INTERNET TROLLS

Here are some examples explaining "what is an troll"



Where Do You Find Internet Trolls?        

• 
   Internet trolls are sadly common. They can be found wherever online users interact with each other. Trolls will abuse others in news blogs, political discussion forums, hobbyist communities online, Facebook pages, torrent search engine conversations, and in online game chat. Trolls have become very common in news sites. Many online news sources now avoid using open comment features because so many internet trolls will use this venue to post abusive comments as responses to news articles.   
  

• Trolls will narcissistically dominate conversations, trying to make themselves the centre of attention.
  
• Trolls will post abusive and hurtful comments directed at a specific person (aka "flaming" another person)
  
• Trolls consider themselves separate from the social order.
  
• The only way to deal with a troll is to ignore him
  

• Trolls like a big audience, so they frequent blog sites, news sites, discussion forums, and game chat. Trolls thrive in any environment where they are allowed to make public comments
  

Why Do People Enjoy Being Internet Trolls?       

It is a kind of power rush or ego trip to be a troll. Being online is a place that is largely free of perceived consequences... an insecure person can get a sense of power online, without ever having to face someone directly. With the Internet being a world of imagination and fantasy for some, cowardly users can forge an alter ego for themselves, and act out their feelings of anger and inadequacy. It's sad and unfortunate that our advanced communications also brings out the darker side of many people.


Trolls are immune to criticism and logical arguments. True trolls cannot be reasoned with, regardless of how sound your logical argument is.

cowardly users can forge an alter ego for themselves

That part I find interesting. Is it 'forging' an alter ego? Or finding a voice that they feel otherwise would not be able to use? I wonder how far the Saville investigation would have got without some being allowed to voice themselves in an anonymous kind of way...in fact do the police not usually say 'speak to us in confidence, and with anonimity'

To me, I think the internet forums etc has given something to those who would not normally speak out, is that a bad thing? The above article on 'what a troll is' would not be my interpretation. Trolls are only interested in being abusive, and have no interest in the main aspects of what is being discussed. 

So according this article, if you are not confident enough to face someone directly, you have no right to speak out?

thetruthbeknown wrote:cowardly users can forge an alter ego for themselves

That part I find interesting. Is it 'forging' an alter ego? Or finding a voice that they feel otherwise would not be able to use? I wonder how far the Saville investigation would have got without some being allowed to voice themselves in an anonymous kind of way...in fact do the police not usually say 'speak to us in confidence, and with anonimity'

To me, I think the internet forums etc has given something to those who would not normally speak out, is that a bad thing? The above article on 'what a troll is' would not be my interpretation. Trolls are only interested in being abusive, and have no interest in the main aspects of what is being discussed. 

So according this article, if you are not confident enough to face someone directly, you have no right to speak out?

I think the 'trolls' -those 'cowardly'  people who do not use their own  name provide a good source of information on how the general public feel  about current issues.

So very valuable information imo for the government and others.

What I do think is cowardly is to pretend to do everything under one's own name and yet have any number of  other IDs.

Using an alias is nothing new, think of the Letters to the Times  and the 'Disgusted from Tunbridge Wells'  in the past.
Surely very much the same thing if on request your name is witheld from comments?  I think it's still seen in comments in many newspapers.

The avatars on the internet are just a logical  extension of that custom.

Screenshot 8.42 local time

There really should be nothing to discuss here. Of course people are allowed to express their views, using an anonymous name or not.

This is an attack orchestrated by the worst offenders, as usual. 

What is dishonest and unacceptable, in my view, is the hiring of false people to post or present a view which is not necessarily their own, but that preferred by the hirer.

This is goes under the name of reputation management theses days and is a particular problem for example in the tourist trade, where I can easily find 'managed' comments on hotel booking sites. Lots of comments from unlikely and probably non-existant visitors who are all coincidentally stressing the same positive view, raising the score to a target level before easing off. They often appear en masse following a real negative review.

The same technique is being applied in the UK, I don't see it elsewhere, to mould opinion and to pave the way for political actions. 

Assuming, for I don't know, that the army of twitterers who attack pro Maddie people, and the usurpers who specialise in forum disruption have gone away at least for the moment, the question is ...are these people false posters who are orgainised and motivated to express the view of someone else ? If so, this is dishonest, this is trolling. Who directs it ?  How are people motivated to express the view of someone else ?

I think one of the reason there seems to be an all-out war against so-called Trolls at the moment is that the internet is allowing information to spread at lightening speed and the level of dissent amongst the population is escalating exponentially. From recent hacking scandals, MP expenses fiddles, to police and government cover-ups, investigations into high-level pedophile rings involving politicians and celebrities and so on, the powers that be are in panic mode. There don't seem to be so many dark corners for the corruption to hide in. The internet has seen the rise of a new species, The Commentariat, those who at last can feel they are somehow striking back after decades of being bamboozled and fed cr@p by the main stream media.

The level of vitriol often spouted on the internet is merely a marker of the inner frustration and anger felt by many. So as we have seen recently. Brenda Leyland vilified by that gutter journalist Malone, "a twisted fecking bitch" as she said to an audience of millions. Brenda had a minuscule audience by comparison and I have yet to see evidence of one of her Tweets that matches the "potty language" of the grotesque Malone. In this alone we see the absolute double standards at play. Boris Johnson recently said members of UKIP were the sorts of people who had sex with vacuum cleaners of all bizarre things, and the media just chuckle at his buffoonery and eccentricity. Had Brenda Leyland said that of Gerry McCann, no doubt it would have been front page news and "proof" of her "abusive attack".

The war on Trolls is NOT a sign of how wicked and vitriolic the public can be, but concrete proof that the wheels of the sordid propaganda machine are falling of. There is a change of tide that is becoming unstoppable. As Lord McAlpine said in his book about Machiavelli, those that challenge and expose an agenda must be demonised and degraded or something close to that effect.

When the Government and media go on the attack like this it becomes incontrovertible that the truth is being exposed.

Thetruth wrote:There really should be nothing to discuss here. Of course people are allowed to express their views, using an anonymous name or not.

This is an attack orchestrated by the worst offenders, as usual. 

What is dishonest and unacceptable, in my view, is the hiring of false people to post or present a view which is not necessarily their own, but that preferred by the hirer.

This is goes under the name of reputation management theses days and is a particular problem for example in the tourist trade, where I can easily find 'managed' comments on hotel booking sites. Lots of comments from unlikely and probably non-existant visitors who are all coincidentally stressing the same positive view, raising the score to a target level before easing off. They often appear en masse following a real negative review.

The same technique is being applied in the UK, I don't see it elsewhere, to mould opinion and to pave the way for political actions. 

Assuming, for I don't know, that the army of twitterers who attack pro Maddie people, and the usurpers who specialise in forum disruption have gone away at least for the moment, the question is ...are these people false posters who are orgainised and motivated to express the view of someone else ? If so, this is dishonest, this is trolling. Who directs it ?  How are people motivated to express the view of someone else ?

It all started with New Labour- I've just been reading up about it. Common Purpose And Editorial Intelligence, Blair was also completely on board with the 'Project for the New American Century' .
Yuk!

http://order-order.com/2014/10/20/richs-monday-morning-view-88/#comments


Troll banged up in Belmarsh prison.

ETA best comment

I don’t think Twitter trolls should be given longer sentences. They should be made to stick to 140 characters like the rest of us.

Thetruth wrote:What is dishonest and unacceptable, in my view, is the hiring of false people to post or present a view which is not necessarily their own, but that preferred by the hirer.

This is goes under the name of reputation management theses days....

Yes, there are companies for hire now who accept payment to post on the internet whatever they are asked. Be it truth or not truth.

The mind boggles. Money talks as it always does.

But this has been going on longer on a secret basis in my opinion to disrupt the outlets where critcial thinkers post. Forums like this one.

@Bbag

100 per cent sure it has been going on here.

My point is that these people are organized by someone. They are directed.

The latest game is not to attack what people say, but their right to say it.

And why now? After years of internet comment, why this sudden witch hunt against dissenters? What is about to be or has recently been disclosed on social media that would have HUGE ramifications?

Certain high- level paedophiles that have recently been exposed by the main stream media have been doing the rounds on the internet for years. Something MUST be out there that the Government are desperate to bury.

Paedophiles?
Terror hoaxes and false flags?
Ebola a "man-made" virus?
Vaccines unsafe for children?

It would have to be something which is a HUGE crime by the powers that be inflicted on innocent citizens IMO.

Thetruth wrote:

ETA best comment

I don’t think Twitter trolls should be given longer sentences. They should be made to stick to 140 characters like the rest of us.

Brilliant comment! Made me do a genuine lol!

Haha the Truth! Very droll. It does highlight the pathetically obvious attempt to control and censor the net.
Why is it that its ok to have all sorts of obscene footage on the net and tv (over here anyway), but not ok for people to take to social networks to see that justice is done? The fact that our precious children, who know so much better than the old folks how to to get past parental censorships, may have free reign to view violence and pornography seems to be ok with tptb, but blogs helping to find justice for a little girl needs to be censored, and bloggers jailed, tells us that there us a fundamental problem with the governing hierarchy. We all know that if it were not for the blogging public, the zleb pair would have been home and dry.

Common Purpose worries me more than anything. Funnily enough, I found about them through McCann discussion forums, and, since this whole thing started, have ended up working for two employers infiltrated by CP. It's now coming to light that one of them has been engaged in some of the most shamelessly corrupt activity, in many, many areas, and the other has been embroiled in smaller-scale, but equally worrying, scandal. I genuinely fear that intervention is going to bring this country to its knees, but have no idea how to do anything about it, particularly as most people don't have the slightest clue who they are.

Off at a bit of a tangent, but, as part of my other interests in local corruption, I've come across someone with the username 'trollhunter' and wondered if this was just a coincidence and if people with a similar disposition might happen to pick the same name.

Off at another tangent: When there was all the controversy about Tony Blair picking up an award for philanthropy, I happened to notice that one of his so-called 'charidees' was, essentially, Common Purpose for six African countries. This should be setting off massive alarm bells.

People the world over are virtually leaderless, as governments have become self serving lawless institutions, looking out only for their own, and big business interests.
Some people, who are aware, have come to realize this to mean that the sheep have been scattered, and there is no Shepard for the sheep.
There is a huge lack of knowledge, and there is no one to take the initiative, as we have all become the helpless slaves to a system which at the time looked honorable, is today revealing itself as a huge self serving golem.

For the good and the honorable, the pen is the sword, which cuts through, and exposes all lies. Hence the huge efforts to censor the net.

Snifferdog wrote:People the world over are virtually leaderless, as governments have become self serving lawless institutions, looking out only for their own, and big business interests.
Some people, who are aware, have come to realize this to mean that the sheep have been scattered, and there is no Shepard for the sheep.
There is a huge lack of knowledge, and there is no one to take the initiative, as we have all become the helpless slaves to a system which at the time looked honorable,  is today revealing itself as a huge self serving golem.

For the good and the honorable, the pen is the sword, which cuts through, and exposes all lies.  Hence the huge efforts to censor the net.

Well said. I think it is the TPTB in their death throes. They won't be able to stop the Awakening that is already in motion and has been now for a while. The truth is out there because it is within us all, some just aren't awakening yet at this point in time, but i believe everything is going according to what needs be & Evil will never win, but some still have yet to learn that.

https://audioboom.com/boos/2577603-jail-threat-for-internet-trolls-kate-smurthwaite-jim-gamble-kthopkins-discuss

A discussion on Internet Trolls. Check out how quickly the McCann discussion is closed down, much to Katie Hopkins' consternation.

Quote from an online article in The Independent by Grace Dent.

"Take an example like Sky News’s recent investigation into Brenda Leyland and her anti-McCann family tweets; Leyland was classed by many branches of the media as a “troll”. But while she might have sent thousands of unpleasant tweets, the McCanns don’t have a Twitter account so could she really be abusing them? Also, Leyland believed in her “cause” so it could be argued she was only telling her “truth” to power, which in the United Kingdom was her right"

At last a small voice of sanity crying in the wilderness.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:https://audioboom.com/boos/2577603-jail-threat-for-internet-trolls-kate-smurthwaite-jim-gamble-kthopkins-discuss

A discussion on Internet Trolls. Check out how quickly the McCann discussion is closed down, much to Katie Hopkins' consternation.

I have been reading  this case for many months now and think Katie Hopkins is doing a great job here standing her ground.I felt I just had to say something.I  also thought  the host was very hostile to her.  
Sarah

sarliv wrote:

Clay Regazzoni wrote:https://audioboom.com/boos/2577603-jail-threat-for-internet-trolls-kate-smurthwaite-jim-gamble-kthopkins-discuss

A discussion on Internet Trolls. Check out how quickly the McCann discussion is closed down, much to Katie Hopkins' consternation.

I have been reading  this case for many months now and think Katie Hopkins is doing a great job here standing her ground.I felt I just had to say something.I  also thought  the host was very hostile to her.

Welcome sarliv, and I agree. There was almost tangible panic in his ever rising voice as he tried to stamp out any possible mention of 'the McCanns'.
Clearly a press taboo.
All the more reason to carry on carrying on.
More and more people are joining forces, becoming vocal and Brenda's death will be no more forgotten than Madeleine's.

bobbin wrote:

sarliv wrote:

Clay Regazzoni wrote:https://audioboom.com/boos/2577603-jail-threat-for-internet-trolls-kate-smurthwaite-jim-gamble-kthopkins-discuss

A discussion on Internet Trolls. Check out how quickly the McCann discussion is closed down, much to Katie Hopkins' consternation.

I have been reading  this case for many months now and think Katie Hopkins is doing a great job here standing her ground.I felt I just had to say something.I  also thought  the host was very hostile to her.

Welcome sarliv, and I agree. There was almost tangible panic in his ever rising voice as he tried to stamp out any possible mention of 'the McCanns'.
Clearly a press taboo.
All the more reason to carry on carrying on.
More and more people are joining forces, becoming vocal and Brenda's death will be no more forgotten than Madeleine's.

How interesting, yes there was real panic in his voice as he tried to get her off the subject of the McC's.

What more evidence does one need that there is indeed a gagging of the media in the McCann case.

The interviewer had to shout "WE ARE NOT TO TALK ABOUT THE MCCANNS".

Well. there ya go.

Woofer wrote:What more evidence does one need that there is indeed a gagging of the media in the McCann case.

The interviewer had to shout "WE ARE NOT TO TALK ABOUT THE MCCANNS".

Well. there ya go.

Yes, that's the bit that really stuck out.

Surprise surprise and how USEFUL.

He's as good as a whistle blower although he hasn't voluntarily come forward in that capacity.

Under pressure he has LET THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG which is what we have all SUSPECTED and now KNOW TO BE TRUE.

I don't know who he is but yes, Kate and Gerry and all of the other cover-uppers, that piece of the jigsaw will come out of somewhere, who knows where, but with multiple players the lid can only be kept on for a limited amount of time.

Well done to Katie for rocking the boat so much that it has started to jettison some of its inhabitants.

Somehow this all puts me in mind (if my memory of it is correct) of the film 'The Great Escape' where a German officer walked up to a man getting off a bus and spoke in English to the man (suspected British escapee) and he replied in English. Please correct if my memory is incorrect. Either way, it's that unguarded moment.

It would be interesting to know what sort of gagging order has been applied because the MSM are only restricted on certain perspectives of the McCann case - they obviously still publish stuff about them but only as long as it`s nicey nicey.

I think with a D notice the MSM are not allowed to publish anything at all.

Thetruth wrote:@Bbag

100 per cent sure it has been going on here.

My point is that these people are organized by someone. They are directed.

The latest game is not to attack what people say, but their right to say it.

I think you have got it in one.

If Mitchell's job was to manage the media - who is managing the net?

The Daily Mail website attracts upwards of 56 million vistors per month
and according to reports it has enhanced the sale of newspapers too.

Like the TV there will be no more audiences like Morecambe and wise of 30 million
viewers and the press are in the same boat vis -the net.

The thing that irks the media is who is in charge of presenting the news and more to
the point what news to present to the people?

Increasingly the news agenda is being taken out of their hands and they don't like it.

Politicians don't like it because they usually feed stories/political agendas to the mainstream
media in order to pass them on to the public. They are basically toe in the water exercises to
gauge public opinion. If the majority support them there is a chance they become policy.
If not they are buried never to be mentioned again.

Rupert Murdoch et al don't like it either because you don't by media institutions without having an
agenda neither. Most newspapers hardly make a profit and in the real business world you wouldn't
touch the press with a bargepole with a view to turning a profit.

Unless of course you need it to influence public opinion?

The cosy relationship between the press and some of the police forces has been exposed by the Levenson Inquiry
and there is more to come with The Mirror Group  I suspect. The News of the World was not the only paper to use
dodgy people.

Yet this relationship has been defended by the likes of Roy Greenslade as exposing stories that are in the public interest.
Personally I couldn't care less as to which current celebrity is doing what to another celebrity. The Weekly News and Titbits
used to supply that info years ago to the waiting masses so it's hardly innovative.

What I do care about is the nifty passing over of journalists of real public interest stories ( a la Jimmy Savile etc ) that was
known at the time but wasn't investigated because to do so was deemed as a risk for fear of being sued or worse sacked.

Exposing dead people ( whether true or false is easy- the dead can't sue) so the tough part for journalists is to expose
in the public interest current present day potential or alleged crimes.

They don't have the guts to do that and they never will but on the net there are some brave ( and maybe sometimes
over enthusiastic souls ) who are willing to stick their necks out.

Even if I disagree with them at least they have the guts to say what they say on pain of legal sanction.

Greenslade and the like sold their souls to the Devil ( metaphorically speaking of course ) a long long time ago.

The truth can hang as long as they can keep their salaries and pensions like some of the police.

There is no going back now for the net or the MSM.


The die is cast and no laws will stop people saying what they say.

Whether it is true or not.

The world is globalised and apart from completely closing the net down there is not much the Authorities can do
about it. Save making an example of a few people.

It won't work because it can't work.

There are too many playing the game in a globalised world.

p.s. Just a thought:

If the Authorities can get beheading videos closed down or removed from the net - what is stopping them from
removing child abuse videos?

One for Uncle Jim and friends I think.

sarliv wrote:

Clay Regazzoni wrote:https://audioboom.com/boos/2577603-jail-threat-for-internet-trolls-kate-smurthwaite-jim-gamble-kthopkins-discuss

A discussion on Internet Trolls. Check out how quickly the McCann discussion is closed down, much to Katie Hopkins' consternation.

I have been reading this case for many months now and think Katie Hopkins is doing a great job here standing her ground. I felt I just had to say something. I also thought  the host was very hostile to her.  
Sarah

Welcome to the forum Sarah/sarliv.

Katie Hopkins is indeed outspoken on this topic as indeed she is about many others.

However, I think she bases her arguments purely on the basis that the McCanns were guilty of poor child care by dining out leaving three young children on their own, whereas of course the first Portuguese investigation under Dr Goncalo Amaral reached an entirely different conclusion.

Yeah, Hopkins is calling on the McCanns for being instigators of their own woes, however I think she's just treading carefully and probably suspects them. She's certainly aware there's a media whitewash where they are concerned and she's intelligent enough to realise the reasons for that would be more than them being negligent parents. And anyone in the public eye who is critical of the McCanns is to be welcomed.

Woofer wrote:What more evidence does one need that there is indeed a gagging of the media in the McCann case.

The interviewer had to shout "WE ARE NOT TO TALK ABOUT THE MCCANNS".

Well. there ya go.

Indeed!