In which Wolf teaches you the secret that online trolls and harassers don't want you to know. Watch this episode on YouTube here: https://youtu.be/T34vVa5B6nM
I’m going to teach you how we can literally fix the Internet.
If you’re on social media (Twitter especially) you’ve seen outrageous statements and images. And you know that when you see something that truly outrages you, your first impulse is to pass it on, so others in your sphere of influence will know it exists as well.
A theme I’m going to return to many times is the proper purpose of emotions. Every emotion moves us to do something. I call anger “the drive to justice,” because that is what proper anger does: it makes us want to act to balance the scales of justice. Outrage is a form of anger, and some things in life are truly outrageous. So outrage demands action, even if it only means retweeting that outrageous image or clickbait “news” story.
But unthinking action almost always leads to worse outcomes, because when you act mindlessly you do so without foreseeing other, unintended outcomes.
So the first thing to do when you are inclined to feel outrage (or any strong emotion) is to ask yourself: is it justified? To know whether an emotion is justified, you have to think about it critically. For example, do you know the source of the outrageous stimulus? More importantly: is someone identifiable putting their reputation on the line to amplify it? And, who benefits from your outrage?
The Internet has given rise to a profit model that requires eyeballs and clicks to generate ad revenue. Even older forms of media such as television and newspapers are now caught up in this. Unfortunately, this leads to the perverse incentive to sacrifice truth to profit. It also makes it easier to quietly retract outrageous but false statements later, without losing a cent of the profit generate by outrage.
We tend to want to uncritically accept what we see, especially if it lines up with our preconceptions. Is that story about an act of racism or sexism really supported by evidence, or is it just a claim? Does anyone really hold that particular outrageous political opinion, much less many people? Was that photograph of an outrageous act taken where and when the poster says it was taken? Most people won’t bother to ask such questions before uncritically reposting it. Why? Outrage.
Receiving outrageous stimuli would be fine if you could assume that everyone on the Internet has your best interests at heart… but it sounds silly when put that way, doesn’t it? Of course it does, because you know not everyone wants what’s best for you. But we still want to trust when it feels right.
But there’s a whole class of people out there who are actually the opposite of that: they definitely have your worse interests at heart.
They are the trolls.
Oh, but you’re smart enough to know when you’re being trolled, I hear you say? You know when you’re being told the truth, and this “feels” true so you retweet it? Welcome to your life as a troll’s plaything.
Here’s the secret that I never hear anyone admitting or discussing, and especially not the targets of online harassment.
Trolls can be anyone: any race, any ideology, any sexuality, any nationality. Let that sink in for a moment. There’s an old cartoon where two dogs are talking, one of them sitting at a computer. He’s saying, “On the Internet, no one knows you’re a dog!” I remember when this comic first appeared, the general perception was that the anonymity of the Internet was generally a good thing. Finally dogs had a seat at the table of social discourse!
Unfortunately, it also gave another group of people a seat at the table: the trolls.
There is a single principle I wish the whole world could understand, because if they could, I believe it would literally “fix the Internet.” It is what I call The First Law of Trolling:
“Make Them Suffer.”
Trolls don’t care about your sex, or your race, or your politics, or any of the traits by which you identify. They don’t care about who you are at all. Consequently, they don’t care about representing themselves as who they are. To trolls, “authenticity” is not a value to live by, but a way to appear for effect.
Do you think it farfetched that a woman might troll other women by portraying themselves as a misogynistic man? Or that people might troll their own racial or ethnic group by portraying themselves as part of an antagonistic group? Why would such people “false flag” their own groups? I’m not saying they’re the only ones who would or do, but they above all understand their own group’s emotional “soft spots.”
Not too long ago, four muslim men were murdered in the Albuquerque area. Before a suspect was identified, the killings were widely assumed to be the result of anti-muslim hate. Regarding the matter, President Biden himself tweeted, “These hateful attacks have no place in America.” How could it be otherwise?
But it turns out that the prime suspect in all four killings is himself a muslim, who knew the victims and probably had more personal motives. So why did the media, and the President of the United States himself, promote unfounded theories about the killer’s motivation until more facts were known? Outrage.
In fact, USA Today reported that the suspect, when stopped by police, “told authorities that he was so unnerved by the violence that he was driving to Houston to look for a new home.” So even the suspected killer tried to “false flag” his own group because he knew the dominant narrative.
So why wouldn’t anonymous online trolls do the same?
Estimates of psychopathy in the general population range from 1-5%. That means that up to 1 in 20 people carry personality traits that dispose them to acting without empathy towards others. Combine this with other frequently co-occurring “dark triad” personality traits like narcissism and machiavellianism, and you have a significant portion of the population that would find personal satisfaction in making themselves feel better by seeing others suffer at their hand.
And even if you think the number of people like that out there is small, consider that social media spaces like Twitter are tailor-made to attract that small minority due to the anonymity they offer.
So here are the Three Laws of Trolling:
“Make them suffer.” And the more public, the better: retweets and outraged comments are points on their scoreboard. To the narcissist, any attention— even bad attention— validates their existence.
“Be their worst nightmare.” No matter who they really are, they will attempt to appear to you as your personal antagonist.
“Seek easy prey.” People who trolls can’t get a reaction out of don’t validate their existence, and are therefore useless. So if you don’t react to the outrage triggers, they will move on. If you do react, you mark yourself as an easy target.
The antidote to this is critical thinking. When you’re being faced with something that might outrage you, ask yourself these questions:
What am I being asked to believe or accept?
What evidence is available to support the claim or assertion?
Are there alternative ways of interpreting that evidence?
What additional evidence would help evaluate the alternatives? and,
What conclusions are most reasonable given the evidence available so far?
Who would benefit from my outrage? Trolls? Advertisers? Political parties?
And pass this on. If everyone knew the Laws of Trolling and started practicing critical thinking, I believe it would fix the Internet.