Chapter 2 – Literature Review
2.3 The Culture of “Lulz”: It’s what Trolls Live For
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
2.3 The Culture of “Lulz”: It’s what Trolls Live For
The internet is a wonderful tool but it can also bring out mankind’s darkest traits, the
“dark id” as is represented by some of the nastiest, negative, and juvenile content one could ever imagine viewing online. As explained earlier, anonymity acts as the principal
mechanism which frees people to act differently online than they would in the real world.
Because online identities are unknown and individuals can’t be held accountable for their actions, many people, often characterized as cowards with little self-‐confidence, are more inclined to troll. But why? What fuels trolls to engage in such vile and despicable behaviors?
Some have attributed trolling motivations to boredom (Jun, 2014; Shachaf & Hara, 2010; West, 2015). They claim that individuals troll because they have nothing better to do with their time, but this doesn’t speak much about why individuals choose to troll instead of seeking less harmful activities when bored.
Others have claimed that trolls are attention-‐seekers (Binns, 2012; Breeze, 2012; Gil, 2014; Hardaker, 2010; Herring et al., 2002; Jun, 2014; MacKinnon & Zuckerman, 2012;
Shachaf & Hara, 2010; Sierra, 2014). Many web users are aware of the common maxim
“Don’t Feed the Troll” (DFTT) in order to starve them of the attention they seek. However, the claim that trolls are driven by their need for attention is somewhat a paradox
considering that most commit their actions under the guise of anonymity. This also fails to address why trolls, in their search for attention, need to resort to anti-‐social behaviors such as provoking and disrupting. Even under the assumption that trolls are bored and/or need attention, there is psychological element clearly missing in these suppositions that doesn’t explain why users troll instead of committing themselves to more wholesome activities.
There indeed lies a deeper root cause behind the troll’s damaging behaviors.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Unfortunately, very few empirical studies regarding actual trolls exist and there are even sparser scientific theories regarding the motivations of trolls. A recent study proved that online trolls are the equivalent of everyday “sadists” (Buckels et al., 2014). The study determined that trolling activities were linked to the Dark Tetrad of personality -‐ which includes narcissim, machiavellanism, and psychopathy -‐ but there was an especially strong correlation between trolling and sadism. The study was able to determine that sadists troll simply because they enjoy it. “Both trolls and sadists feel sadistic glee at the distress of other,” Buckels et al. (2014) writes, “Sadists just want to have fun…and the internet is their playground!” (p.5). Furthermore, it was concluded that individuals who commented most frequently online were also most likely to partake in or enjoy trolling, thus adding to evidence of the link between the excessive use of technology and anti-‐social traits.
The sadistic nature of trolls, as proven in Buckels et. al.’s (2014) study, is
synonymous to what is known in troll culture as the “lulz.” In internet speak, “lulz” is the corruption of the word LOL (laughing at loud) and refers to the amusement of others’
distress. This laughter is not merely a “faint giggle,” but more suitably described as an
“aggressive form of laughter” (Phillips, 2012). It is laughter that comes from pushing other’s buttons while watching their heated reactions, and it stems from “the joy of disrupting one’s emotional equilibrium” (Schwartz, 2008).
“Lulz is watching someone lose their mind at their computer 2,000 miles away while you chat with friends and laugh” said an ex-‐troll while another shared, “[Y]ou exploit their insecurities to get an insane amount of drama, laughs and lulz” (Schwartz, 2008). Wired Magazine’s Quinn Norton (2011) writes
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
The lulz is laughing instead of screaming. It’s a laughter of embarrassment and separation. It’s schadenfreude. It’s not the anesthetic humor that makes days go by easier, it’s humor that heightens contradictions. The lulz is
laughter with pain in it. It forces you to consider injustice and hypocrisy, whichever side of it you are on in that moment.
The culture of “lulz,” also known as troll culture, also includes a social aspect in that trolls share their laughter with others who are “in on the joke.” Those aware of the troll’s intentions are invited to share the glee and laugh along with the troll at their victim(s).
Some trolls may cooperate together and collectively acquire lulz from their victims, who are frequently unaware that they are the butt of a joke. Bartlett (2013) described this as “sitting back and watching the show with a bunch of co-‐conspirators.”
In an interview, troll scholar Stefan Krappitz shared an anecdote to illustrate how a troll may achieve the “lulz”:
“[N]ot everybody, especially not the victim, knows what is happening.
However, if more people do know about the joke, the overall lulz created by it is increased. Often, it is enough to reveal the joke afterwards. Think of David Thorne, who created a fake profile of a young girl on Facebook. This girl
“forgot” to set her birthday party to private and ten thousands of users joined the Facebook page for the party all the while Mr. Thorne was selling t-‐shirts to the “best party ever”. Politicians and journalists all of a sudden started to discuss this Facebook party. After all the buzz settled down, David Thorne revealed the true story. If he hadn’t, this would have remained just some poor
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
girl’s crashed birthday party, but by revealing the whole story, many lulz have been had afterwards with all the buzz that was created.” (Samihaian, 2012)
Apart from enjoying lulz with others, some trolls view lulz as a sort of game or competition in which they try to best one another or “out-‐lulz” their troll peers, so to say.
Schwartz (2008) said that “’Lulz is how trolls keep score” and, indeed, one troll admitted to keeping score of lulz (Turner, 2010).
Perhaps this competitive aspect is why trolls are, at times, willing to go to extreme lengths to obtain the lulz, as illustrated in one troll’s guidelines for acquiring lulz: “Rules would be simple: 1. Do whatever it takes to get lulz. 2. Make sure the lulz is widely
distributed. This will allow for more lulz to be made. 3. The game is never over until all the lulz have been had” (Schwartz, 2008). An extreme example of trolling are Facebook
memorial trolls, also known as RIP trolls, who visit the Facebook pages of the recently deceased and post shocking or inhumane pictures and/or comments. Such posts include pictures of dead babies on a family’s page whose baby had recently died or pictures of car crashes and body parts amidst a car wreck for those with relatives that had just passed away in a car accident. Such trolls enjoy stirring public emotion and they gain strength from the heated reactions of those they manage to instigate.
Though many times unconsciously, trolls revolve around this culture of gaining pleasure from making others suffer. It is impossible to separate this “psychological” sadistic motivation from the culture of lulz that trolls operate under. Trolls live for lulz, it is what makes them do what they do, it is their reason for existence. That is why many experienced online users know not to “feed the trolls.” Trolls are skilled at posting comments intended to provoke others and hope others will take the bait and respond -‐ the more heated and
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
incensed the response, the better. Therefore, the best thing a person can do is to starve the troll of attention, in which case they will quickly move on supposedly to another target.
Many have reasoned that one simply cannot win an argument against a troll because they are immune to criticism, are deaf to logic and have sociopathic tendencies -‐ one author even described them as “psychopath-‐lite” (Kim, 2014). Trolls gain energy and grow in power the more you insult them or attempt to retaliate.
At least one writer, Kathy Sierra (2014), warned that even ignoring trolls is not always a surefire tactic to make them go away. In fact, it may actually have the opposite effect of strengthening the troll:
Yes, sure, “don’t feed the trolls” has been the standard advice, a bullshit talking point propagated by trolls to blame their targets. “You brought this on.
You don’t want this? Don’t engage.” Except that’s not actually true. It’s the opposite of true, once you’ve been personally targeted. As any parent of a two-‐year old can tell you, ignoring the child usually leads to escalation. Cry harder, scream louder, and in the most desperate scenarios, become
destructive. Anything to get the attention they crave. Simply moving on is not an option for the haters once you’ve been labeled a Koolaid server and/or a rich source of lulz. Ignore them, and the trolls cry harder, scream louder, and become destructive.
In most instances, ignoring a troll will probably lead them to give up and look elsewhere in the pursuit of lulz, but this again, is all dependent on context and may not work in all scenarios.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
In addition to sadistic trolls who live for acquiring lulz, some others have investigated another possible breed of “self-‐righteous trolls” who believe they are serving a greater purpose. In a rare interview with infamous troll Jason Fortuny, responsible for numerous high-‐profile troll acts like the “Craigslist Experiment,” Fortuny explained that he was simply a “normal person who does insane things on the internet” (Schwartz, 2008). For reference, the Craigslist Experiment involved Fortuny posting hoax ads on Craigslist, posing as a women in search of “str8 brutal dom muscular men” and then sharing the personal information of the respondents on his blog. Fortuny also attempted to legitimize the work of trolls by claiming that only with trolls demonstrating and making use of exploits, will they get fixed. He has also downplayed some of his actions by blaming the victims for caring so much and said that people would stop getting hurt if they just learned to ignore the trolls.
This complacent attitude is similar to that of Facebook RIP trolls, mentioned earlier, who defend their work as attacking “grief tourists” (Phillips, 2011). Grief tourists are
individuals who visit the memorial pages of the deceased, of whom they have absolutely no ties with, and may sometimes leave notes of condolence. RIP Trolls were also quick to divert attention of their heinous acts through peddling anti-‐hegemonic sentiments such as
“Chelsea King fans: why aren’t you helping to find Jalsea Reynolds?” Jalsea Reynolds was a black high school student who went missing the same week as Chelsea King, but received significantly less media attention.
Phillips (2011) has even described anecdotal examples of trolls frequently referring to themselves in the third person as it “may explain the ease with which trolls detach from the havoc they wreak – in their minds, it’s not exactly them doing the damage.” This phenomenon appears to detail a process in which trolls are merely characters created by
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
individuals, characters that remain separate from their creators. Phillips (2011), described one such troll, Paulie Socash, and the clash of creator/troll dynamic:
Even Paulie Socash, one of the most – let’s say committed – trolls I’ve ever encountered, and whose standard response to criticism of trolling is an emphatic HEY GUYS THE POWER BUTTON IS RIGHT THERE, has at times struggled with particularity. He is, after all, a normal guy who also happens to be a troll, and the normal side of the equation (which, for the record, is really quite pleasant) doesn’t always align with his trolling persona.
Such an example begs the question: “Are trolls purely sadists whose main form of pleasure derives from “lulz,” or are trolls merely constructed identities rationalized as separate from their creators?” Do individuals troll because they enjoy doing harm or do they actually believe they are taking part in harmless fun for the sake of entertainment? Are YouTube trolls sadists in search of causing distress to others or are they actually serious in their disagreements with the YouTubers they argue with? When studying YouTube trolls, it will be helpful to study their attitudes to see just which side of the equation their motivations exist.
It will also be interesting to determine how large a role the acquisition of lulz plays for trolls on YouTube.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學