Is Trolling Just A Form Of Practical Jokes?

from the it's-all-fun-and-games-until-the-rickrolls-begin dept

As the news of 4chan hitting 1 billion posts has come out, it only seems appropriate that the Surprisingly Free podcast has a fascinating discussion with Stefan Krappitz, the author of the book Troll Culture: A Comprehensive Guide, in which Krappitz tries to suggest that the common view of trolling as being a negative thing is mostly inaccurate. Instead, he suggests, trolling is more a form of practical joking -- "disrupting people for personal amusement." He even suggests that Socrates may have been an original troll, baiting people with silly questions and then mocking them. The overall discussion is quite interesting, even if it seems to underestimate the collateral damage that trolling can cause at times. Still, it does raise some good points, that certainly counter the more common view of completely condemning trolling.

Filed Under: practical jokes, trolling


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:43pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, trolling is worse. IT's a way to live in denial

    What do you mean lowering the bar again? Nice revisionist history. Had I not made a silly cut and paste error, I would have posted that link in my very first reply in this thread. As soon as I saw you make that unsupportable claim that a judge had NEVER been influenced in a copyright case I knew where to find something disproving it.

    And pre-existing or previous membership in lobbying organizations is something we talk about all the time around here. TD covers the revolving door politics of Washington all the time. TD covered Judge Beryl Howell's previous lobbying for RIAA when she started rulling on copyright cases.

    Yes, judges should recuse themselves if there is something that points to bias. Are there judges that are members of the ACLU or EFF ruling on copyright cases? Care to cite an example, or are you making wild accusations again? Yet we don't see judges recusing themselves when they have the appearance of a bias being pro-copyright. Having religious affiliations (also, a lack of religious affiliations is seen as a religious affiliation) is considerably harder to avoid, but I think judges (in general) have managed to maintain the appearance of not being influenced - and when they haven't, yes, they should be removed from cases.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.