Dealing with "Trolls" on Indybay

Hidden comments aren't deleted, they're hidden. In fact at the moment 199,879 hidden posts are clogging up the database.

Anyone who doesn't agree with the progressive/liberal agenda is deleted. There is no such thing as constructive dialog. Some of the attitudes of the left are so stupid that they must be challenged, but those posts are deleted as personal attacks. I am sure that progressive people who spout their bullshit have never been challenged, know that "only" they are right and everyone else is wrong and get outraged that someone even pretends to disagree with them. Fools, one and all.

this article poses some interesting suggestions. however, i'd also say, when your not the one editing the website as a volunteer, if you want change, then get involved, follow the process and propose the change.

the situation that exists is likely what is best based on those who volunteer and edit the website. thus, those who also donate endless hours of time keeping it running and for dealing with the historic problems of trolls. what exists today is based on nine years of experience, many meetings, discussions, emails etc... what other imc's do is what works best for those collectives within those website's code developments. la imc has a different code set, so that in of itself is one thing to consider when trying to compare one imc website to the other. there are other imc websites who get hit hard by robots and their newswire and comments sections reflect exorbitant amounts of advertisement for viagra/cialias etc.... indybay gets hit by robot spam fairly frequently. it takes a human to hide those spam postings. in some instances, some legitimate comments get hidden. this isn't always the case, but another thing to consider.

also, flame wars on postings increases the amount of work for the volunteers. ie...one has to read every posting to determine if it complies with the editorial policy. point being, for what exists, and the limited amount of volunteers, i think that indybay does a fairly good job. again, its open for more volunteers to get involved and suggest the changes....

food for thought

The difference between troll and substantive comment, or even criticism and hate speech, is sameness for equality = sameness. Whoever thinks the same as the ruling clique, or can after being processed through the ideology of the ruling clique and then co-opted, makes substantive remarks. Whoever disagrees with the program (read: computer program, or brainwash) and is irreconcilable opposed to the main program (brainwash), and therefore cannot be processed in through co-optation, is a troll.

It's not enough to say: "We're all brainwashed." And then laugh it off. One must appreciate the gravity of the very real fact that we are all brainwashed. Indymedia being in opposition to the main Culture (main program, or main brainwash) is, as a counter-Culture, no less brainwash (i.e., leftist mind-wipe).

There are a number of things that have been rejected by Indymedia which strictly speaking do not contradict the mandatory brainwash (principles of unity, or principles of sameness) but frequently the ruling clique simply wasn't adept at processing the material and co-opting it.

I understand the amount of time volunteers must take in managing such a site, and appreciate all their hard work. I do think that this issue is hard to address, as each volunteer may interpret Troll comments slightly differently simply due to perception, no matter the codes and rules. People do not realize by allowing anyone to comment with out registering, also opens a floodgate of 10,000's of generated spam comments. I know on some of my open Blogs I get 100s of comments a day auto generated from china. I had to add the ability to delete or moderate. So I must agree in keeping this an open non-registered system, they do a great job!

Perhaps adding a feature where the user can hide comments they do not wish to see, via a cookie, would at least make it easier to read threads based on the users preference, and allow people to better ignore the internet trolls, albeit illusionary but without any comments being directly deleted. I know this is just an "illusion" tactic of sorts. Doing this allows people to ignore the impulse to feed the internet trolls at their discretion, or ignore anyone they are simply tired of dealing with.

I appreciate the fact that Indybay has managed to keep this an open non registered site. I do not think most people understand the amount of time that takes to manage. I do get irritated with people who attack the messenger, off topic, regardless of the content over and over again. But I will take irritation over a closed registered user site any day. We pay prices for the freedoms we demand. I don't always agree with the decisions of the editors. But isn't that part of dealing with an open and free system? We get to complain and ask for change but we may not always get it.
Tim Rumford

There is a usually a noticeable difference between presenting a different opinion & trolling. The troll presents attacks on a particular poster whose opinion he/she wants to discredit, in the form of slanderous unproved abusive assertions about the person's character, often in a very few sentences, rather than reasoned arguments about a point of view or facts.
This type of comment is very easy to identify & then hide.
The SFGate site has a system whereby one can also comment on comments by adding your vote to a thumbs up tally, a thumbs down tally, or a Report Abuse form that lets you characterize the comment as Obscenity/Vulgarity, Hate Speech,
Personal Attack, & a few other categories, with a screen for a short explanation if you wish.
If comments are removed, a note is left in their place - "This comment was removed by SF Gate".

IndyBay could work out its own system along these lines (for example hiding rather than deleting comments).

It would make the discourse here much more productive, readable, & unifying.
And possibly de-escalate the aggression in this world of potentially productive dissent.

Seems I have been put on the persona non grata list. No mater how diplomatically I word anything I am deleted out of hand. I did post one where I did say some unflattering things about people destroying the cameras, but much milder that what some folks say about UC or the city of Santa Cruz. Lets see if this gets through.

Two points if I may.

One, in addition to the 199,000 hidden posts cluttering things up, Indybay might wish to take note of the 100's of articles written by a few highly biased and marginalized persons, that also clutter up the site. These posts, with thinly veiled personal agendas, attract a series of detractors who then are dismissed as "trolls", simply for disagreeing with the writer's premise.

Two, Robert Norse wasn't asking to volunteer time helping solve this troll problem. He was merely pointing it out, so that Indybay volunteers could redouble their efforts. All of this troll activity has been spoiling the flow of his journalistic output.

I agree with you Mara. I can be done much as you, and I described. You did a better job in your explanation of how.
I just have a hard time demanding it from indybay, as I am unsure how taxed they truly are and its free. But I do know many open systems have what you described. Having the ability to hide comments as an individual user, allows no overall censorship, but still allows people to hide & flag offensive comments as they as individuals want.

Dim Sum
As far as quality of stories, write something. Anyone can contribute. They always have a need for new stuff. Have you ever even tried? The whole idea is news for and by the people. Since you spend so much time on a site you openly spend hours upon hours criticizing both the stories , the writers and the site itself -- why don't you write articles to make it fit your idea of how it should be? Please show us how its done.

Robert is not computer savvy enough to understand the technical things to offer an educated solution, but he does realize the need and brings up an important issue. It could be better than this. I think this is a great post, despite the fact we don't agree 100% on the issue. But as always you shoot the messenger, and go off topic and talk about the writers, which are all done for free, and ANYONE can submit. So do it! I await for your article to come out very soon.

Dragon Lover,
As much as we may often disagree, i don't believe in censorship -- except in the most extreme situations. I believe you should have the right to comment as anyone. I do think it would be easy to have hidden comments so we can all ignore those we wish to ignore. Many open sites have this option. This way, there is no censorship. You as the reader can censor what want transparent to other users. Or people can in addition flag comments as offensive, although I think that additional option is unneeded if the just did the first.
Peace
Tim

Tim, your criticisms of my position run in parallel to mine of Robert Norse. Your comments regarding my approach to Norse could be mine regarding Robert's approach to our City and its governance.

Robert is quick to call me a troll every time I question his outlook as evidenced by his articles, which are generally highly biased, inflammatory and personal in their nature. His namecalling of people like the Coonerty's, Emily Reilly and various merchants, is legendary. He himself cannot be bothered to participate in a constructive manner in our City's governance, even when as a non-resident, he is still afforded the opportunity to do so. Instead he draws cartoons of public officials and passes them around at Council meetings and sits in his underwear in a City administrative office for weeks on end, just to provoke a reaction. Or he flashes a "Sieg Heil" salute at Council and then protests that his rights are being violated when the Council insists on some basic decorum.

So Robert is a troll in society Tim, if you really believe that I'm a troll here. I believe that I'm only calling him on his armchair quarterbacking. When he gets up and actually comes and participates in governance, then I'll believe he is sincere in his criticisms. Until then, they're just so much hot air from someone with nothing invested in the rest of us.

My comments about Norse are nowhere nearly as personal and malicious as his about say, Ryan Coonerty. I just call him on his articles, and he labels me a troll. This seems very unfair.

I have on a few occasions responded to a particular comment only to see that comment that I responded to deleted. That makes my comment look silly because it is now out of context. I would suggest placing very broad limits on what is an acceptable comment. It keep s the conversation flowing smoothly and logically.

If you are worried about comment spam such as ads for ED pills and so on, just add a dialog box that asks for the commenter to manually enter a series of letters and numbers. Typically the box that shows the letters and numbers to enter has a bunch of hash marks through the numbers and letters to better confuse the robots that are attempting to spam the message board. This would be a good solution so long as the software required to get it to work is not so proprietary that it costs gobs of money to run the system. And if you do see such an advertisement posted, I see no reason to keep it in the database, taking up disk space. Delete it already, after you have determined the isp of the source of course.

Thanks for the interesting discussion on the deleted versus hidden controversy.

However indybay reminds me of the Democratic Party in Congress talking peace and funding war. Indybay (a) isn't clearly coming clean, and (b) doesn't seem interested in changing.

M may properly note that there are 199,879 hidden posts clogging up the database. Why don't we have access to them as other indymedia do? Specifically?

S's finding the questions raised “interesting” is encouraging (though I note this entire thread is buried in the bottom “doghouse” section of the indymedia, though it's as local and as pressing an issue as any).

I appreciate and benefit from the “endless hours” IMC volunteers donate keeping indybay.org/santacruz running (and I do—and regularly praise indymedia on my radio show—though I face criticism from indymedia critics for doing so). However, it feels like there's still no direct answer as to why santa cruz can't use a simple LA style system.

I acknowledge my technological ignorance. Are the defenders of the current system saying that to do so would take up “endless hours” more? Please be clear about this.

It really sounds like what we really have is an editorial decision masquerading as a technical concern. How necessary is continuing the policy that anonymous unaccountable censors can arbitrarily delete comments, without informing either the writer or the community why?

It seems obvious that this can hurt and outrage. It detracts from indybay's reputation. It interferes with its mission. And it shortchanges the community.

What about Tim's suggestion for user hiding comments? Mara's suggestion of an SF-gate style procedure? John T.'s idea of a "dialogue box" to cut SPAM and not break up a thread by removing "objectionable" items? Please give us some specific responses so we know we're not being "managed" or "handled" in the Nancy Pelosi, or should I say, Mike Rotkin manner.

Dragonlover and Sum Dim are two of my least favorite commentators, but simply deleting them debases the dialogue more than anything they could say.

I agree with Robert on his last comment. The only thing more base than the comments us trolls make are the articles Norse writes to start the threads. I would suggest that Indybay, in contemplating these proposed editorial policy changes, also consider some standard to which posted articles must conform. Robert's articles, full as they are of inaccuracies, bias and vile innuendo, do little to advance the struggle. Some thought ought to be given to perhaps hiding the articles themselves. Imagine all the posts that would then never be made, and never have to be hidden.

No, we do not agree. As I said, for once in your life write your own story so you can see what its like on the other side. I would fight for Roberts right to give a Mock Nazi salute to a hypocritical Council any day as I would fight for non censorship too which includes you. However I would like the option to hide many of your comments as a personal choice. What is allowed on the Sentinel Forums has shown me your "true colors" per say. I think Robert is correct that its time for the editors to come out and react to this discussion.

If Robert slows the wheels of City Hall, fine. Its a fucked up system anyway that I have no faith in. Both Coonerty's can kiss my lily white ass.
Tim Rumford

Wow Tim. You guys don't like being cornered, eh? I'll say it again. Chivying Norse, et al around Indymedia and the Sentinel Forums isn't nearly as destructive as Robert's behavior in City Council meetings. As for your idea of discretionary censorship, we can't do the same in Council. It would be great to just throw a towel over Robert's head and kick him out into the street, where we don't have to listen to him, but no, we can't do that. So we just patiently wait till he's done saying whatever nonsense comes into his head and then we move on. Here, you can just hit the scroll arrow if you don't want to read what I wrote. And if you're lucky, they'll just censor me anyway. So you guys are the bigger trolls, it seems to me.

And since you don't like how the city is run, why don't you take your own advice and step up to the plate? Calling us names when we dismiss you as fringe lunatics, as our constituents expect us to, isn't that impressive. Let's see you run for office, get elected and serve your constituents as real public servants.

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Everybody who ever runs a web site starts out with a naive attitude about letting The People post whatever they want, since the righteous will be vindicated and the evil will be punished. And then a few weeks or months later they figure out the truth: Readers and writers flee from abuse and bullshit. The sludge rises to the top and soon there's nothing else left. You can see just from reading the comments on this page that too little is being hidden, not too much.

"Comments" are not an intrinsic feature of a "newswire" and nobody owes it to you to let you post hostile crap on the same page as somebody else's useful information.

Get over it. Norse in particular should know better, there is no debate with hostile critics going on in his HUFF Yahoo! Group, as anyone can verify since it's publicly readable.