The Trollosphere

Following my recent post over at Orphans, I see Catherine Bennett wading into the discussions on trolling and a new word for my lexicon; trolloshpere.

Some, it seems, are not happy with the 18 week sentence handed down to Sean Duffy for his attacks on the Facebook page set up for Natasha MacBryde. Nor am I. I think it shouldn’t be a matter for the law at all. However, those who are unhappy are dissatisfied because it wasn’t enough.

Now, far be it for me to make such a simple point, but simple people seem to need simple points; Facebook has settings that allow you to restrict access to the page. Those who set up this page would have done well to limit it to those who knew the deceased. Logical, no? Even if not, they could have merely deleted Duffy’s comments. Do it often enough without engaging and the troll tires of the game. It is the rise they get from their victim that spurs them on. If they don’t get that bite, there is no game, no zest, no frisson to enjoy. As I pointed out at Orphans, ban and delete, it really is that simple. The use of the malicious communications act to deal with trolling is using a nuclear device to remove that buzzy fly trying to get out of your window. Way, way over the top. But we seem to have become a fragile species in recent years, unable to deal effectively with the nasty or stupid things people say without resorting to that nuclear option. Look for example at the case of Nathan Eccleston as highlighted by Julia.

Liverpool are investigating striker Nathan Eccleston for comments on Twitter that suggested the 11 September attacks were not the work of terrorists.

A tweet that has since been taken down said: “I ain’t going to say attack don’t let the media make u believe that was terrorist that did it. #OTIS.”

OTIS reportedly stands for Only the Illuminati Succeed.

Now, you know full well my opinion regarding the conspiracy theories that surround the Twin Towers attacks in 2001. However, I do not see how this silly tweet can be construed as offensive in the slightest and what, precisely is there to investigate? Idiot makes idiotic comment on Twitter –  one tweet made a twat. There, investigation all done. Where do I send my invoice?

The comments were silly, sure. Immature, well, yes. Ill-considered, even. But to suggest as the overblown, pompous football club seems to think, that he brought the organisation into disrepute is stretching the concept beyond its natural elasticity. You cannot bring football into disrepute –  not unless you want to squeeze between the dog turd and the pavement, that is…

Sure, there may be a clause in his contract about saying things that reflect badly on the club, but this had nothing to do with the club or what it does –  it was a persona opinion about an unrelated subject. And it seems that footballers aren’t allowed personal opinions now for fear that the  terminally thin skinned will break down and cry and we can’t be having that, now, can we? Besides, footballers aren’t employed for their intellect, so policing their injudicious comments would be a full time job, I suspect.

Again, way, way over the top reaction.

As an aside, does anyone else –  besides Julia and I –  find it creepy that we now have self-styled social media experts coming out of the woodwork to indulge us with their opinions and no doubt, expensive consultancy services?

Moving back to Bennett, I was taken by this paragraph:

Moreover, in a riveting interview published in Index on Censorship, an anonymous troll, calling himself Paulie Socash, also connects this form of mischief with a high-minded commitment to free speech, along with an equally grand, obviously insurmountable distaste for phoney sentiment, sanctimony, idées reçues. “We despise the smugness and arrogance of the average internet user or entrepreneur,” he informed Whitney Phillips, “but most of us also realise the real irony that everything we do drops more pennies in the pockets of those who control the actual virtual spaces. Honestly, Mark Zuckerberg has made millions because of trolls.”

I think he may have a point there… And there is indeed an irony. I also find my self in agreement about this tendency for mawkish open displays of grief. Grief is –  or should be –  a private matter. It may be that someone wants to set up a virtual book of condolence, but make it invite only so that only those who knew the deceased get to see it.

That said, I despise trolls as well and operate a zero tolerance approach. Well, almost zero tolerance. I’ll give ’em just enough rope before hitting the delete and ban as sometimes someone can be aggressive, yet have a valid argument to make. What I don’t do is go whining to the police asking, nay demanding, that the malicious communications act be invoked. Nor do I consider myself persecuted.

The subtext to these discussions is that it is anonymity that feeds trolling, that if we all exposed our real identities, we would all suddenly become polite. What would happen certainly is that some of the more colourful discussions would fall silent. I am sure I’m not alone in discussing matters openly online that I tend to steer clear of in the material world. This has nothing to do with trolling, but a desire to keep a degree of separation between the two worlds lest they collide. And when they do, Nathan Eccleston can tell us exactly what can happen.