Well, GOG isn't the Something Awful forums or 4Chan, or a forum catering to console kiddies or the newest shiniest games. Trolls may wallow more happily in the shit over there. A troll's sty is his castle.

Not that a theoretical troll couldn't bait or operate anywhere, of course. But there are easier environments on the iNtRaWeBz. Even a "sophisticated" culture rag like Salon has a very vocal and vile cadre of trolls shadowing nearly every article written over there in the comments/feedback section with right-wing drivel and bilious "witticisms," so if GOG is mostly a clean bridge so far, all the better.

It turns out that the saying is just a way for authority figures to rationalize being too lazy to do anything about it.

Plus, it greatly under estimates the amount of harm that's done via psychological abuse.

Sounds like somebody's got some serious self-esteem issues, probably caused by inadequate parenting during early childhood.

Seriously, if you're the sort of person who's going to suffer serious psychological harm from being trolled via the internet, then for god's sake, disconnect the internet and never, EVER leave the house.

Just stay safe at home, wrapped in cotton wool, watching tv that's specifically aimed at pre-teens. You'll do alright. Maybe.

I guess even GOG staff can only be pushed so far.

That's patently untrue. Humans are social creatures and with the exception of sociopaths, psychopaths and folks with autism, what I said applies to just about everybody. In practice it's just not practical for everybody to avoid human contact because of these sorts of issues.

And it's definitely not just a matter of forum trolls either, it's sacks of crap like those that typically inhabit the HR department and some government agencies as well. Because they're technically within their realm of protection there's basically nothing that can be done about them, and consequently, they can do a lot of damage.

You might not recognize that it's happening, but I can all but guarantee that you'd be just as susceptible as anybody else is. It's the reason why hate speech is so successful in keeping certain folks in their place.

In my opinion people should still be able to say whatever they want, just not anonymously. So that way they'll think twice before trolling blatantly.

The article was about trolling on Facebook which isn't generally regarded as been anonymous.

When people say "people should be able to say what they want" they really mean "I think I should be able to say what I want". I'm sorry but this is a really childish attitude.

Part of being an adult is knowing the boundaries.

Dammit, stop foiling my feeble and obvious attempts to troll this thread with your well-reasoned arguments and truths! ;p

Seriously though, it's not just people with psychological and emotional dysfunctions that immune to having a mental breakdown just because they value other people's opinions of themselves more than they value their own.

There really are people out there who are thick-skinned, awesome, or just plain well-adjusted enough to shrug off being called nasty names without suffering "psychological harm".

They're called "normal people". And despite opinion I have seen put forward in this thread, they didn't suddenly stop existing after the 17th century.

Is it too late to say you're both right? SOME people are traumatized by the harassing and haranguing (such as the teenager in the article) AND there are people who are not and let it roll off their backs. Both are 'Normal' people - though what that means is open to interpretation - and both are affected by Trolling, though in different ways.

I'm sorry but I think you've got it wrong.

I don't want this post to be TOO long-winded, but let me at least try to outline this:

1* Speech, whether written or spoken, can be informative (AKA "constative") but may as well not - it can be "performative".
When a guy with a baseball bat say "I'm going to hurt you", that's not a constative sentence. That's not trolling. That's "threatening".
2* Let's define trolling as "person A expressing statements X he does not believe in, where statements X use highly evocative language, are designed meticulously to contain views which target audience disagrees with and will be angered by. X can be formally wrong and usually are as incoherent and ignorant as is possible without getting so contrived as not to be trusted as actual beliefs of person X."
3* Many people are ignorant in many different fields, while retaining an illusion of competence. We should know better than to lash out, get angry, insult them. If we (think we) know the truth - we should try to explain it.
4* If neither person X nor person Y know the truth, yet have mutually exclusive convictions on the subject, they should try to search for the truth together, perhaps asking a wise man, person Z, to tell them who (if anyone) was right.
5* If a matter is subjective and no objective truth exists, person X should listen to what person Y thinks, if only to understand him better and possibly enrich their minds and souls.
6* If a person is unreasonable - getting upset is helping no one. If you can't reason with someone - either wait for them or help them to change that. If that fails - walk away.
7* Con artists don't manage to scam people out of their money because their "mark" is too gullible and innocent. On the contrary - "you can't con an honest John". People get scammed because they want to exploit others and in turn - get exploited themselves. Kantian justice, you might say...
8* Trolls don't thrive because people are reasonable, nice and helpful. Quite the contrary - troll would be helpless in such a community. They'd get smothered will calm explanations, love and understanding.
9* To all of you people lamenting "psychological traumas" which can occur - the ancient stoics would disappointedly shake their heads at you and call you pussies (in their fancy ancient terms).
Being sensitive is great, I would know. Being weak, on the other hand, is pitiful.
Children growing up in sterile environments develop allergies. Trying to shield ourselves from criticism, different opinions and even - yes - mean and stupid people... will make us unable to exist in a diverse, complicated world. Our imagination will also grow barren, as well as our mind in general.
No, I'm not saying we should be gluttons for linguistic punishment. However - just as pointless, painful and regular struggle hardens the body and helps it develop, so do mental ordains with the mind.
10* A personal anecdote - trolls don't thrive among philosophers.
I had classes with one guy, who tried virtually EVERYTHING to strike a debate, or better yet - a heated discussion. We've had Hitler for a few months straight, firemen, marriages, death penalty, torturing people, church-state segregation... Pretty much NOTHING worked. While the guy was "innocently" providing us with will more and more controversial topics and statements, people just sat there, calmly gazing at him and waiting. We had a few discussions, but only because he cracked and started asking questions, which we tried to analyze like the little pros we were.
11* Trolling pretty much requires the person doing it to be more intelligent, socially competent and composed than his victims. Think about it - it's not about saying something, ANYTHING and wondering what will happen (that's what I love to do!). A troll "wins" when the trollee acts the way he planned, he predicted, he wanted him to. This might be my personal little pet peeve, but there is nothing, NOTHING more insulting than (apparently) reducing a person to a thing (objectifying), an algorithm you can analyze and predict, a puppet you can manipulate to do what you want it to.
12* A) If you can outsmart a troll - you can confidently and patiently dismantle his arguments, making them null and void. If he repeats them without proving your explanation wrong - you can recycle, though at this point you can either out such a person as unintelligent, unreasonable or proceed to B.
B) If your social intuitions are correctly attuned - you win. You figured out he was a troll, you're immune to all further attacks.
C) If you're a calm and composed (some might say "stoic") enough person - you win. Your mind cannot be breached, you will not throw a fit, the troll is wasting his time on you.
Remember - you only need to be superior in ONE category.
13* To conclude this little analysis - I think people should be smart, empathetic and composed. Trolls don't prey on good people - they attack the weak {side note: a "virtue" is "being good (at something)". Being "weak" is the opposite - it's a BAD thing. Don't let Christianity tell you otherwise. "Strength" means "virtue". For further reference - check out Nietzsche or simply contemplate which is better: pwning n00bs or getting pwned and being a n00b}.
14* Are the trolls to blame ? In some cases - perhaps. I'm not sure about all of them.
Are the trollees to blame ? Certainly.
Am I going to let someone "clever" make an analogy to blaming rape victims ? Most definitely not. What's the difference ? Here's the most amazing thing, which the ancients already knew - the only trauma a victim of trolling suffers is the one he brings upon himself. A moronic statement can't hurt you. A logical fallacy, in itself, can't do jack.
15* Be strong, be nice, be reasonable. Shove that red minus into the depths of the web, if need be. Mark spam as spam. If you get angry - don't blame anyone but yourself, or better yet - don't blame ANYONE. Just stop it and think. Thinking is what earns you the right to call yourself a human being after all...

Face it, Linux fucks!

/trololololololololo

I see a bit of truth in both. Thelovebat seems to be supporting free speech and Egotomb supports a sense of common decency. In the case of the article, what the people who were jailed, fined or fired for trolling were saying would never be consider decent even in the form of a joke. They are still people with rights of free speech that deserve to be protected however their comments border on sociopathy and the public deserve to be protected as well.

I think I would side more with Egotomb on this one, but I like Thelovebat's suggestion of reviled annominity. For instance, I would not consider imprisonment to be a proper punishment, the case where the individual was fired seems more appropriate, he was expected to uphold a level of decency in his workplace and he failed to do so. His annonimity was removed and he was forced to pay the price in social justice. Google+ has restricted people from using false names on their profile and I think this is a great deterrent for trolling on their site. It forces people to uphold a certain level of decency because their real personality will have to deal with the consequences of what their online personality does. They still are protected by free speech, but the social laws which govern our interactions in real life will apply to online interaction.

Trolling isn't a new phenomenon, the internet has simply provided another medium for people to do it with ease. As wpegg said, it could simply be common assault for the purposes of Offences Against the Persons Act - making someone apprehend immediate bodily harm.

For example, in R v Ireland, the defendant used to make silent phone calls to the victim - a single woman living alone - occasionally breathing heavily, etc. Even though he never made any direct threats, she was scared witless by the abuse and feared for her safety because she was expecting a stalker to break in or something like that.

This criteria could also be established for some, albeit a narrow, line of cases concerning abuse on the internet, though probably not for trolling in the most common sense.

Masterful mini-treatise, right on the money.

My salute, sir! +1