Trolls are winning the internet, technologists say
What if most of them aren&#x27;t &quot;trolls&quot; at all, but rather people who have something to say that is important to them and they choose a method to say it that upsets some people?<p>The base assumption is that many of them are old-school variety: they seek disruption for its own sake.  Suppose for a moment that this base assumption should not be taken as axiomatic.  What else might motivate such a person?  Some of you are quick to jump to the conclusion that money is the only other motivation.  But money isn&#x27;t what motivates everyone.  Lots of people create art, for example, and receive little to no money for what they do.<p>What if some people are trying to motivate others to think about the things they believe, say, and do?  Their medium need not be literature, paintings, music, sculpture, and so forth.  A sarcastic tongue can teach too.  It can spread ideas and challenge assumptions.  Writing a lengthy essay that nobody will read may be a counterproductive use of time.<p>People roll their eyes if one brings up philosophy in a casual setting.  I see a lot of things people call &quot;trolling&quot; as small performances of philosophy.  Not all of them are effective, virtuous, or well-informed.  But some are.  The ones that really get under our skin are the ones who actually understand us the best, they know our weaknesses and exploit them.  There is too much focus on who they are and whether or not they&#x27;re getting paid (because they probably aren&#x27;t) and not enough on what is being said.  In a lot of cases, what isn&#x27;t said is just as important.  If the &quot;troll&quot; wants you to think about your own positions, he may just omit several critical details on purpose and let you fill in the blanks.<p>Diogenes didn&#x27;t make people happy when he walked about in broad daylight with a lantern looking for &quot;an honest man&quot;, he made some of them laugh, and made others angry.  Socrates made enemies by arguing with people and showing them that they didn&#x27;t really know why they believed as they did.  I&#x27;ve had more productive conversations with people in my life when I took an adversarial position to them under the veil of anonymity, even though I agreed with their position.  If I can argue a position I don&#x27;t agree with and hold my own, the other guy comes out of it with new ammunition to defeat it too (or more ambition to find some), and they often teach me a few tricks along the way.<p>It is entirely too easy to dismiss a person if all you think they want is to make you mad with what they&#x27;ve said.