The real problem is that bytes are effectively free. Here I am, using up your bytes right now. Using up the bytes on Hacker news. The only limit is my own time, effort, and energy.
You think this means that we're all equal; we all have equal access to sharing bytes. But the problem is that trolls have infinite time and energy to post bytes. They have significantly more power and influence than you do because of that simple fact. Trolls could, if they wanted, completely bring down hacker news with just endless content and it would be near impossible to stop.
I've had to deal with real determined trolls on some of my own sites that simply have infinite time to post, to write code to post, to obfuscate themselves -- a single troll can shout out dozens to hundreds of other people. This is why the trolls are winning.
It is an irrational belief that trolls have infinite time and energy. This is, in fact, the very idea of irrationality, who's concept indicates additional work must be done to determine outcome of choice, either by individual or by group. Note that I did not disagree with your assertions here, but simply seek to restate them in slightly different terms so they may be visualized by others more effectively.
Trolls may encapsulate irrational ideas, which may be visualized as memes, inside multiple illogical statements which may be designed to directly conflict with each other's truths. Evaluating one of these statements as a "truth" may cause the other statement to evaluate to false. Trolls may utilize statements in which evaluation of truth is not desirable to the entity visualizing the truth. Any attempt by the recipient to evaluate truth or non-truth of these statements may lead to additional work being conducted to achieve a desirable outcome, such as "winning an argument".
Additionally, these "double bind" memes, or internal visualizations, may effectively spread the irrationality to other actors if they are constructed correctly. These viral memes take root and spread when the new irrational actor posts more irrationality in the form of similar or modified logic patterns.
Trolls remove choice from individuals and groups by causing the individual and groups to work against each other. The only way to prevent this is to educate people on the concept of double bind statements, their use in removing choice for others, and the possibility that these concepts may spread virally, on their own accord, in a population which may or may not be conscious.
My primary suggestion for combat trolls in a quick and easy way is to simply not visualize removal of choice for another in your own internal frame. In other words, visualize choice for yourself in the future if you must, but avoid visualizing the actions of others! Stating your refusal to be illogical, or irrational, is usually enough to send the trolls scurrying away.
Note: A double bind and a double BLIND are two different concepts. Double binding someone has been likened to "crazy making" due to its effect of blocking decision making processes from occurring in a given entity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind
> It is an irrational belief that trolls have infinite time and energy.
Infinite is certainly a hyperbole; but trolls typically have more time and energy to devote to destruction than you do. I have experienced it. Some trolls are mentally ill -- I have had to deal with that as well.
I honestly don't know what else you're trying to say here but you did use a lot of bytes to do it.
> It is an irrational belief that trolls have infinite time and energy.
Unless they are well paid state-sponsored trolls. They still don't have infinite time or energy, but neither we do.
> The only way to prevent this is to educate people on the concept of double bind statements, their use in removing choice for others, and the possibility that these concepts may spread virally, on their own accord, in a population which may or may not be conscious.
Education is the solution. And I hope that we chose it.
Look how much more you expended than the person trolling you though. If you are willing to be manipulative, you can hassle people into wasting their time with pretty short comments.
Not the "if you are willing to be manipulative" statement. That is what defines a troll. A "troll" is simply an entity (of race human) who is willing to remove choice from others by tricking them into removing choice for themselves.
So, what is choice? I hypothesize it is work. Work done and saved on one hand. Work to be done on the other. Some of our choices are based on what has come before regarding the choice we must make. I like German beer, so I drink one each day. Some comes from other humans, however, who choose to remove our choice for us. Advertising does this, for example. Sometimes choice is removed from use of logic, or rationality.
It is my belief that our choices are, in part, governed by our visualization systems. I'm talking about that thing in your head that allows us to visualize images similar to what we see while using compute devices, such as this monitor, graphics card, computer I am typing on now.
If someone else, besides you, can get you to visualize something, I'm asserting that this is actually a choice of removal of choice by yourself.
Be spontaneous, is the quick and dirty example. ;) It's hard to have intent to be spontaneous, given it's the inverse of intent.
Other examples of internally held double-binds would be jobs, or relationships. Holding a job you do not like in order to live in a place which makes you happy is a double bind. Quitting the job can be imagined to increase happiness, but cause loss of place to live, which itself makes you happy. Loss of happiness is not desired, so quitting is not an option given moving may result in loss of happiness.
Let's look at a troll's use of a double bind, with intent to spread the double bind:
> Only by enlisting the full potential of women in our society will we be truly able to #MakeAmericaGreatAgain - @potus
This is a recent tweet by the President of the United States, Donald Trump. Trump presents two concepts, which are both shown to be irrational: 1. "We" do not enlist the full potential of women in society, and 2. "Our" society, America, is not currently great. Linking them together is achieved by saying "only", which implies that #1 must evaluate to truth in order for #2 to evaluate to truth. i.e. If women, as a group, do not attain their "full potential", and do so by choice for all of us, America will not be great again.
"Enlisting" is considered engaging someone in their support of a cause, by either willing or unwilling removal of choice. This statement is, technically, unwilling removal of choice from the group women AND unwilling removal of choice of an individual woman, given she is a member of group women. In this case, the removal of choice is actually done via the hypothesized, and forced, attainment of "full potential" of a woman and women, by "us" (which is really Trump speaking for all of us at this point). This is an impressive play on Trump's part, given this statement, in and of itself, is a double bind. Women, or any other entity or group for that matter, may only achieve their full potential by having internal choice for themselves. No other entity may speak for the potential in another without applying judgment, or removal of choice, from that individual AND be capable of staying rational while doing so.
By tacking on the idea of "making America great", any dismissal of the first concept, which again is itself a double bind, enables the use of blame for not wanting to make America great again. As with potential, America is only "great" if people think it's great. If it is to be made "great again", that implies it is not currently great, which itself is an irrational statement.
I think the counterpoint here is that it's much easier to make a script to automate the process of spreading misery than it is to make quality contributions to an online community.
Anil Dash actually wrote a great article about this. The short summary is you need real humans doing the moderating. All the tooling you create should be about enhancing those humans.
I banned an entire country once -- not the best way to go but after all other mitigations failed it was the last choice available. And it wasn't China or Russia.
It's almost impossible to give everyone the same number of bytes of work with -- if you can solve that problem you've solved it all.
You think this means that we're all equal; we all have equal access to sharing bytes. But the problem is that trolls have infinite time and energy to post bytes. They have significantly more power and influence than you do because of that simple fact. Trolls could, if they wanted, completely bring down hacker news with just endless content and it would be near impossible to stop.
I've had to deal with real determined trolls on some of my own sites that simply have infinite time to post, to write code to post, to obfuscate themselves -- a single troll can shout out dozens to hundreds of other people. This is why the trolls are winning.