Trolling is Serious Buisiness

Image Source:
http://artoftrolling.memebase.com

According to Wikipedia, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.  

The term derives from "trolling", a style of fishing which involves trailing bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The troll posts a message, often in response to an honest question, that is intended to upset, disrupt or simply insult the group. (from http://www.flayme.com/troll/)

While there is a general argument that forwards the view that trolling is part of freedom of speech, but in other jurisdictions, it is considered a criminal offense. In the UK, Colm Coss and Sean Duffy, on different incidents, were sentenced for 18 weeks in jail for posting obscene messages on social networking sites dedicated as a memorial tribute.

One of the difficulties in regulating trolling is the difficulty in its classification. Where does one draw the line between free speech and criminal behavior? When does it stop of fun and turn into an abusive offense? Do we apply the Constitutional tests in each and every comment posted? Another issue is anonymity. Most of these trolls create numerous accounts and fake online identities to further their goals. The internet is a blanket where anyone can be whoever they want to be. How does one identify and charge a troll having over a gazillion accounts and online identities? Would such measures violate the right to ones privacy?  These are some of the many questions that need to be taken in consideration when drafting regulations regarding the matter.

Trolling is not entirely criminal or evil. Some in fact provide hilariousness in some otherwise boring topic. However, in the internet, a thin line does not exist separating the good from the evil. More of often than not, issues are often placed in various shades of gray until some form of determination arises from them. Whether or not regulations are needed for "trolling" activities, it is for the legislature and the policy makers to decide. Until then, the burden lies in the moderators and site administrators of forums and websites to exercise their godly-forum-site powers to control the menace. And for us, usual netizens, lurking around, it's pretty simple: Do. Not. Feed. The. Trolls.


Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14898564
----
Entry No. 13
Soleil Flores

Rules of the Internet vs. Real-world Rules

Shockingly, for an entity that only a few insanely dedicated countries have ever even *tried* to regulate, the Internet does have "rules."

And even more shockingly, from years of lurking and trolling in various blogs and forums (most notably 4chan and its clones), I've observed that these "rules" do apply.

Whether it's a funny case of self-fulfilling prophecy, or the wisdom of the masses at work, the Rules of the Internet certainly give us a quick introduction into the interactions between Free Speech and the Internet.

Take the most famous rule, which states:

Rule 34. There is porn of it. No exceptions.

As soon-to-be lawyers, we love exceptions in our rules, including the constitution. But like "living wage" and "political dynasties," no amount of exceptions will ever eliminate porn and all its variants, the kiddie kind included.

Rule 34, and I think many of the other rules (see rules 8, 21, 41 and 53) just states the obvious -- that there are no real limits to what (internet) speech can do, and any real rules, statutes, or constitutions trying to regulate this, are, now more than ever, at risk of being exposed as artificial, naked exercises of power. Wait, did I just describe "law" in general?

Anyway, our generation of internet users need to take a long, hard look at our free speech regulations (or the lack thereof), and determine what do we really want to protect -- Love of ideas? Convenience of transactions? Perpetuation of power? And how do you regulate something which is inherently, well, formless?

Operation Crackdown of Web Dissenters

To what extent shall the national government, in its desperate attempt to curtail people’s liberty and right to freedom of expression, silence those who dare speak out against its depravity and inadequacies? Unfortunately, this question has remained throughout the history of the Filipino’s struggle for genuine democracy and even in this modern day where they say that liberty has never been more protected and speech never more free, such a question will perceptibly remain for as far as we can foresee in time.

End archaic language portion.

A few days back, a friend of mine posted on Twitter how, for no apparent reason, his blog site disappeared. Initially, of course, I dismissed his situation as one of those random internet glitches which would have to happen to some unlucky person, and unfortunately for him, considering that bloggers out there must number in millions, that had to happen to him. He insisted however that he may have been hacked by some government agent or government-hired professional hacker, who then worked the sudden crashing of his site, because of his endless criticisms against the current administration and his very strong and harsh, albeit well-written and rather articulate, opinions about the way the government is being run.

Again, I just thought he was being a blowhard, giving himself that much importance to actually think that the government would be doing a crackdown against him for his statements. What a friend right? But anyway, I mean of the million bloggers out there, at least a good 20% is all about bashing the government and espousing a critical view of the government, or if not, even a revolutionary position. Why would he be singled out?

After reading all the Tweets that he…twitted, and some rethinking on my part, I realized that maybe he does have a point. He is after all a very well-read blogger and a rather staunch activist as it can be gleaned from all the things he’s written. And besides, this government is so paranoid anyway they won’t stop at anything to make sure that all possible dissenters are suppressed from trying to influence other people to make a stand against that moral, social, and economic corruption embodied as the government.

But then, it may have just been a glitch.