trolling.
What I will share here are the three strategies he offers.
1. Nonreceipt — A version of a Buddhist strategy for dealing with insults. You don’t have to reject the online abuse. You simply refuse to accept it.
2. Nonresponse – Not responding in any way (beyond perhaps, blocking and reporting an attacker.)
3. Non-anonymity -“As both research and common sense attest, allowing users to hide their identity abets abuse.”
When I posted that I would use my best judgement in moderating the Bacon’s Rebellion blog, I also said I would not explain my reasons for deletions and added a note that said, “The rules cover all of them.”
For those who missed the posted rules, here they are:
The rules are simple:
- No profanity… No clever efforts to evade the restriction by substituting characters or using synonyms.
- No ad hominem attacks; no insulting other commenters.
- No wandering way off topic. Stick to the topics raised in the post or logical offshoots of those topics.
- No snark. Well, exceptionally witty snark might be given special dispensation, but routine, run-of-the-mill snark will be deleted.
Commenters are welcome to disagree vigorously — that’s what makes the comments interesting to read. But the dialogue must be civil, and it must introduce new logic or new evidence to the discussion. Be assured that all points of view are welcome. They just must conform to the rules of civility and relevance. After certain commenters abused the opportunity to express their concerns on that blog post, I deleted most of them as off topic and not adding to the discussion in a positive way. (See Brooks strategies 1 and 2.) And in case certain parties haven’t figured it out yet, multiple postings of the same link beyond the original one objecting to an article’s validity will be deleted.
Take the time to read Brooks’ article. It might help you have a happier time on the internet this year. I know it’s already improved my mood and restored my confidence in moderating the Bacon’s Rebellion comments.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.