TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 9 °C Friday 24 May, 2013

Column: Why internet trolls exist and why they’re unlikely to go away

Ciarán Mc Mahon writes on the theories behind internet trolling and explains why, as long as there is a free and open internet, they’re probably not going to go away.

Ciarán Mc Mahon

THERE’S SOMETHING OF an assumption that the current internet is the beginning of a gradually unfolding utopia, one that start-up companies always seem to overhype – ‘and then, once you’ve logged in, you can connect everything with everyone! won’t that be amazing?!’

It’s as if the internet will help us discover our true, deep and meaningful selves, where information is free and we can all just hang out and play with kittens.

The reality of is quite different: long before one might consider exploring things like the ‘deep web’, one will inevitably encounter a troll or two. Definitions differ about what constitutes a troll, but suffice it to say that a troll is generally understood as someone who uses anonymous identities when online in order to insult others or intentionally stoke debate. The term is originally old Norse – see the old Three Billy Goats Gruff fairytale – but has been used in an online context for over twenty years.

The question is though, why is such behaviour so prevalent online? There has been remarkably little academic research into trolling, but we can point to a few concepts which might lie behind it.

Firstly, we have to recognise the fact that online communication is the most profound shift in human communication yet invented. Marshall McLuhan recognised 40 years ago that this would change us. What makes it so different is that it is carried out privately, yet is instantly public, which we struggle to comprehend.

I just looked here and got the fright of my life – my last 50 tweets made a total of 36,902 impressions. Unlike other technologies, like radio, anyone can do this, and it’s all done silently – you can be chatting on Facebook in total quietness. This is a weird way to communicate and it’s going to take a while to get used to it.

Provocative

This also relates to the one per cent rule – for every person creating content online, there could be as many as 99 more simply watching. Participation inequality like this means that when you post something and two or three people reply, it might feel like a private conversation, but there’s probably three hundred people watching. Moreover, when no-one replies, you might write increasingly provocative posts – to simply see if anyone is listening.

That leads on to what’s known as hyperpersonal communication. In the early days of computers social scientist expected that that they would be little used for communication, because through such a medium it’s hard to convey emotions, which necessary for human relationships to develop.

But we found ways – lol :) – and what often happens is the complete opposite. Because we can’t see facial expressions, vocal tone and body language, we make an extra effort to fill them in. As such, we can get angrier or more annoyed and simply more emotional when communicating online than if we had been doing so face-to-face.

Furthermore, the fact that we can so selectively present who we want to be online means that you can make a reasonable attempt to be an entirely different person. It’s quite possible to simply lose yourself as there is absolutely no obligation to use your real name.

No punishments

This is engenders things like disinhibition (opening up, saying and doing things that you normally wouldn’t) deindividuation (losing your sense of self and becoming more likely to go along with the mood of the crowd) and possibly even dissociation (losing awareness of one’s surroundings and context). It’s also possible to be an asshole on the internet. Most don’t, some do – but why?

There’s no straightforward answer, but I believe it goes back to the super dreamy wonderclub idea of the internet that we’ve bought into. It assumes we’re all nice people, and the reality is that we aren’t: some people actually are assholes. The reason why this is more prevalent online is simply because there are no rules, no morality, and no punishments.

Offline, ‘in real life’, because assholes exist, we have laws and a legal system to deal with them; online, there is barely a clear code of conduct: nothing really happens when someone is an asshole. Only recently has it actually happened where people have been convicted of crimes online, which for decades they would have been instantly arrested had they done so anywhere else.

While there will be calls for ‘rules on the internet’, these will continue to be resisted as it is impossible to remove rights from people who have gotten used to exercising them. Watch how ‘internet rights freedoms’ are vociferously defended in the face of any attempt to curtail anonymity online – the very anonymity that allows trolls to survive.

The simple fact is that it’s impossible to have a free and open internet culture without providing opportunities for trolling behaviour. As internet dude Anil Dash puts it, ‘don’t hate the troll, hate the bridge’.

Dr Ciarán Mc Mahon is a psychologist and researcher in politics and social media. He blogs both at candidate.ie and ciaranmcmahon.ie and can be followed @cjamcmahon

Column: How I came to shake the hand of a troll

Read next:

Comments (123 Comments)

  • “The term is originally old Norse – see the old Three Billy Goats Gruff fairytale – but has been used in an online context for over twenty years.”

    No. Trolling, in internet terminology, comes from the practice of trolling for fish, dragging a bait on a line and looking for bites. The troll plants inflammatory comments in a threads, and then stands back and enjoys the ensuing flame war.

    Reply
  • ‘Cleaning up Gaza and returning it to it’s rightful owners: the Jews’: a rationale for ethnic cleansing at best- Nazism at worst.

    The comparison of Palestinians to rabid dogs sounds like anti-semitic Nazi propaganda also.

    Reply
  • While most people are decent we all have our faults, our biases, our dislikes and our nasty sides and to be honest when there are less barriers our more extreme sides tend to emerge. The internet (and comment sites) are an amplification process so as much as it amplifies our good sides, it also amplifies our bad points. Before we could have a rant in the pub with a few friends, now we can rant to thousands. And because we don’t know these people personally and we can comment anonymously the barriers to good behaviour become lower so people have a tendency to be more extreme.

    People feel free to say things online that they would probably never say directly to other people because ultimately there are for the most part no penalties to those comments. For example, if I expressed racist or xenophobic tendencies in my comments to my friends some of them might pull me up on that and I might be forced question my attitudes or change my behaviour if I want to retain those friends. Because that sort of restriction doesn’t exist on the Internet there is no reason for me to question anything. I can simply ignore any comments that come back at me because I don’t know those people personally and their opinions don’t matter to me.

    Personally I try to frame every comment I make on the Internet as if it was a pesonal comment to somebody even on sites like this. That forces me to think of them as an individual and it moderates my thought processes but sometimes its not easy especially when confronted with extremist comments and some of nasty personal vitriol you see. And like everybody else I’m far from perfect and so there are times when I can go on as good a rant as any and generally regret that later on.

    However if people thought a little more before dashing off a post and clicking ‘Submit’ then yes the Internet might be a nicer place!

    Reply
  • Ok, I’ll bite. I hope this article generates some decent debate here, as it is a debate that has been hanging around on this website for as long as I’ve been using it. It could if course descend into a street-brawl, and become a case-study for the article itself. That’d also be interestingness it’s way.

    At worst, trolling seems to be just another form of heckling and, as the article says, it’s the inevitable flip-side of free speech. Forums are still new compared to other forms of social interaction, so they haven’t settled into having standardised “acceptable” boundaries in the way face-to-face, telephones and letter-pages have. This makes saying “trolls are bad” into an opinion, not a consensus.

    At it’s best, trolls do serve a purpose, to stick a pin into the egos and self-importance of puffed-up posters. A whole crowd of Johnnycake Rottens or Christopher Hitchens’ attacking peoples certainties that they are more right than others. I have to say that, whole I’ve had some trolls latch onto me, that’s an easy price to pay if they also expose holier-than-thou bigots and hypocrites as being what they are. In this way, Penn and Teller were TVs equivalent to trolls with B*lls*t. Loud, obnoxious, crass and absolutely correct. I think we need this type of troll, they act as the essential checks and balances.

    Reply
  • The term ‘troll’ is often abused as a pejorative term on the internet. Too often you see people labelling others as trolls, simply because they don’t agree with their opinions. The reality is that most of the population of internet wouldn’t be able to recognise a good troll, but then again, with the master trolls you won’t even know you were being trolled.

    Reply
  • Sam 28/09/12 #

    Troll’s are actually fairly sound.

    Reply
  • censored 28/09/12 #

    Here’s a good troll – I got a laugh out of it:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19764166

    Reply
  • Oh for goodness sake..

    A troll is a mischief maker. They’re the online equivalent of a streaker at a football match, or someone mooning a president. It’s done for shock value, for amusement. Some people will not see the humour and decry it as disrespectful and others will just laugh at the absurdity of it and move on.

    The problem here is people keep muddling up trolls with cyber bullies.

    A bully is a bully. Whether they’re in the playground, at work, on the street or online. They’re sad individuals with little feeling of self worth and so in order to make themselves feel bigger they try to find people who are perceived as weaker to pick on.

    There’s a massive difference between the two, one is humour and the other is harassment.
    Bullies are a phenomenon that needs to be dealt with, and most places online have moderation or report functions to have the contributions of these bullies removed.

    I’d also like to address the little fallacious attack on those who use pseudonyms..
    Lets look at that for a moment.. The Internet is a public place, privacy is an elusive thing online. Even if you have all your profile settings locked down Facebook / google / twitter / LinkedIn etc are all selling your information to the highest bidder, and it’s up to you to determine how much info that is.
    Why give them your real name? Your address? Your current location?

    By the same token, I’ve had to report several profiles on Facebook because they were using my friends pictures but with a different name – what’s to say Mary Murphy or John Smith there (apologies if there’s any contributors here by that name, merely an example) are really who they say they are? All this “I use my real name and my real photo on here I don’t hide behind a pseudonym” is claptrap – I can’t verify you are who you say you are, but at least if Im gonna use a pseudonym Ill be honest about it.

    Then we stray into the “should pseudonyms be allowed” territory, well yes, they should. Our Gardaí aren’t supposed to reveal themselves on social media, some people may have been persecuted elsewhere and wish to keep their identity private – as is their right. All we have to do is read Leo Traynors precautionary tale as to why using your real name and checking in at home online can be a dangerous thing to do.

    By discouraging pseudonyms you merely make the bullies job easier. And the potential for escalation higher.

    There will always be bullies, there will always be unhinged people, and hopefully the Internet is here for a while yet. If we are gonna deal with this – it would help to identify what we are actually dealing with before indulging in a sea of fallacy.

    Reply
    • On using a false name; some of us are in a position where it would not be possible to use our real names to state personal opinions without having to cut and paste a mass of legalese into every comment made. No fun for anyone. It also would mean that a comment would not be taken at face value, what was said. But would be coloured by who said it. Anonymity is the easiest and best solution, despite it’s disadvantages.

      Reply
    • @ Shanti – your comment clicked with something Connected to a previous article; would you consider it acceptable or unacceptable for someone to use cyber-bullying tactics against a cyber-bully who repeatedly used the same tactics? That one has me in a bit of a moral quandary.

      Reply
    • Damocles 28/09/12 #

      What Shanti Om said.

      Couldn’t agree more.

      Reply
    • No, I don’t think think its really necessary to sink to the level of the one bullying you, and what happened to Leo Traynor was disgraceful, but also an example of what can happen when you are too free with your personal information online. He handled it very well to his credit but it should never have been allowed to get that far. Making death threats should always be taken seriously – if the bully doesn’t want to answer for their actions then perhaps they shouldn’t act that way.
      Your ISP can always be traced by law enforcement, whether you use a pseudonym or not. And as certain aspects of cyber bullying are merely online versions of things you would rightfully be questioned about in real life this should be the road we proceed down in dealing with it.

      We just need decent legislation that balances the right to anonymity with the right to be protected from harassment (as someone who has recently been the victim of real life harassment I can safely say that our laws offer very little protection on that front).

      Reply
    • censored 28/09/12 #

      Couldn’t agree more and I tend to think the people who get all concerned about anonymity are tending towards being cyber bullies themselves.

      Good article here:
      http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/12917/

      The “troll hunters” are the real menace to the internets and to free speech.

      Reply
    • I use my real name and sometimes allow location on Facebook and Twitter. Simply because I deal with friends and acquaintances. I also play a lot of online games and am member of quite a few online forums (have run a few before and one is still going although I left it in someone else’s hands). On these I’d never use my real name or give away too much personal information. I don’t want the potential hassle.

      I can tell a related story. On one of the forums I ran, a new guy joined. Although this was a worldwide forum with over 40,000 members, mainly US members, he mentioned in a post he was from Cork. In another story he mentioned a name of a friend and that name is certainly not common and happened to be my best friends name. He then in another thread told a story about that friend’s certain shenanigans of which I was also involved in. I eventually figured out who he was. One night out on Washington St in Cork I bumped into him. I referred to him as his handle on the forum and he had a mini heart attack. Small world. Even pseudonyms are not always effective.

      Reply
    • Andrew P 29/09/12 #

      tldr

      Reply
  • What would Psychologists do without Wikipedia? Can one write with authority and not know the difference between a noun and a verb? Would it be trolling to point this out or would that make someone a Troll? Could most Trolls be social researchers?

    A poor explanation as one psychologist’s ‘ass hole’ is another psychologist’s colleague.

    As you mention Leo Traynor’s article, If you read my comment on about Trolls I suggest his story is bogus and I can only assume it was his article which triggered this article.

    Reply
  • We just notice more because the latest generation of trolls are a bad batch. I remember the earlier days of Internet trolling when it was so subtle it was hard to tell if someone was being serious or not.

    Here are proper trolls, http://memebase.cheezburger.com/artoftrolling

    Reply
  • Paul 28/09/12 #

    Trolls are useful on the net. They should be classified i.e. mischievous, droll, trouble maker, dissector, etc.

    Reply
  • I will admit that I have, at times, when I’ve known the afternoon was going to be quiet, made comments that were designed to encourage other people to provide content for me to read. Never here though, I wouldn’t, I have far too much respect for all of you.

    Even then, I wouldn’t write something I didn’t believe even if I knew it might cause consternation for some people.

    Reply
  • Just because someone has a different opinion from that what is being stated, and defending that opinion with a robust discussion and argument doesnt make that person a troll. How do you expect people to give their true identities on line? Are you daft? Does it matter what your true identity is? I dont think so. If there is a debate that is heated, just because someone doesnt agree with the tide and does not jump the bandwagon or follow political correctness, but states his/her opinion clearly and without any abuse or profanity, that participant should NOT be labelled a troll. You just have to accept there will be differing opinions. There is so much censorship and blocking someone from making a point leads to bias and a trend that does not reflect the true feedback from / mood of those wanting to contribute productively. Jumping the bandwagon and being politically correct, sanitising debate and blocking people from responding with a differing opinion makes dull boring reading.

    Reply
  • I never knew what a troll was until I read that.
    I still don’t fully understand it but I think I might be one.

    Reply
  • Dmc 28/09/12 #

    Most of them are spotty little teenagers who have nothing better to do than jerk off to Ster Trek and play with their computer

    Reply
  • Were on entitled to voice our own opinion, or why would sites like this have a comment section. just because some one does not agree with the opinion of others hardly makes them a troll..

    And to be fair if a lot of people would take a min an claim down of there pedastool an get a sense of humour there would realise a thing called sarcasm.

    The obnoxious few who believe only there comment count maybe there the actuall trolls.

    long live the troll, aka people with a different opinion an sense of humour to you.

    Reply
  • censored 28/09/12 #

    I think the author is a troll himself.

    “Only recently has it actually happened where people have been convicted of crimes online, which for decades they would have been instantly arrested had they done so anywhere else.”

    Er, what? Any chance we can have that in English?

    Reply
  • I have my own opinions. So has everyone else.If you express an opinion as opposed to some comment that is designed to extract a reaction,and that opinion is ‘close to the bone’ or ‘insensitive’ or even ‘inflamatory’,does that make you a troll? .A large percentage of comments are well thought out , then you have the completely stupid comments that are allowed yet add nothing to the debate.If you are in the minority on this or that debate it seems perfectly okay to be called a troll or made fun of.I have my opinions and you have yours,I respect them even if I think your an idiot,your entitled to them.That said I would rather have a troll comment than some of the psuedo interlectual bullshit that some of the established commenters come out with.They hit the google trail and spin off facts that they had no idea about prior to the search and pass it off as wisdom and knowledge they are imbued with. 50/60 lines of facts and figures and dates and names and all the other bits of info that they assume nobody else knows.They are the real trolls…..shallow,sad and boring.You cannot blame an idiot for being an idiot. Its what they do.Its their nature. The cut and paste brigade,they are the real trolls,because,quite simply put ,They insult our intelligience .Red thumb away….I don’t care.

    Reply
    • Yeah, but trolls actively attack, they set out with intent to offend or get under peoples skin, as opposed to ill informed people.

      form http://www.knowyourmeme.com :

      Trolling is an Internet slang term used to describe any Internet user behavior that is meant to intentionally anger or frustrate someone else. It is often associated with online discussions where users are subjected to offensive or superfluous posts and messages in order to provoke a response.

      Reply
    • There’s some commentaters here that I like to discuss/argue with. **Sometimes I feel like I am trolling them** when I am just playing devil’s advocate which is something I do a lot. But those commentators that I reply to are the one’s I know I can actually have a discussion with. I pick and choose the one’s I’d like to spar with because I see so many idiotic comments here that if I had to reply to all flamebait I’d be here 24/7.

      Reply
    • Ty paul for the info via google.
      Thank you Barry for your comment.I love to stir it too.It would not be worth it otherwise.

      Reply
    • @ Barry – I think that’s very true. Replies to provocative posts do tend to be a good indicators if a debate with the replier with be fun and constructive, or a waste of time.

      Reply
    • Playing devils advocate is fine, you have to stir things up some times, otherwise where’s the fun :-D
      But I think there is a very distinct line between pushing someone for a debate and trolling them.
      I have been guilty of trolling on technology related articles, although I’m not very good at it.

      Reply
  • Peter 28/09/12 #

    Freedom of speech, here is the government once more trying to nanny the internet

    Reply
  • Bump

    Reply
  • Thanks everyone. Great stuff!

    Reply
  • save the troll,it’s just lols after all

    Reply
  • Its easy to call people name, isn’t it ?

    Reply
  • @ Dmc, That sounds like you.

    Reply
  • I think they are just people with emotional issues looking for attention and that’s all.

    Reply
    • Don’t we all come with different emotional issues. We wouldn’t be real if we didn’t, right? Now I will define my emotional issue it’s called: passion! Passion for Israel! Passion for truth! And also am sick and tired of anti-Semitism and lies!

      Reply
  • The trollface image originates from a comic making fun of people who excuse uneducated or insensitive opinions as “trolling” because trolling is cool and more acceptable than being a dumbass.

    And it ironically is used in exactly the same way the comic is making fun of.

    Those sort of “trolls”, I don’t like at all and I think that toxic attitude is ruining the internet and can do a lot of damage in real life too.

    Reply
  • So who just gave EVERY comment on this this thread a red thumb, please? Like on not like trolls, the blanket red-thumb people are worthless.

    Reply
  • There are many known Jewish sites that proclaim the love of the land of Israel. And it is so sickly common for the the haters of Israel to come with anti-Semitism to filthy the page with obscenity, hatred, and lies against the Jewish people in Israel. They are called trolls, but not only trolls, but they violate their fellow man with obscenities, violent speech, and lies. Israel has a right to exist. Period! So on another article here in the Journal, I was deemed a troll by a couple of people because I spoke of Israel’s right to exist. I don’t know much about the Journal, but I do know that we have a right to give our opinions. Is the Journal anti-Semitic? Does the Journal make it public that they hate Israel? I don’t know, because I just started to comment yesterday, so in reality when I was called a troll, I would have to conclude that one uses “TROLL” loosely when one opposes another view. In essence being called a TROLL by some in actuality is a cop out, and a tactic of manipulation, to hopefully shut that person from being able to usurp their right for free speech, at least that’s what I have seen here in the Journal. Now if the Journal truly hates Israel and embraces terrorist acts against the Jews in Israel, then that needs to be made evident by all those who love and defend Israel’s right to exist. So if that is evident and the Journal makes that statement that they do embrace Arab terrorism in Israel by saying “Palestinians” have a right to the land of Israel, then I would know that I am a TROLL. So far I am not a troll, but a Jew who loves and defends the existence of Israel!

    Reply
    • Z? 28/09/12 #

      Oh dear. Too much too soon. Pace yourself.

      Reply
    • Far more ignorant anti-German comments on this website than ignorant anti-Semitic comments. We’re a far easier target.

      Reply
    • Great example of flamebait, not trolling. See above.

      Reply
    • ‘The Journal ‘ is a more complex entity than you give it credit for. I am pro Israeli.Having said that ,I do not agree with all of the Israeli Governments policies towards the Palestinians.I disagree with the settlement issue.Taking land from people who cannot defend themselves is not right. I believe this.The Americans,English,french and several other powerful countries have being doing it for a long time and getting away with it. The settlement issue just causes more problems in the overall situation in Israel between the Israeli and Palestinian. If you cannot put yourself into the mindset of the Palestinian,You as a Jew and a proud one at that are not doing your beloved country any favours. Adams and Paisley shook hands….that happened as a result of mutual understanding of each others situation and a lot of hard work .Bear in mind these guys Hated each other with a vengeance.If you are going to assume that this ‘site’ is anti Israeli and use that as a basis for all your comments on related subjects,You are blind to the true nature of debate.Its not what you know,its what you don’t know that will lead to compromise.Sometimes in life a draw is when both sides win.

      Reply
    • At Z?… just being myself. Thank you for the compliment. :)

      Reply
    • @Cy, Yes the Arabs would have you believe that the “Palestinians” are victims without a home or identity, but if truth prevailed and it was embraced as the standard in the Israel, then one could only come to another conclusion then yours. Fact: the Arab leaders abandoned their people by sending them to be caged in Gaza, to starve, and to make conditions so inhumane that the world in their anti-Semitic mind would then say “Aha, Israel, you need to help these “poor” little helpless “Palestinians!” And Israel being a Jewish country would only receive the blame as the Jews did in the holocaust and as a result 6 million Jews heinously slaughtered, mutilated, and gassed in the ovens of Aushwitz. As a result of the Arab leaders caging and starving their own people then that would produce rabid and raging human beings brainwashed to kill the Jews in their lands. You cage up a dog, starve it, and kick it, then naturally you will have a rabid out of control dog. I do agree that Israeli leaders have missed the mark for what needs to truly be done in against the enemies of Israel. They need to remove by going to war to clean up the streets of Gaza, and restore Gaza as a peaceful city for the true owners: the Jews. Call me radical? Who cares.

      Reply
    • censored 28/09/12 #

      No, not radical just nuts.

      Reply
    • Censored, to be nuts in your eyes is a compliment, because it means we are different. Thank you. :)

      Reply
    • Z? 28/09/12 #

      By linguistic, ethnic, geographic and religious definitions, the Palestinians are a Semitic people. So it is difficult for them to be anti-Semitic. Do you mean anti-Abrahamic?

      Reply
    • censored 28/09/12 #

      Don’t worry Jan, I won’t shoot, abuse, bomb or starve you because you’re “different”.

      Reply
    • Z? If those Arabs are Muslim then they’d be Abrahamic too..

      Reply
    • When you say ‘Israeli land’ are you including the occupied territories that are not Israel under international law? Your commentary is rambling and defensive for someone who appears to be new to the site.

      Reply
    • Z? 28/09/12 #

      @ Shanti – the Arabs, the Persians and so most of the peoples that come under the umbrella term of Turkish. You pretty much took the next step of my Cut-price-Socratic argument out from under me, so respect for doing so…

      Reply
    • My apologies Z?

      (Ps – been meaning to ask, JTHM yeah?)

      Reply
    • Z? 28/09/12 #

      Karswell also. But moving on…

      Reply
    • Not even gonna read the crap here because I saw enough of Jan in the recent Iran thread where he said that god made Israel only for Jews and that Muslims should be expelled or at best be treated as second class citizens. This guy, is the epitome of Zionist bigotry. Roll on his accusations of anti-Semetic but that’s a predictable card. I once new a guy (whose name was actually ‘Guy’) who moved to Ireland and left the IDF because he had a concience. Lovely fella. Is he, even though he’s Jewish, also anti-Semetic?

      And I hope Jan one day actually realises that genetically and linguistically Arabs are also Semetic and then his brain self-implodes.

      Reply
    • Then don’t read it Barry. I am not offended. In the very depths of your conscience you know I am right, but sadly you deny listening to your G-D given conscience. I can’t help you to know the right from your left hand. Your parents were to teach you that, sadly they failed. Thus we have so many thumb sucking adults who never will grow up. So sorry, but I simply wash my hands from those who choose to live as little children having tantrums because they can’t get their way.

      Reply
    • Shanti, of course Ishmael was Abraham’s son from Hagar, but that didn’t mean he shared in the inheritance of Jacob. You have a problem with the G-D of Abraham, but you seem to defend the god of the Arabs. Weird. The beauty and mercy of G-D is that indeed he did not leave the Arabs empty handed. He gave them their own countries, but NEVER were they to share Jacob’s inheritance.

      Reply
    • No Janice, I didn’t defend the Arabs or Muslims – I merely pointed out the FACT that they are also considered an Abrahamic religion.

      If you take issue with facts, then those issues are your own.

      Reply
  • Nydon 28/09/12 #

    The internet is just a platform – nothing more. Whereas it is impossible to take away freedoms and restrict rights on the existing platform there’s nothing stopping the creation of a serious “opt in signup and behave” network living on the same infrastructure. This “Citizenet” could easily be created with global laws applying to behaviour on the citzenet – if the political will was there. If successfully implemented, legitimate ecommerce, moderate discussion and serious engagement would flourish in a forum completely apart from the “bad boy” twin that is the current internet. Also solves the parental dilemma of their children accessing the internet – which could then be deemed adult only.

    Reply
    • @ Nydon: Can’t tell if you’re being serious….or just a really good troll?

      Reply
    • Nydon 28/09/12 #

      I suppose it depends on your point of view. :) I know it will be considered trolling by the guardians of free speech, open access and anonymity but also suggest that it is what’ll happen when world leaders get together and agree to “domesticate” the net. I don’t think it would be a bad thing to create the second platform but unfortunately, the logical next step, (once a critical mass was achieved) for the same leaders would be to try to demonise and shut down the “bad boy”. Then there’d be some fun and a great loss to free thinking if it came about. To paraphrase the Cheers theme.. Do you want to have to go where everybody knows your name? P.S. my reply to Gaggs was pure troll :)

      Reply
  • Mr, O Conner, if you defend the “Palestinian” right to steal any land in Israel and say its theirs, then you support terrorism! If you continue to give voice to the rage of the Arabs claim to the inheritance of Jacob, then you support and defend terrorism. You have joined the “Palestinian” cause, and that proves you crave for violence against the Jews. You are calloused by antiSemitism!

    Reply
  • I don’t debate I just flourish in defending Israel. :-) I hate to hear lies and falsehoods regarding my people in Israel. I know the full implications of my words and intent when I comment. By golly, you don’t want a debate anyway, just to twist and turn every thing because hating Israel and anti-Semitism blocks the heart from any truth. You don’t like my style and my words then don’t respond. Move on.:-)

    Reply
  • The curious thing about Internet trolls is that they never achieve their objective of blocking traffic to a website by denial of service. Most times they simply slow down their own user experience but do not achieve site shutdown. Whats the point in using up your own kilobytes of processor speed like that?

    Reply
  • Colm, sure defend the terrorist and rejoice when they finally succeed with their crazed appetites for Jewish blood. The only reason they fail and will fail is because the G-D of Abraham protects His own. You see the difference with Israel is they need to protect what is theirs, but the enemy Arabs in Gaza want to steal, plunder, terrorize, and murder. “Palestinians” are a cancer of Israel that needs to be eradicated from the land so that true peace will be established. You support terrorism by defending terrorists, so in essence you are no different. Yuck!

    Reply
    • Z? 29/09/12 #

      The God of Abraham is also the God of the Palestinians. Unless there is more than one God. But that’s a no no to your beliefs. But Islam fully and utterly accept Abraham, Moses, David and Solomon as Devine and Holy Men. So how do you square that with your divisionist philosophy?

      Reply
    • Z, of course Allah, to the Muslims is the same god of Abraham. Yet the Quran, whom the Muslims say is holy and guides them curses the Jews. There are many examples in the Quran for this, but I will only give you these. So in essence everyone Islam can say what they want, but in essence the Quran gives wing to their understanding of who they think the god of Abraham is. Allah is a god who tells parents to kill their children by giving them over to commit terrorist suicidal acts to kill Jews or any other infidels. Allah is god of war to steal what was promised to Jacob. The prophet Muhammed concocted a bunch of violent baloney to support his jealousy and violent nature. The Quran even promotes having sex with animals as ok. It promotes honor killings as the norm. Islam the most violent religion is vivid in Islam Arab countries, but in the supposed “free world” our laws protect Islam from doing what they really want. Sadly people like all of you “Palestinian” lovers will know one day the truth of Islam and it will be too late. Israel is none of your business, oh haters of Israel in Ireland. Your nation has enough crap to deal with so leave Israel alone. It is none of your business!

      Qur’an 2:61 “Humiliation and wretchedness were stamped on the Jews and they were visited with Allah’s wrath.”

      Qur’an 4:44 “Have you not considered those to whom a portion of the Book has been given? They traffic in error and desire that you should go astray. But Allah has full knowledge of your enemies. Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, saying, ‘We hear and we disobey’ with a twist of their tongues they slander Faith…. Allah has cursed them for disbelief.”

      Qur’an 4:47 “O you People of the Book to whom the Scripture has been given, believe in what We have (now) revealed, confirming and verifying what was possessed by you, before We destroy your faces beyond all recognition, turning you on your backs, and curse you as We cursed the Sabbath-breakers, for the decision of Allah Must be executed.”

      Qur’an 4:160 “For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain (foods) in that they hindered many from Allah’s Way, that they took usury, though they were forbidden, and that they devoured men’s wealth on false pretenses, We have prepared for those among them who reject [Islamic] Faith a painful doom.”

      Qur’an 5:59 “Say: ‘People of the Book! Do you disapprove of us for no other reason than that we believe in Allah, and the revelation that has come to us and that which came before?’ Say: ‘Shall I point out to you something much worse than this by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom He transformed into apes and swine.”

      Qur’an 2:64 “But you [Jews] went back on your word and were lost losers. So become apes, despised and hated. We made an example out of you.”

      Ishaq:240 “The Jews are a nation of liars…. The Jews are a treacherous, lying, and evil people.”

      Qur’an 33:26 “Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captive. And He made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth. He gave you a country you had not traversed before.”

      Ishaq:250 “The bestial transformation occurred when Allah turned Jews into apes, despised.”

      Qur’an 59:14 “The Jews are devoid of sense. There is a grievous punishment awaiting them. Satan tells them not to believe so they will end up in Hell.”

      Ishaq:254Qur’an 2:96 “We will not remove a Jew from the punishment. They know the shameful thing that awaits them.”

      Qur’an 4:55 “Sufficient for the Jew is the Flaming Fire!”

      Reply
    • Z? 29/09/12 #

      So there are multiple gods then? Or a single god that bifurcated? The most worrying thing with your argument is that you are contradicting Jewish doctrine as you are saying that humans can control and create Gods. If Allah is not Yahweh, then it is simply the Koran, a book written by men, that separates the two. So god is a product of man, and so is not De.

      Reply
    • I did not defend ‘terrorism’.

      Your god is fairytale that just justifies your prejudice and hatred of others.

      Reply
    • Z? 29/09/12 #

      You can’t back up your opinion with a reference to your opinions. You need to reference an adjective, verifiable and credibly recognised source.

      Reply
    • Z? 29/09/12 #

      Objective

      Reply
    • Z, I don’t have too offer anymore. What difference does it make. I am not trying to convince you of anything or change your mind. How foolish of me to think otherwise. My understanding of G-D and the relationship I have with my Creator is one that many can spit on, trample, and attempt to crush, but that won’t change the person I have become. I can’t tell you how to believe nor can you tell me. So move on. The future will determine the proof. :-)

      Reply
    • Z? 29/09/12 #

      Then why post up a comment as you initially did, if not to enter into debate? You have shown that you are secure and uncompromising in your beliefs, and that it doesn’t matter to you what other people think. You don’t want to convert anybody. All this is clearly shown in your last post. So again the question? Why did you post your original comment, and why have you continued the debate?

      Reply

Add New Comment