compromise view [LWN.net]

compromise view

Posted May 29, 2007 14:48 UTC (Tue) by amikins (guest, #451) [Link]

I don't have a URL on hand, because this was some time ago, but I registered to post a concern on Groklaw some time ago that the bias was getting extremely apparent in her statements -- since it's been clear to me for quite some time that she's no longer after 'the truth' but 'the proof'. The truth is already decided in her mind, and she's just running around with her confirmation bias.

Well, pretty much immediately, my account was deleted, and she dismissed me as a MS troll.

I found this somewhat offensive, as I've been a staunch Linux supporter for years, and you can still find some of my registered posts here on LWN going back over four years. And that doesn't include any posts I made back before then as anonymous.

I'm not a particularly active member of this community, but I'd like to think I still count as a member.

compromise view

Posted May 29, 2007 16:46 UTC (Tue) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]

So you trolled her site and then were shocked! SHOCKED! when she reacted by treating you as a troll?

What was that you were saying about confirmation bias, again?

compromise view

Posted May 31, 2007 0:26 UTC (Thu) by amikins (guest, #451) [Link]

"So you trolled her site..."

I'm really quite puzzled. What is "trolling"? I'd always heard it defined as a personal attack, or a statement set up to get one in return (flamebait, and the like). When did the definition expand to include dissenting opinions and a different viewpoint?

compromise view

Posted May 31, 2007 22:36 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

Trolling is posting with the goal of getting not just a response, but a flood of them. Some people enjoy that kind of power. An easy way to troll is to post a dissenting viewpoint to a non-objective forum. It's impossible to tell from the content of a post whether it is a troll or not, but of course if a reader is so biased that he can't possibly believe the poster really believes what he said, that reader would have to assume it is a troll.

I guess some people have confused the wrongness of trolling with the idea that it's impolite to interrupt a group's festival of agreement with an opposing argument.

My guess is that the latter is the reason your post, and participation in the forum, was inappropriate and calling it trolling was just an error.

compromise view

Posted May 30, 2007 10:06 UTC (Wed) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link]

Agreed. It's got so bad that, in far too many people's eyes, there are only the following categories of poster:

* those who agree with a site's viewpoint (be it Groklaw or whoever else)

* those who troll

* those who are paid to post various points of view

Rarely do you get someone with a different viewpoint respected in a forum unless they have a proven track record of helping out a community - we're talking Torvalds-level, here, and even then I'm seeing too many comments along the lines of him only having various viewpoints because some companies give him money.

Lots of people have problems with Groklaw's stance on the MS/Novell deal, Tivoization, binary blobs, GPL3, MS technology support, editorial style, etc, etc. It is wishful thinking to be able to dismiss them as trolls and shills - surely people can just disagree without one group trying to silence or smear the other?

As an exercise, chew on this: when was the last time Groklaw criticized anything that the FSF did? Considering how controversial the FSF's views and actions are, why is it so surprising that so many people disgree with them? And why is it so surprising that so many people disgree with Groklaw sometimes as a result?

"trolls" and group-think

Posted May 30, 2007 16:13 UTC (Wed) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link]

I agree.

On far too many Internet discussion areas, whether they are email lists, web forums, or newsgroups, people who disagree with the group are excluded.

They are labeled as trolls or shills and forcibly ejected from the group, or they are shouted down or flamed until they leave.

Then the group congratulates themselves on how all right thinking people agree with them. After all, you don't see anyone disagreeing, do you?

What these groups need is a disinterested moderator who will point out the good and bad facts and arguments of any side and enforce politeness. Unfortunately moderators are human too with their own opinions.

Someone needs to design an open-source discussion moderator AI. :)