Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Ask Slashdot: Would You Pay For Websites Without Trolls?

samzenpus posted about 3 months ago | from the play-nice dept.

The Internet 382

First time accepted submitter carbon_tet writes I read two articles this week that made me wonder: "Would anyone actually pay for a website without trolls?" The first, was about web trolls and civility on the internet, and the second about the ad-based internet. It seems that public comments unavoidably have trolls, or they degrade very quickly until someone makes a reference to Hitler. So, is it impossible to have a substantive discussion online without trolls? Would you put your money where your mouth is to have a serious online conversation without them? Are there any topics that you would talk about (or prefer to see talked about) on a website where trolls were paywalled out?

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What trolls (5, Insightful)

simplypeachy (706253) | about 3 months ago | (#47694387)

There are trolls on the Internet? What, have people forgotten how to use /ignore? Do they actually join in conversations on Internet services that don't have effective ignore/moderation systems? Well, that's your fault, then.

Re:What trolls (3, Interesting)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 3 months ago | (#47694477)

The reality of the internet is different for different groups of people. Everybody lives in their own bubble depending on what websites they log into, and what software they use. That also dominates the civility or absence thereof.

Remember back when you were 14, what you understood as the Internet was an entirely different thing. All of us have made one or a few transitions between the bubbles -- but it is extremely difficult to do so except serendipitously or through contacts.

Re:What trolls (1)

simplypeachy (706253) | about 3 months ago | (#47694655)

Yeah, I suppose I'm picky where my bubble extends. If it's a place that doesn't cope with trolls then I leave the discussion or the service for somewhere better. There was a time I participated in the discussions on Gawker's Kotaku gaming blog, but the web site became barely functional and every change they implemented made it more difficult for me to join in. So I stopped. (I also tried their IRC channel, but gave up on that because it was mostly about game piracy, the irony.)

Re:What trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694715)

Remember back when you were 14, what you understood as the Internet was an entirely different thing.

300 baud modem connection to a dial-up BBS. Don't tell my parents it was a long distance call, OK?

Re:What trolls (1)

Revek (133289) | about 3 months ago | (#47694773)

When I was 14 my internet was a tymnet node in grenada, ms.

Very subjective (5, Interesting)

Racemaniac (1099281) | about 3 months ago | (#47694397)

There are ofcourse the obvious trolls, but where does someone end being a troll, and is just someone who has a completely different view?

If someone is convinced the earth is only 5000 years old, and that [insert deity] created all other history to confuse us, is that a troll? How do you prevent just creating a forum where you "discuss" things only with people who think the same way you do, and thus without opposing viewpoints since they'll eventually get removed for "trolling"?

Re:Very subjective (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694425)

If the person insists on saying this over and over again and denigrates others who disagrees while giving no evidence then yes, that person is indeed a troll.

Re:Very subjective (3, Insightful)

thaylin (555395) | about 3 months ago | (#47694519)

So pretty much everyone.

Re:Very subjective (2)

jythie (914043) | about 3 months ago | (#47694439)

This is one of the common problems in moderated forums, esp when there is only one mod or a close knit group of mods. Someone being considered a troll or not ends up being deeply wrapped up with the mod's personal feelings. Thus I am skeptical that a 'no troll' pay site would actually be any better.

Re:Very subjective (1)

Wootery (1087023) | about 3 months ago | (#47694543)

What if we trade-off not monetary price, but anonymity?

Typical trolls neither pay to post, nor have to reveal who they are. If there were a real-names policy (an actual, checked, real-names policy, not bullshit like what Google tried to pull), one would surely see less trolling.

Re:Very subjective (3, Insightful)

Sperbels (1008585) | about 3 months ago | (#47694755)

And less open discussion.

Re:Very subjective (5, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | about 3 months ago | (#47694803)

If there were a real-names policy (an actual, checked, real-names policy, not bullshit like what Google tried to pull), one would surely see less trolling.

One would also see less insightful posts, since any kind of insight typically steps on the toes of some entrenched interest. And even on Slashdot posts expressing unpopular opinions typically end up downmodded because, after all, if it provokes you, it's a troll.

A forum with real-names policy is basically worthless, which is precisely why the Powers that Be try to push them. Stripping people of the shield of anonymity makes dissenting opinions easier to silence through chilling effects. And of course this is marketed for our own good, after all we all know that having someone get away with posting something offensive on the Internet is the worst thing ever.

Re:Very subjective (1)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | about 3 months ago | (#47694827)

Do trolls bother you so much that you're willing to give up a basic freedom to stop them? I just can't understand that frame of mind.

Re:Very subjective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694831)

and less users

Re:Very subjective (2)

pr0fessor (1940368) | about 3 months ago | (#47694639)

I was thinking the trolls would be the first to sign up and the first to complain when they were moderated, after all they are now paying for the right to post. This would likely scare off a lot of business where as a free site can moderate a user and not need to refund them any money while satisfying the heard.

It might keep spammers away though... I imagine they would likely move on to another investment that didn't require cash up front.

Re:Very subjective (1)

Krojack (575051) | about 3 months ago | (#47694753)

This is why I think the Reddit public scoring system is about the best you're going to get. Let anyone and everyone mod up or down a comment. If it gets too far into the negative then hide the comment by default. Out of sight, out of mind.

Re:Very subjective (3, Insightful)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about 3 months ago | (#47694873)

This is why I think the Reddit public scoring system is about the best you're going to get

The problem with this system is that, on Reddit, a downvote = "I disagree."

You get entire discussions where eveyone is downvoted to -14, for no apparent reason.

Re:Very subjective (4, Informative)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 3 months ago | (#47694561)

I agree. I've made a few Slashdot posts that were contrary to the majority view, but meant in good faith and with the goal of advancing the discussion, which ended being modded as Trolls. Fortunately this happens to me rarely, suggesting that only a small fraction of moderators

My experience on BoingBoing was much worse. There, even after having a discussion with admins about why I made my comment, they still labelled me a troll and banned me on the site. I think any fair-minded person would have judged me to be not trolling - as far as I can tell that administrator's definition of troll included views that he/she didn't agree with.

Re:Very subjective (1)

simplypeachy (706253) | about 3 months ago | (#47694667)

It's also fun reporting a service's moderators for trolling or worse - feeding the trolls. What sport!

Re:Very subjective (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 3 months ago | (#47694671)

this is even worse on political forums, if you dont parrot the forums groupthink, be it right leaning or left leaning you are assaulted by the majority and you end up getting labeled troll, even if your responses are level headed and you are the one being attacked.

Re:Very subjective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694887)

even after having a discussion with admins about why I made my comment, they still labelled me a troll and banned me on the site

Lulz. So you got marked "troll" on the forum, and then you went and trolled the admins over the definition of "troll", and got a ban.

Nice trolling, sir ... but less of the righteous indignation please.

Slashdot becomes a subscription site!?!? (5, Funny)

olsmeister (1488789) | about 3 months ago | (#47694401)

Dice, is this your way of testing the waters?

Re:Slashdot becomes a subscription site!?!? (1)

sudden.zero (981475) | about 3 months ago | (#47694717)

You jest but maybe it actually is them testing the waters. I noticed upon visiting the beta site the first time that there is no way to disable ads for vetern slashdotters as there is on the normal site. They are obviously trying to find a way to make money off of their large captive audience and since they couldn't convince the majority of us to buy in to the beta site, which forces ads on everyone, this might be the way that they go.

We do not do that here? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694403)

Many slashdotters do pay to be on a web site that is mostly free of trolls. The time people give to take part in the rating system is not free.

Re:We do not do that here? (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about 3 months ago | (#47694817)

"Many slashdotters do pay to be on a web site that is mostly free of trolls."

But not free of MyCleanPC 'ads'.

Re:We do not do that here? (1)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | about 3 months ago | (#47694857)

How does that work anyway? It seems like malware but it's got to be pretty sophisticated to post in other users' names on Slashdot and it doesn't seem worth it for a human to make new accounts just to post that crap. Either the payoff is far higher than I imagine, it's actually a test for something else (astroturfing?) or mycleanpc lost a shitload of money for a tiny bit of SEO.

In any case I dearly hope Slashdot doesn't turn to captchas to prevent that type of post.

NO! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694411)

I have met the troll and he is us.

First troll? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694423)

Trololololo

SomethingAwful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694427)

That's the basic idea behind the SomethingAwful business plan. Add a nominal fee to discourage trolls to register, and when users are banned. It worked pretty well until the place was flooded by millennials. Now you can't tell the trolls from the users.

Re:SomethingAwful (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#47694461)

Right, so let's cite the website perhaps second or third best known on the Internet for having lots of trolls as an example.

Re:SomethingAwful (2)

Minwee (522556) | about 3 months ago | (#47694723)

Right, so let's cite the website perhaps second or third best known on the Internet for having lots of trolls as an example.

...of a site that already tried this, and failed. Isn't this exactly the kind of example that the article was asking for?

It's impossible (1)

HBI (604924) | about 3 months ago | (#47694431)

No one wants to talk seriously online to total strangers. Where's the value add? These people aren't part of your social network and with the relative anonymity of posting online, they won't be. Back in the Fido days, we'd actually know the other posters in our net and might meet up with them on a regular basis. Where's the tie-in here? It's no wonder that it's all trolling, all the time.

Only a special environment composed exclusively of people from a real life community of interest could possibly overcome this.

Re:It's impossible (2)

justthinkit (954982) | about 3 months ago | (#47694647)

No one wants to talk seriously online to total strangers.

You're kidding, right? I rarely talk to people I know...because I know them. I learn from and share with people I don't know.

Re:It's impossible (1)

ultranova (717540) | about 3 months ago | (#47694917)

No one wants to talk seriously online to total strangers. Where's the value add?

You see no value in a chance to promote your viewpoint? Or hear others?

No (2)

kruach aum (1934852) | about 3 months ago | (#47694437)

There's probably a free firefox extension that disables comment sections.

Trolls == Necessary Evil (5, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 3 months ago | (#47694445)

Unless you want to live in an echo chamber, trolls are just something you have to learn to deal with. Besides, there's no such thing as an "anti-dickhead premium," because no matter what, if you're having a discussion with any significant group of people, it's pretty much guaranteed one of them is going to have a different enough opinion that you're going to want to stick that "troll" label on them.

Re:Trolls == Necessary Evil (3, Interesting)

Technician (215283) | about 3 months ago | (#47694805)

The only place truly free of trolls is a corporate internal social media website that is moderated and any despariging remark is subject to displinary action up to and including termination.

Want to get fired? Simply ask about the workplace diversication and why nobody speaks Spanish except housekeeping. Instant termination. Only seen that discussion on the board once. All parties except those warning others that is a taboo subject are gone.

The problem of no trolls is sensitive issues are never addressed. Does your place of employment include all races in engineering? Does your janitorial staff speak only one second languange? Don't ask why. It is troll bait. In a company monitored socail media it is a quick trip out the door.

Please do not start a flame war on the taboo topic. Only discuss on topic troll free discussion boards. Thanks.

Other taboo subjects include Is there a creator of the universe, is there genetic differences in race or gender in intellect, problem solving, politics, age, sexual preference, is all man created equal?

Again do not discuss the taboo topics. Please. They erupt into flamewars.

metafilter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694451)

Metafilter is one time pay (5 dollars) and is moderated by a paid staff who do a very good job. I think the model works well, and I happily paid my one time fee.

Re:metafilter (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694517)

or maybe not [metafilter.com] .

Also, I partly come to /. for the trolls. I would just prefer better (more skilled, more funny) trolls.

Tough guy geeks... (3, Insightful)

wbr1 (2538558) | about 3 months ago | (#47694463)

This is /. Just mentioning a paywall IS trolling here.
We are the tough geeks and will browse into that rough patch on the interwebs to get our fix of data.
We will risk malware and viruses to pirate the latest films.
We will walk into a biker bar and call the biggest pagan mother fucker a gay little bitch.

Oh wait, maybe not that last one.

Seriously though.. what is considered a troll, or offensive is subjective. If I do not want imposed censorship, I sure as shit am not going to pay for it directly.

Re:Tough guy geeks... (2)

N1AK (864906) | about 3 months ago | (#47694605)

If I do not want imposed censorship, I sure as shit am not going to pay for it directly.

I don't like the state telling people what they can or can't do, that doesn't mean I let people smoke in my house ;)

There are plenty of venues on the internet where anything goes. Having some venues that are more civilised is something I think would be beneficial. I'm not overly sure that paying is the best way to ensure that. Xbox live had (and may still have) some of the biggest twats who seemed to get away with anything even with a 'paywall'. Just making it harder to join forums if you keep getting banned for abusive behaviour (a sort of internet troll blacklist) would likely be a good enough start.

Re:Tough guy geeks... (1)

Shortguy881 (2883333) | about 3 months ago | (#47694621)

Yeah this article is a troll.

However, troll comments are a good thing. They offer different points of view, fight political correctness, and are even amusing at times. They are way better than the "I have no mod points, but if I did I'd mod you up" comments that add nothing to a discussion.

Trolls may not be trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694469)

Sometimes they can have serious points.

Okay, so a troll is someone who tries to bait people into a conversation. But they may get listed as such with most, but a few, seeing the point.

Slashdot's system fixes this, by modding them down. But some people search at -1, even some mods, so there's hope. Slashdot's system is the solution I think. No need to pay.

Now, to pay to remove ads, that'd be a good idea too. Not sure how many would do it though.

Take back the name Hitler. Name your children...
Henry
Ingrid
Tyler
Lisa
Emily
Roy

^^Parent is a troll (1)

DocSavage64109 (799754) | about 3 months ago | (#47694797)

Parent is a troll and his opinion needs to be ignored.
Seriously, he is advocating naming your kids as parts of Hitler's name.

Paywalls aren't needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694473)

however putting up a requirement for 2 step verification of identification would stop a lot of trolls quickly. Anonymity has it's price.

Godwin's Law (2)

PackMan97 (244419) | about 3 months ago | (#47694475)

This is a record. Godwin's law before the comments!

http://xkcd.com/261/ [xkcd.com]

One site I participated in had a great way to deal with trolls. Once your rating became negative enough, you were put on a global /ignore and no one saw your posts except yourself and others with equally negative reputations.

Re:Godwin's Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694739)

What was great about that site?

Re:Godwin's Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694931)

Google Youtube does this. They ghost ban posts whereas you can only see your post when you are logged in. If you are logged out, just like everyone else, your post is not visible. However, you still get notified anytime someone else comments or thumbs up someone else's post in that thread.
Problem is...its wonky as hell if you have your browser locked down and unfriendly to Google's data mining.

No real need. (5, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 3 months ago | (#47694485)

Slashdot could significantly reduce trolls by just making everyone login to comment.
Keep the ability to post as an AC but make these changes.
1. You still take the karma hit to your real name when you post a troll and get the good karma for good posts.
2. The ability to block the person when they are posting as an AC. The person blocking would still not know who they are blocking as it would just say AC on the blocked list.
It would not stop all the trolls but it seems like a good compromise solution for Slashdot.
BTW I do not block Slashdot ads since I want them to get paid and they have not put up any annoying video ads lately.

Re:No real need. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694555)

HAHAHA Disregard that, I suck cocks

Re:No real need. (2)

N1AK (864906) | about 3 months ago | (#47694625)

2. The ability to block the person when they are posting as an AC. The person blocking would still not know who they are blocking as it would just say AC on the blocked list.

There is scope to abuse these ideas. Firstly it stops AC comments without login and secondly you could theorectically work out who was posting by checking with multiple accounts and/or banning and unbanning accounts.

Slashdot's moderation system seems to work pretty well. Sure it's not perfect but it's vastly better than it would be otherwise.

Re:No real need. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694785)

Slashdot could significantly reduce trolls by just making everyone login to comment.
Keep the ability to post as an AC but make these changes.

Well, that is a way to keep me out. I have no intention of registering an account on "yet another forum".

Sure, it take me a week to adapt, just like I adapted to no longer reading/posting comments on youtube after they pushed google+ on their users.

Am I a troll? Well, I guess that is subjective. I have yet to have one of my posts being flagged as troll or flamebait.
Plenty of my posts gets marked as +5 insightful or +5 interesting, I even have a couple of +5 funny in my past. I haven't kept track of them buy I'd say that it's close to the majority of my posts that appears to be appreciated by this forum.

Will I stop posting if I'm forced to log in? Probably.

Re:No real need. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694913)

0. remove aliases and handles, post as your real name or AC if safety is a concern. People will be far more civil if they know they can't hide behind anonymity.

People on the net fight to defend.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694493)

... their opinions from others. On the net you can find people to agree with the most baseless and uninformed views on everything, hence "trolls".

The reality is what is a troll has so widely expanded that it has become meaningless.

Better: Pay to post a comment! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694495)

Although I'm not sure 50 cents could stop Trolls, it would be enough to pay a moderator to check each single comment.
At least it would stop senseless postings that are almost as worse as Trollposts.

Re:Better: Pay to post a comment! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694871)

Yo melon famer 50 cents can stop anytin' he chooses too..

The man is a gansta !

Yes, but it wouldn't work (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694497)

I would pay for such a website without trolls, sure. As an educated American with a bit of disposable income I can certainly think of worse ways to spend a few dollars every month or year. The problem is that if one is going to require payment to use the service, it will exclude a LOT of the voices that I want to hear in internet discussions. Marginalized people in my state, people from other countries, people that need to remain anonymous... the beauty of the internet is the free exchange of ideas and tremendous number of voices that one can be exposed to. Being able to pay for a website without trolls is a privilege. Unfortunately, efforts to control trolls and other voices that are deemed disruptive will (in all likelihood) exclude many legitimate voices, too. Without these legitimate voices, such sites are (probably) doomed to be generally homogeneous communities with sterile discussions.

no. (1)

kayditty (641006) | about 3 months ago | (#47694507)

n/t

It's called an opinion (1)

mythix (2589549) | about 3 months ago | (#47694509)

Not everybody with a different opinion than you are not trolls by definition....

Just get rid of the stupid message board. (2)

jellomizer (103300) | about 3 months ago | (#47694511)

Why do all the sites feel the need to have a message board. Slashdot is OK, but the message board discussion is its thing. But for many of the news sites, these message boards are poorly managed and offer little to no insight to the articles. Just political rambling.
You don't want trolls, get rid of the message boards.

If you could be GUARANTEED there would NEVER (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694513)

be any trolls, wouldn't that make your reading experience so much enjoyable?

So you could be relaxed and productive as you surfed the 'net and engaged in informative and stimulating discussions with your peers.

NOW how much would you pay?

What is a troll? (1)

Scutter (18425) | about 3 months ago | (#47694515)

Until you can quantitatively define what a troll is, you can't do anything about it. Web forum moderators have been struggling with this question for as long as there have been online discussions.

Re:What is a troll? (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about 3 months ago | (#47694663)

Troll is a person posting an inflammatory message with the deliberate intent of exciting readers into a controversial response. This is the exact definition.

But the word is misused a lot, indeed. For example, just writing hateful comments, or messages with disinformation, is not trolling.

Re:What is a troll? (3, Interesting)

Scutter (18425) | about 3 months ago | (#47694713)

Troll is a person posting an inflammatory message with the deliberate intent of exciting readers into a controversial response. This is the exact definition.

But the word is misused a lot, indeed. For example, just writing hateful comments, or messages with disinformation, is not trolling.

And that's exactly my point. How do you prove "intent" on a message board? You have to be able to have black-and-white rules that say "This guy is posting a different and unpopular opinion but that guy is trying to stir up trouble." Those rules have to apply one hundred percent of the time because people are REALLY REALLY good at hiding intent and playing innocent when they're serious about trolling. In fact, the internet generally applauds the "masterful troll" who can hook as many people as possible. For all you know, I'm trolling you right now by leading you down a conversational path to an as-yet undisclosed end-game. There's just no way to know and that's why it's so hard to put a stop to it.

Re:What is a troll? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 3 months ago | (#47694915)

That's true.

Not but if you want my money (1)

GeekWithAKnife (2717871) | about 3 months ago | (#47694521)


I would pay for a website without your fat mother.

Uh, no. (0, Offtopic)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 3 months ago | (#47694535)

Betteridge headline: [wikipedia.org]

No.

I didn't have to pay to post to usenet (now google groups), /, or reddit.

Only the naive (or idiots) would believe forcing people to pay would "magically" remove the trolls.

No way (1)

Tyrannicsupremacy (1354431) | about 3 months ago | (#47694537)

Trolling kicks ass, why would i pay to stop?

Don't read the comments (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694549)

With the exception of sites like Ars and /. comments posted are generally of a lower mentality level than the article. Save a few minutes of your life and skip the comments. Except this one.

Nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694565)

Go SoylentNews!

Doesn't work (obviously) (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 3 months ago | (#47694569)

Concrete example:

The Airliners.net forums are paid if you want to post something. Still plenty of trolls to go around.

Pay with what? (1)

number17 (952777) | about 3 months ago | (#47694573)

I think you are asking should we pay with money via a subscription or one time payment, but its not clear. Current users of Slashdot are paying with their time and bandwidth when looking at ads.

I'd pay for a website without (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694577)

I'd pay for a website without niggers and faggots.

Re:I'd pay for a website without (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694623)

I'd pay for a website without niggers and faggots.

And give the money to Hitler. Oh wait:

.. or they degrade very quickly until someone makes a reference to Hitler.

Absolutely not! (1)

EzInKy (115248) | about 3 months ago | (#47694585)

To be honest though, I've not seen a single thing on the internet that I would be willing to pay for just to see. Yeah, I know there are many who are...but I've never been able to get my head around the idea that subscription based sites are of any real value. Add to that already cynical view of paying for any information being a stupid propisition the thought of paying to hide thoughts that you find offensive then you've really entered negative territory for the cost of wasting time on trivial matters.

Re:Absolutely not! (2)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 3 months ago | (#47694611)

Most people would pay $30/mo for a better Internet experience.

People are not dumb enough to pay for 30 individual sites; and paying a flat fee...that's what your ISP does. The cash troll filter is the secondary annoyance that drives away everyone but hard-core users, and filters out everyone but the most hard-core trolls (and hackers who cracked your password list).

Websites? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694587)

I'd pay for *bridges* without trolls.

Why would a paywall keep trolls out? (1)

putaro (235078) | about 3 months ago | (#47694595)

It might keep a few out but there are people who get their jollies out of trolling and the outrage that they create and might be willing to pay a few bucks for their hobby. It's been going on at least since Usenet (mid 80's).

I do enjoy small scale discussion on Facebook. I usually limit people who can post on my comments to friends of friends and that keeps the discussions more civil and usually more relevant. Perhaps the real problem is just that the number of people who can post a comment on many discussions is just too large. There is the risk of living in an echo chamber, though. Maybe a discussion site that creates groups with a representative sample of views, etc.

Yes. (2)

louzer (1006689) | about 3 months ago | (#47694607)

BTW You are literally Hitler for wanting eliminate trolls.

Re:Yes. (2)

DocSavage64109 (799754) | about 3 months ago | (#47694843)

He doesn't want to eliminate the trolls, he just wants to filter them into "other sites" (concentration camps) where us good people don't have to see them.

Heck, no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694619)

A site like slashdot would lose a lot of value not having trolls "weighing" in on the conversation.
Same with mass media news site, I find the comments more entertaining/enlightning than the actual contact itself !
But, it may just be me.

Depends what you mean. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694651)

People like to mislabel anyone they disagree with as a troll.

This is one of the good things on this site, for the most part, the user-moderation is actually usually fairly decent.
It has its flaws though.

What I would pay for is for this damn company to open up the Slashdot comment system as a service for other websites.
Of course, that still will not fix a shitty community. The idea that moderation can somehow change bad in to good is as silly as the old legends of alchemy. Moderation won't give you gold. What will? That, again, depends. There is no "cure-all" button on fixing a websites community.
And in some cases, you cannot fix a community because it is, quite simply, a shit magnet.

I wouldn't pay for a site without trolls.
Because they always tend towards becoming shit themselves, especially the mods. (see Something Awful)
If EVERYONE was a mod, then I would consider it. (and only admins should be allowed to see IPs, who the fuck thought that was a good idea to give mods that permission?)
And I mean more like Slashdot moderation, majority votes, maximum number of votes for each category (+5, or -1), dishing out points only to various people who are active, no karma system because it is stupid and can be abused easily.
Votebanned using the same rating system, it is temporary at best. It can be reversed if more people reverse the posts score.
Only admins can perform anything above that.

sort of (1)

Triv (181010) | about 3 months ago | (#47694653)

You know, in a way, Facebook is the best thing to happen to web communities in years - the threads are incomprehensible and move so fast but the audience is so large that it's basically flypaper for wingnuts.

Then again, comment blockers and Ghostery make this largely a non-issue for me anyway.

Won't fix it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694679)

People pay lots of money to troll on TV ads and run rake "think tanks." They're likely already paying people to say shit in online discussions. Some small payment per comment isn't going to slow them down at all. What it will do is send away the other commenters.

No. Nor one run by unicorns. (1)

T.E.D. (34228) | about 3 months ago | (#47694683)

First off, no I won't pay directly for any web content. Nor will the general public at large (unless perhaps involves pron). You can remove that idea from your head right now. it won't work, because nobody will show up.

Secondly, you can't just magically fix trolling with a dumb barrier of some kind. It really takes a human to spot the difference between someone putting forth an honest opinion, and somebody trying to create chaos. Not only that, but trolls are inventive and creative, and can swamp even a seemingly large moderation team with damage to fix. So you need a surprisingly large team monitoring every nook and cranny of your website 24/7. There's just no way to do that, short of enlisting your users.

So the previous sentence is the key here: You have to enlist your users to keep your site usable. They generally want that, but they certainly aren't going to be inclined to provide a lot of help if they think they are already paying somebody else to do that job.

Right now the only decent known cure for Trolls is reputation-based postings and user moderation. Putting a paywall up front will drastically lower your moderator pool, which will just help trolls.

SOme do this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694689)

Doesn't SomethingAwful do this?

STFU (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694691)

This recent "anti-trolls" campaign was set up to encourage governments and media sites to ban anonymity. And it definitely doesn't surprise me that it was started by the NYT.

We already do (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about 3 months ago | (#47694697)

The internet is supported by public and private companies and also by tax dollars. We already pay to have a troll-free internet.

trolls are a myth (2)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 3 months ago | (#47694703)

Let me state the current definition of a troll: someone who disagrees with you. There is NOBODY out there posting stupid comments on purpose to cause arguments and screw with people. I've certainly never seen it.

Mod parent up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694765)

fuk u faget

Disagreement (1)

AlecDalek (3781731) | about 3 months ago | (#47694709)

Just because you disagree with someone, doesn't mean they're a troll.

i doubt it works that way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694735)

When people pay for a service, they expect to have the ability to voice their opinion much more harshly towards it... therefore they will troll news harder if you ask someone to pay for it than if it was free... but that my opinion...

Has trolling gone downhill? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694741)

When did the definition of troll change from "someone who is rational, polite, intelligent, and articulate, but who deliberately advances a minority opinion or deliberately misunderstands an issue in order to enjoy the anger and argument this causes from others" to "someone abusive"?

Convince me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694743)

I might, if you managed to convince me you had a way to actually hold them out - or even stop them from taking over the conversation.

I would also expect that this way would be completely fair to all participants, and not based on the discretion of some enlightened despot moderator.(I might still visit a monarch-run site, but I'd let the monarchs pay for it themselves!

Slashdot actually tries, on comments at least, with its moderation system which was revolutionary in its day. Other sites and tools, like reddit and disqus, try with considerably less effort - they prefer traffic numbers to quality. You'll have to do better than all of them. Then sure, I'll consider paying.

Trolls are half the fun ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694809)

Reading, replying to and sometimes baiting trolls (or indeed reasonable posters) is what makes internet discussion fun.

Absolutely not (1)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | about 3 months ago | (#47694811)

I most certainly do NOT want anyone else defining and banning "trolls". It's a very short trip from mods deciding who a troll is to mods censoring speech they don't like. I've seen that trip taken on many forums.

Only a very short list of very obviously unacceptable behavior needs to be banned: illegal material, obvious spam, and frequently repeated copypasta. There are many things I would rather not read from frosty piss to Obama's duke to grits but it's well worth reading those to be sure my own speech is free and the opinions I read are organically derived.

What this really means (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 3 months ago | (#47694835)

Can there be any such thing as a social (in the sense of having a community) where no one will strongly disagree with me? I'm sure Silicon Valley can package something like this as an app with a name ending in -ly.

No. I just stop visiting... (1)

technomom (444378) | about 3 months ago | (#47694837)

No, I just stop visiting websites where trolls dominate the conversation (CNN, I'm looking at you).

I am a troll... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47694865)

... or at least it feels that way. I always post anonymously, and since my opinions deviate from the general /, crowd my postings are pretty much ignored or downvoted. So most of the times I don't even bother, but occasionally I enjoy seeing my comment disappear into the void. So yeah, the /. system works, but you don't get to see many deviating views and opinions.

Ask Rusty over at K5 (1)

fredrickleo (711335) | about 3 months ago | (#47694899)

kuro5hin.org requires people to pay like $5 or something to create an account. Now that site's nothing but trolls who paid $5 trolling each other to get their $5 worth.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?