The Irony Of Trolls

OK, for anyone who hasn't yet read it, you better read this NYT article, which is requisite to the understanding of this post and really interesting to just about anyone who uses the Internet and has ever been anywhere near a messageboard/blog/ any kind of domain where visitors can have their say... Those of you who have already may wish to read it again to refresh your memories.

Of the two prominent trolls dealt with in the article, the only one I can take even remotely seriously is the one with a real name, Jason Fortuny. The other one is called 'Weev,' looks as deranged as he sounds (check the eyes... the glint of madness is clearly present) and is apparently an anti-Semite. Plus, when I read his response to the article, my brain turned off about three paragraphs in, in protest at his unbelievable arrogance. Here's a short sample from his Livejournal to give you an idea of his mentality:

L: ET scared me, he was so ugly and gross.
W: Well, it is a Spielberg film, so its purpose is to get you to empathize with the Jews. The "lovable" main character is a lazy layabout who needs expensive medical care and has never had a real job or contributed anything to anyone, just sits around and eats the food of the white people who were kind enough to host it. Eventually it causes political drama and leaves for a far off land, never repaying the people it parasitically attached itself to.
L: So that's why he needed people to dial numbers. Must have been Shabbat.

Lovely chap, eh? I categorically refuse to link to him, since I have my readers' welfare at heart and you beautiful people are not deserving of such eye- and brain-poison.

Anyway, back to Jason Fortuny. The guy essentially justifies what he and his ilk do as: '“...like a pitcher telling a batter to put on his helmet by beaning him from the mound,"'. Apparently he was sexually abused and he obviously has issues which he's trying to ignore (he has cut contact with his mother, rather than trying to resolve things with her as many others would). I find it interesting then, that rather than trying to break the cycle, he is simply perpetuating it. However, the fact that he tried to compensate for the actions of another troll by writing a guide to safe Web surfing for epileptics is interesting, suggesting the hint of a conscience.

I find it really interesting that these trolls are simply expressing what are essentially rather reactionary ideas using the most cutting-edge means possible. I and probably several other people who read this article came away with a seriously uneasy feeling about trolls and the damage they can do. Yet I also was thinking all the way through that like all barely-developed beings (i.e. children), if you don't give them attention, then they're going to get tired of their 'lulz' seeking and get lost.

And guess what... Mr. Fortuny has said as much himself, it would seem! Here's a sample quote from his response to the article:

The only thing that I'm sad wasn't covered is the one troll ethic: you'll never see us go after someone who has their act together. If they say or do intelligent, clever, witty, insightful things, we'll be the first to cheer and shower them with praise. We love smart people.

But God help you if you're a drama queen who complains about having a broken back that's prevented you from seeing the world in one blog post and the next day posts an ugly naked arched-back-on-a-jungle-gym photo talking about how worldly you are. You are batshit crazy, and we're going to troll you until you break.

Would you look at that! Despite the talk of trolls having ethics and him showing more ability to think than the other fella, Fortuny has more or less gone and admitted that:

a) trolls are simply an online hybrid of a stalker and a bully
b) these are people of a very reactionary and absolute cast of mind (not like Mr. Loonybin's Jew-hating didn't illustrate that earlier).


First off: nobody but nobody 'has their act together.' Especially on the Internet of all places... I mean for Chrissakes, unless you're webcamming and voice-chatting with somebody, you CANNOT get a full idea of someone's personality! Earlier in the article:

The willingness of trolling “victims” to be hurt by words, he [Fortuny] argued, makes them complicit, and trolling will end as soon as we all get over it.

I find this a bit rich when what he and his ilk are doing is reducing people to the mere level of the words and/or information they have put up on the Internet (intentionally or otherwise). Though somebody like him might argue that voice, gestures, tone etc. don't add much to a person's personality, THEY DO.

That is attested to by the fact that he might just have seemed like a total sociopath, until the writer Mattathias Schwartz met him and fleshed him out with physical and behavioural descriptions which showed him to be a fairly normal person with an unpleasant past and asshole tendencies when online.

Secondly: who are the hell are you to decide what is acceptable behaviour from somebody, especially in a context such as that just described, when a person can be only partially known? If anything, trolls like this sound more than anything bitter because they can't control the Internet wholesale. They limit themselves to policing it in their own twisted fashion instead. I know that everyone judges everyone else, but for people to be doing so on the Internet makes me a little annoyed since I consider it possibly the most democratic form of communication there is in the world. Also, for trolls - people of very fixed opinions and little nuance, who would never have the guts to do the same thing in real life - to position themselves as the regulators of the Web is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

These are the sorts of people who considered a teenage girl with depression fair game for their exploits - AFTER her death.

Anyway, enough of the trolls. I am apprehensive because it is an old school friend's birthday dinner tomorrow (even though her birthday was at the beginning of the month, and we went out then too...?) and a certain assortment of my old school friends have the tendency to pick shit places to eat - big-name places where the prices are high (especially for me) and the food is desperately sub-par at best.

Last time, we went to TGI Friday's and I had a thoroughly regrettable experience where I spent most of the evening staring into space as though traumatised, and smiling waterily as two of my friends descended into a storm of furious mutterings and furtive mumblings over how fit the waiter was.

Tomorrow we are going to a place in Camden that looks to be more of the same. Chatting to a friend who shares my feelings on these matters today, I came to a decision: no more. It is time to stand firm and take action on this wholly un-democratic matter where the place was chosen apparently by the elected candidate of their choice without our counsel or approval.

I'm going to eat before I go.

However, might I say that I am seeing my new skinny friend (;-P) on Sunday, and I am very much looking forward to it! He's going to learn what good cheap eatins' tastes like. Hopefully.