where is the line?

Where is the line? I know all of us believe in freedom of speech as a concept. We have it entrenched in Trudeau’s flawed “Charter of Rights and Freedoms” and I’ve yet to meet a person who, when asked, will say that they think freedom of speech is a bad idea. Freedom of speech doesn't not, however, mean freedom from consequence since, as the old saying goes, you can't walk into a crowded theatre and shout "Fire!"

Here in Canada, we have a law which restricts freedom of speech when it comes to inciting hatred. Actually, we have more than one law regarding hate crimes but the most recent on was Bill C-250, given Royal Assent on April 29, 2004 which modified the prohibition against “hate speech” from four groups to five. The original four groups were color, race, religion or ethnic origin. Ex-Liberal NDP Svend Robinson’s bill added “sexual orientation” to the group... but I digress...

Most of us set limits for ourselves as to what we're willing to discuss, what degree of information (whether personal or professional) we're willing to share, what subjects we're comfortable with and what kind of language we'll use (or not use) in our interactions. Call it social conscience or comfort zone or whatever you like, there are lines.

Some have suggested bloggers develop a "Code of Conduct" to try to control the level of discourse. When that suggestion was made, I went on the record as saying I didn’t think it would help for the same reason why the Firearm Registry doesn’t help. The bloggers who are the problem won’t pay any attention to a Code of Conduct and they will make the same protests whether you’re banning them for their odious behaviour or for breaches of an arbitrary Code.

So where is the line? At what point do bloggers on their own blogs (or adminstrators on forums) have to call a troll a troll (so to speak)? What is the break-point between spirited discourse and provocative behaviour?

Trolling is like playing chess - there is a point to the game, and that point is to win. Unlike chess, though, there are various ways of winning for the internet troll. These might include:

* gaining credence for false and invidious ideas
* driving bona fide group members, and/or particular groups, out of the discussion group
* dominating the group with messages/posts that they have generated
* gaining recognition or an award for their trolling from fellow trollers
* getting reprimanded by individuals, group managers or internet authorities
* gaining the confidence, trust and support of bona fide group members
* distracting group members from their own bona fide discussions or objectives
* creating a negative impression for non-participants in the discussions, undermining the credibility of the bona fide group members
* gaining attention that they cannot get using their real personalities

Sometimes trolls operate alone, and sometimes they operate in groups, but for all of them trolling is a game.

There are newsgroups, blogs, forums and bulletin boards that are dedicated to trolls, for them to exchange techniques and to plan concerted campaigns where they can invade internet.

Trolls have no concern for the feelings of the people with whom they deal. They are often manipulative, clever and approach their trolling with the same degree of planning and research as those seeking financial gain, or the same competitiveness as a serious chess player.

For those familiar with Transactional Analysis (the psychological theory of real-life game playing) there are many parallels with the activities of trolls: there are many games, with different types of payoff and different tactics.

Trolling can be played at various levels...

* Level one - "Playtime" - This is where the troller is simply out for the gratification provided by a quick "win". An example of this might be to join a group with a fictitious name, cause an argument, withdraw and then boast to friends about what he/she had done. Such trolls are relatively easy to spot because their attack or provocation is fairly blatant, and the persona is fairly two-dimensional.
* Level two - "Tactical" - This is where the troller takes the game more seriously, creates a credible persona with which to provoke the group, and uses recognised techniques or tactics to gain the confidence and support of individuals on the group. Provocation is subtle and invidious, so spotting this type of troll is not easy as some exchanges may cause you to believe that this person is genuine and trustworthy.
* Level three - "Strategic" - This is a very serious form of game, involving the production of an overall strategy that can take months or years to develop. It can also involve a number of people acting together in order to invade a group. Once a group is infested, it can be nigh impossible to work out who is a troll and who is bona fide.
* Level four - "Domination" - This is where the trollers' strategy extends to the creation and running of apparently bona-fide groups. In such circumstances, their payoff may be the knowledge that they are dominating the emotional lives of group members, and is perhaps one of the ultimate forms of deceit that can be achieved.

Is there a solution to dealing with trolls? This very much depending on how the troll operates. Sometimes, it’s best to confront the troll(s) and insist the behaviour end. Other times, it’s best to ignore the troll(s) so they’re unable to “win” and eventually move on. Perhaps the best strategy is to avoid becoming emotionally invested in the discussions. It make it harder for a troll to provoke a reaction... and the troll’s game, whether short-term or long, is all about your reaction.

-Mac