全為了好玩? Youtube酸民文化研究 - 政大學術集成

全文

(1)國立政治大學國際傳播英語碩士學位學程 International Master’s Program in International Communication Studies College of Communication National Chengchi University 碩士論文 Master’s Thesis . 立. 政治大. ‧ 國. 學. 全為了好玩? Youtube 酸民文化研究 . They do it for the Lulz: Examining Trolls in the Context of YouTube . y. Nat. n. al. sit. . er. io. . ‧. . Ch. e n g c h i. i Un. v. Student: Kevin Lim 林海威 Advisor: Professor Wang Su-‐Mei 中華民國 104 年 6 月 June 2015 .

(2) 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. . Ch. engchi. 2 . i Un. v.

(3) Abstract Online trolls, who hide behind the veil of anonymity to obtain “lulz,” or entertainment from causing distress and pain to others, have been in existence since the advent of the internet. However, the rise of social media and the internet’s increased capabilities for a more global and interconnected community of interaction has concurrently brought to light the damaging effects of trolls, and the mysterious individuals lurking behind the mask. There are many classifications of online trolls, all defined specifically by the spaces they inhabit. Previous academics have investigated trolls in a few of these online . 政治大. contexts including Facebook, Reddit and Wikipedia. . 立. This thesis aims to extend the academic discussion of trolls to YouTube, specifically . ‧ 國. 學. through examining the comments sections of famed YouTube user PewDiePie. First . ‧. observed by Hardaker (2010), trollish characteristics such as ‘deception,’ ‘aggression,’ . sit. y. Nat. ‘disruption,’ and ‘success’ are assessed in context of YouTube. This study will also attempt . io. al. er. to investigate the further social implications of online trolls such as their discriminatory . n. tendencies as well as analyzing the persona behind the troll’s mask. . . Ch. engchi. i . i Un. v.

(4) Table of Contents Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... i List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ iv Chapter 1 -‐ Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2 – Literature Review .................................................................................................. 4 2.1 What are Trolls? ............................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Hiding Behind the Veil: Online Anonymity as an Affordance for Trolls .......................... 8 2.3 The Culture of “Lulz”: It’s what Trolls Live For .............................................................. 14 . 治政大 2.5 Trolls Come in all Shapes and Sizes .............................................................................. 30 立 2.5.1 Wikipedia Trolls .................................................................................................................. 31 2.4 Distinguishing Trolls from Other Online Deviants ........................................................ 21 . ‧ 國. 學. 2.5.2 Reddit Trolls ........................................................................................................................ 32 2.5.3 Trolls on Facebook: the Memorial Troll .............................................................................. 33 . ‧. 2.5.4 Trolls on Online Newspaper/Magazine websites ................................................................ 35 2.5.5 Twitter Trolls ....................................................................................................................... 36 . Nat. sit. y. 2.5.6 Anonymous Group .............................................................................................................. 38 . al. er. io. 2.5.7 YouTube Trolls ..................................................................................................................... 40 . n. 2.6 Investigating the Deeper Implications of Trolls ............................................................ 44 . Ch. i Un. v. 2.7 Extending Research to YouTube Platform .................................................................... 52 . engchi. 2.7.1 The Rise of YouTube ............................................................................................................ 53 2.7.2 PewDiePie – King of YouTube ............................................................................................. 56 . Chapter 3 -‐ Methodology ....................................................................................................... 66 3.1 Hardaker’s Model of Trolls ........................................................................................... 68 Chapter 4 -‐ Characteristics of YouTube Trolls: The Case of PewDiePie .................................. 72 4.1 Aggression .................................................................................................................... 75 4.2 Deception ..................................................................................................................... 81 4.3 Disruption ..................................................................................................................... 85 4.4 Success .......................................................................................................................... 92 4.5 Resentment .................................................................................................................. 97 . . ii .

(5) Chapter 5: The Social Implications of YouTube Trolls .......................................................... 104 5.1 Discriminatory Tendencies of Trolls ........................................................................... 106 5.1.1 Youtube Trolls and Sexism ................................................................................................ 106 5.1.2 YouTube Trolls and Homophobia ...................................................................................... 108 5.1.3 YouTube Trolls and Racism/Xenophobia ........................................................................... 108 . 5.2 Analyzing Specific YouTube Trolls ............................................................................... 111 5.2.1 Babywannabe ................................................................................................................... 111 5.2.2 Erim Aydinalp .................................................................................................................... 114 5.2.3 MLG POTATO .................................................................................................................... 117 5.2.4 jelena jankovic .................................................................................................................. 120 5.2.5 Jeenius Foo ........................................................................................................................ 121 . 政治大 Chapter 6: Limitations .......................................................................................................... 130 立 5.3 Social Implication of YouTube Trolls ........................................................................... 124 . ‧ 國. 學. Chapter 7: Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 132 Works Cited .......................................................................................................................... 135 . n. al. er. io. sit. y. Nat. . ‧. . . Ch. engchi. iii . i Un. v.

(6) List of Tables Table 1. Characteristics of YouTube Trolls .............................................................................. 74 Table 2. Patterns of Aggression in YouTube Trolls ................................................................. 76 Table 3. Discriminatory Practices of YouTube Trolls ............................................................ 105 . 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. . Ch. engchi. iv . i Un. v.

(7) Chapter 1 -‐ Introduction The troll is a modern day character, whose conception arose with the birth of the internet. Although most people find them unwelcome and repulsive, the devious troll still thrives in the online world. Many are reminded of the fairytale “The Three Billygoats Gruff” in which a fearsome troll lies in waiting to gobble up whomever or whatever dares to cross the bridge which rests above its lair. Some may find online trolls as dark and vile as their mythological counterparts but a distinct difference is that online trolls do not idly wait to “devour” their victims. In fact, the term “trolling” originally referred to a practice by . 政治大. fishermen who slowly dragged a lure from a moving boat to attract fish to bite. In the online . 立. world, trolls are also known for actively placing bait, in the form of inflammatory or . ‧ 國. 學. controversial comments or posts, in hopes that unwitting users “bite” and are ultimately . ‧. dragged into troll’s trap. . sit. y. Nat. Trolls vary according to specific contexts as different online communities define . io. al. er. trolls differently. However, trolls are generally known to cause trouble to individuals and . n. online groups through various means such as provocation and disruption. Their motivations . Ch. engchi. i Un. v. may also vary from boredom to attention-‐seeking, or as one recent study has proven, trolls are essentially the sadists of modern times driven by the pleasure of making others suffer (Buckels, Trapnell, & Paulhus, 2014). The issue of trolling has become steadily more prevalent in modern day discourse as the influence of social media outlets such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, and other online tools such as Wikipedia, YouTube and Reddit increase with each passing day. For example, Twitter has become a popular tool for trolls who spew vitriolic and hateful comments towards anyone they please. The issue has been so widespread that in February 2015, Twitter CEO Dick Costolo personally apologized for the rampant amount of trolls who . 1 .

(8) plagued the Twitter platform, writing in an internal memo, “It's no secret and the rest of the world talks about it every day. We lose core user after core user by not addressing simple trolling issues that they face every day” (Hern, 2015). In other affected segments of the internet, prominent websites such as Popular Science and CNN have vanquished a key aspect of community interaction by removing their commenting systems, women are constantly harassed and bullied online, sometimes to the point of suicide, and community-‐based websites such as YouTube are teeming with vile and crude comments – all credited to the work of trolls. Online trolls outright ruin the online . 政治大. experience for the majority of users who play by the rules and remain civil in their . 立. interactions. . ‧ 國. 學. These cases bring up serious academic discussion about the identity of trolls, what makes them so effective and the motivations which lie behind their deviant behaviors. As . ‧. more and more users become connected through the global community of the internet, it . y. Nat. er. io. sit. also raises a slew of issues such as the social impact of trolls, how websites and individuals users can thwart trolls or protect themselves from their negative effects, and coming to . al. n. iv n C grips with reality that trolls will undoubtedly with us for as long as the internet exists, h e nremain gchi U and that we just need to learn to deal with them. This dissertation will attempt to uncover some of these existing discussions about trolls, first by defining what trolls are and outlining their characteristics, even though they vary depending on context, and examining the internet’s allowance of anonymity which enables individuals to troll online when they might act otherwise in real life. Furthermore, we will examine troll culture in order to uncover some of the motivations behind trolling behaviors and attempt to distinguish trolls from other deviant online behavior, while highlighting several specific platform-‐oriented trolls, such as those on YouTube, Reddit, . . 2 .

(9) Wikipedia, Facebook, etc., and how they have adapted to thrive in their unique environments. After taking a closer look at the identities of trolls and the deeper implications of their practices, this thesis will attempt to extend existing academic literature about trolls to YouTube, a significant video-‐sharing platform which inarguably maintains a significant level of influence in the modern world. In this study, I will observe trolls gleaned from one of YouTube’s most renowned users, PewDiePie, whose immense popularity and monumental fan base (35 million subscribers and counting) makes him and his videos inherently attractive targets for trolls. After analyzing the results, this study will attempt to . 政治大. draw conclusions through the search of significant patterns and link findings to previous . 立. research pertaining the broader notion of internet trolls. . ‧. ‧ 國. . 學. . n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. . Ch. engchi. 3 . i Un. v.

(10) Chapter 2 – Literature Review 2.1 What are Trolls? It is difficult to determine a fixed definition or set of characteristics that is encompassing of all trolls. This may be more so the case in recent times as the uses for the internet, as well as the variety of online platforms, has expanded and are continuing to grow each day. Across the internet, the term “troll” has been associated with a range of different activities and has become a blanket term to describe any and all online activities which one might find unwholesome (Hardaker, 2010). . 政治大. At the infancy of the internet, discussion sites such as Usenet and MUD’s, online text . 立. based roleplaying games, were popular among users. During this time, the practice of . ‧ 國. 學. trolling was first documented by Donath (1999), who described trolling as a game of . ‧. deception -‐ a troll may enter an online group appearing to be a legitimate participant but . y. sit. io. al. er. whole. . Nat. soon, find ways in which to become a nuisance to others and the online community as a . v. n. A famous real-‐life case study by Herring et al. (2002) supports Donath’s claims. The . Ch. engchi. i Un. study chronicled the efforts of a troll named Kent who wreaked havoc in an online feminist forum for two months. During his reign of terror, Kent initially feigned sincerity to gain acceptance as a legitimate user of the feminist group. However, as time passed, Kent quickly revealed his true colors as he resorted to provoking members through obscene name-‐calling or insults, or disrupting the community, all while community members had their hands tied as they struggled to properly deal with the destructive troll in their midst. An important concept in Donath’s (1999) description of trolls is that they aim to deceive their victims, specifically through pseudo-‐naïve tactics. Others have echoed this claim by stating that trolling involves “posing as legitimate members and posting . 4 .

(11) inflammatory comments designed to provoke other members” (Kiesler, Kraut, Resnick, & Kittur, 2012). Deception may have been a key concept in trollish behavior for the specific instances in which these early observations were based, but it is not a necessary factor for all modern iterations of trolls. Since Donath’s initial analysis of trolls 25 years ago, trolls and trollish behaviors have evolved and become much broader. Scholars in more recent times do not have a completely cohesive view behind the definition of a troll and many have even acknowledged that the very concept of trolls is subjective (Haque, 2014). Hopkinson (2013) admitted that trolling is a “conceptually fuzzy . 政治大. term” as it means different things to different people and trolls vary from site to site (Binns, . 立. 2012). This may be because different communities have different standards and notions of . ‧ 國. 學. what is normative and what is not (Kiesler et al., 2012). Manjoo (2014) also conceded that the term “troll” is vague as they “lurk in darkness; their aims are unclear, their intentions . ‧. unknown, their affiliations mysterious.” As such, trolling has become a “catch-‐all term” . y. Nat. er. io. 2010; Hopkinson, 2013). . sit. often indiscriminately applied to a range of negatively characterized behaviors (Hardaker, . al. n. iv n C Urban Dictionary, a collaborative U offers the #1 user voted h eonline h di ictionary, n gsclang . definition of trolls as “one who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument” (“Urban Dictionary: troll,” 2002). Wikipedia’s definition states that: . “A troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-‐topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) . . 5 .

(12) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-‐topic discussion.” (“Troll (Internet),” 2015) . Binns (2012) argued that trolls generally “make trouble” for others, and Kirman et. al (2012) stated that trolls “take pleasure in upsetting others.” Common themes about what kinds of behavior constitute trolling include provoking others online (Hopkinson, 2013; Kiesler et al., 2012; Kirman et al., 2012), disrupting online communities (Hardaker, 2010; Herring et al., 2002; Hopkinson, 2013; Kiesler et al., 2012), or that it contains an element of deception (Buckels et al., 2014; Donath & others, 1999; Hardaker, 2010). Others have stated . 政治大 that it involves destroying and harming online others and communities (Buckels et al., 2014; 立. ‧ 國. 學. Shachaf & Hara, 2010) while at least one scholar, Bergstrom (2011), posited that trolls . possess an ascertainable degree of malice since they intentionally seek to hurt others. . ‧. Weckerle (2013), author of the book “Civility in the digital age: how companies and people . Nat. sit. n. al. er. io. view of the troll: . y. can triumph over haters, trolls, bullies, and other jerks” provides a more comprehensive . Ch. engchi. i Un. v. They delight in insulting, shocking, upsetting, and provoking others. They do this in a variety of ways. They write attacking and inflammatory content. They bring irrelevant and extraneous information to online exchanges to throw discussions off course. They post offensive and shocking images, often doctored to serve their purposes. No topic is off limits for them, and the more controversial, the better because outrageous actions are more likely to elicit strong responses from those targeted. (p. 87) . . 6 .

(13) On the whole, the concept of trolling has been quite varied and while there have been a few overlapping themes, scholars agree that the term is, at best, purely subjective. For the purpose of this study, trolls will be defined as individuals who maliciously seek to trouble or disrupt other online users and communities. This definition implies two major points: 1) trolls vary according to the specific platforms in which they exist and 2) specifics regarding “how” a troll troubles and disrupts are defined and generally accepted by the overall users and communities of these platforms. The YouTube online video platform, which is the main subject of investigation in this . 政治大. dissertation, contains a comments section beneath each video (although some users may . 立. opt to turn this feature off). Not surprisingly, like other online boards, forums, or blogs, . ‧ 國. 學. YouTube’s community discussion ecosystem is also a fertile breeding ground for trolls. YouTube trolls often search for a dedicated community of fans and intentionally post . Nat. y. ‧. provocative messages in order to elicit fervid reactions. . er. io. sit. This proposed definition, however, does not include motives as to why trolls act the way they do and as we will observe later, there are many different types of trolls according . al. n. iv n C to the online context in which they emerge. delving more into motivations or specific h e nBefore gchi U types of trolls, it is important to understand exactly what about the internet acts as a catalyst for trolling and other anti-‐social behaviors. . . 7 .

(14) 2.2 Hiding Behind the Veil: Online Anonymity as an Affordance for Trolls The internet is a haven for many users to openly share their beliefs and opinions without the fear of backlash, ridicule and judgment of others because ultimately, no one truly knows who you are. This anonymity is what many have come to both love and hate about the internet. It’s true that online anonymity has many positive aspects such as its importance for democratic processes, namely freedom of speech in sharing unfavorable ideas and opinions, and also for empowering those who might normally be discriminated against in real life (Christopherson, 2007; Kennedy, 2006). . 政治大. However, anonymity can also bring out the worst in mankind; its freeing properties . 立. can catalyze hatred and spite. Even the ancient philosopher Plato once contemplated what . ‧ 國. 學. effect anonymity could have on one’s morality; In his mythical tale “Ring of Gyges,” the . ‧. main character, upon finding a golden ring that grants him invisibility, proceeds to use its powers to seduce the queen, slay the king and take up the throne for himself. . y. Nat. er. io. sit. Anonymity, for many online users, is an affordance that allows them to freely spew hatred and bring down others without fear of punishment. Santana (2014) reviewed . al. n. iv n C hundreds of comments on newspaper h site i Uimmigration and found that 53 eanrticles g cahbout percent of the anonymous comments were uncivil in contrast to 29 percent of the non-‐ anonymous comments which were uncivil. Also, non-‐anonymous commenters were three times more likely to leave civil comments than those who were anonymous. To put the power of anonymity into perspective, consider the plight of women rights activist Anita Sarkeesian, who for the past few years, has been a victim of hordes of nameless and faceless trolls (Kolhatkar, 2014). Trolls have attempted to ruin Sarkeesian’s life by sending her death threats, spreading false rumors and revealing her personal information online, with little chance of being held accountable for their actions. In the . 8 .

(15) article, law professor at the University of Maryland and author of Hate Crimes in Cyberspace, Danielle Citron, explained why this kind of outlandish abuse is possible in the 21st century, . The Internet brings out the best and the worst in us. Anonymity lets us be our true selves, so the domestic violence victim or the LGBT person can communicate in a way they couldn’t before. But the trolls and the stalkers also act with impunity, because they can. Anonymity is the gasoline on the fire of hate that flares up on forums, chat rooms, and Xbox Live on a daily basis. (Kolhatkar, 2014) . 立. 政治大. Anonymity fuels many anti-‐social behaviors such as trolling and cyberbullying. The . ‧ 國. 學. online world is different from real life because of many reasons, and thus many people . ‧. exhibit behaviors differently online than they would in the real world. Hardaker (2010) . y. sit. io. n. al. er. is often an ill-‐mixture: . Nat. offers an explanation as to why computer-‐mediated communication (CMC) and anonymity . Ch. i Un. v. CMC can offer a very high degree of anonymity, and a great deal more . engchi. control over a self-‐representation than is available in FtF (Face to Face communication), but this anonymity can also foster a sense of impunity, loss self-‐awareness, and a likelihood of acting upon normally inhibited impulses. (pp. 223-‐224) . There have been several theories about the effects of anonymity on online users. Suler (2004) first noted that anonymity contributes to the online disinhibition effect. That is, individuals behave quite differently online than they would in normal everyday life. Suler . . 9 .

(16) posited other factors which contribute to the disinhibiting effects of the internet such as invisibility and asynchronicity, but most studies credit the most prevalent affordance for trolling and other anti-‐social behaviors to the privilege of anonymity (Binns, 2012; Christopherson, 2007; Lapidot-‐Lefler & Barak, 2012; Moore, Nakano, Enomoto, & Suda, 2012; Moor, Heuvelman, & Verleur, 2010; Turner, 2010). In contrast, the theory of deindividuation, which offers different explanation for the effects of anonymity, describes a state in which individuals in a group will cause a decrease in self-‐observation, self-‐evaluation and concern for social comparison and concern. In other words, the loss of self-‐awareness . 政治大. when online might contribute to an individual’s likelihood to troll because they are not fully . 立. aware of their damage to others. . ‧ 國. 學. Another important aspect of anonymity is that it allows for people online to be unaccountable for their actions. Because online selves cannot be held accountable, this may . ‧. lead to a decrease in public self-‐awareness so trolls may be aware of what they are doing . y. Nat. er. io. sit. but do so without fear of being punished. Christopherson (2007) called this feature autonomy which “involves the chance to experiment with new behaviors without fear of . al. n. iv n C social consequences” (p. 3401). In turn, lead to sense of extreme freedom haeutonomy i U n g c chould for the individual who might do things normally disapproved of by others without the fear of consequences. Internet anonymity also has an “equalizing effect,” as Santana (2014) noted. Regardless of social status, sex, race, age, religion or status signifiers in the real world, everyone essentially remains at the same level online. “Because we cannot see each other, we cannot judge each other; consequently, virtual worlds are equalizing,” writes Kennedy (2006, p. 864). . . 10 .

(17) Some have made a differentiation between different types or degrees of online anonymity. Hayne and Rice (1997) described two broad categories of anonymity – ‘technical anonymity’ and ‘social anonymity.’ ‘Technical anonymity’ is the removal of all meaningful identifying information about others, such as their name or picture, in the exchange of material. ‘Social anonymity’ refers to the perception of anonymity so while a user might not be truly anonymous, they still may perceive themselves to be so. Kennedy (2006) said, “There is a distinction between feeling and being anonymous” (p. 866). Admittedly, there are still others who say a lot of vicious and hateful things under . 政治大. their real names, as with the case of Twitter or Facebook users. Such individuals may be . 立. under the impression that they were anonymous as Joseph Reagle, Professor of . ‧. ‧ 國. 學. Communication Studies at Northeastern University suggests: . People say horrible things on Twitter all the time under their own names. . Nat. sit. y. There was a case in which the feminist website Jezebel—after President . n. al. er. io. Obama was elected—went and collected a series of Tweets from teenagers . i Un. v. saying horrible, racist things under their own names. And there’s the . Ch. engchi. Steubenville rape case—a lot of those guys were Tweeting horrible things under their real names. Even if they didn’t have anonymity, maybe they thought that they did (Lynch, 2014). . Therefore, even though some online trolls may not be truly anonymous, the mere belief that they are anonymous is sufficient to spur them to do and say things they otherwise would not in Face-‐to-‐Face (FtF) communication. Many online trolls utilize various online tools to protect their anonymity online, such as virtual private networks (VPN) or masking IP addresses, while most trolls on social media sites simply do not register with . 11 .

(18) their real names or refrain from setting a profile pic. However, even the best measures may not completely ensure one’s anonymity online. There are also different degrees of anonymity. Lapidot-‐Lefter and Barak (2012) made a distinction between ‘unidentifiability,’ the condition of being unknown to online others in terms of name, gender, age, weight, etc. and also ‘invisibility,’ which is not being able to see someone’s physical self online. Therefore, one can still video-‐chat with a stranger online who is “visible” while still unable to identify him/her. Regarding invisibility, Moor et. al. (2010) found that the lack of eye contact in . 政治大. Computer-‐Mediated-‐Communication (CMC) was a significant factor in flaming behaviors, . 立. a.k.a. the use of hostile expression toward others in online communication. Moor also . ‧ 國. 學. concluded that loss of self-‐awareness because of online anonymity was a plausible cause of flaming on YouTube. Finally, anonymity was a proven factor in aggressive online posts . ‧. Nat. er. io. sit. anonymous than those who defended other users from attacks. . y. (Moore et al., 2012). Individuals who attacked other online users were more likely to be . It is undisputed that anonymity plays a fundamental role for those individuals who . al. n. iv n C act as jerks online when they would be hless inclined to i do e n g c h Uso in real life. In fact, many . websites have resorted to removing aspects of anonymity, such as requiring users register with a real name, in order to combat trolling. More information about the methods in which to deter trolls or at least minimize their harmful effects are presented in later sections. Anonymity itself can only be seen as an affordance to trolling, just as how owning a gun allows a person to murder. A gun owner has the free will to murder in the same way individuals concealed behind a wall of anonymity may choose to troll, but in the end, it still boils down to choice. Similarly, Lange (2007) has postulated that “it is not anonymity (or anonymity alone) but widespread forms of prejudice that lead to hateful messages” (p. 9). . . 12 .

(19) Unanswered is the question “Why do some individuals troll and what are their motivations?” It is difficult to provide a conclusive answer to this question as the underlying motivations for trolling are still among dispute, and trolls on different platforms may be driven by different reasons. This question may be better answered by taking a closer look at troll culture, much of which is centered around the acquisition of “lulz” or entertainment obtained at the expense of online others. . 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. . Ch. engchi. 13 . i Un. v.

(20) 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? . 政治大. Some have attributed trolling motivations to boredom (Jun, 2014; Shachaf & Hara, . 立. 2010; West, 2015). They claim that individuals troll because they have nothing better to do . ‧ 國. 學. 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, . y. Nat. er. io. sit. 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 . al. n. iv n C “Don’t Feed the Troll” (DFTT) in order th o e starve them oi f tU n g c h he 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. . . 14 .

(21) 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 . 政治大. playground!” (p.5). Furthermore, it was concluded that individuals who commented most . 立. frequently online were also most likely to partake in or enjoy trolling, thus adding to . ‧ 國. 學. 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 . y. Nat. er. io. sit. 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 . al. n. iv n C “aggressive form of laughter” (Phillips, h 2012). It is laughter e n g c h i Uthat 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 . . 15 .

(22) 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). . 政治大 Some trolls may cooperate together and collectively acquire lulz from their victims, who are 立. ‧ 國. 學. 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 . Nat. al. er. io. sit. y. troll may achieve the “lulz”: . v. n. “[N]ot everybody, especially not the victim, knows what is happening. . Ch. engchi. i Un. 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 . . 16 .

(23) 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 . 政治大 would be simple: 1. Do whatever it takes to get lulz. 2. Make sure the lulz is widely 立. ‧ 國. 學. 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 . Nat. sit. y. deceased and post shocking or inhumane pictures and/or comments. Such posts include . n. al. er. io. pictures of dead babies on a family’s page whose baby had recently died or pictures of car . i Un. v. crashes and body parts amidst a car wreck for those with relatives that had just passed . Ch. engchi. 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 . . 17 .

(24) 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: . 立. 政治大. ‧ 國. 學. 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 . Nat. sit. y. opposite of true, once you’ve been personally targeted. As any parent of a . n. al. er. io. two-‐year old can tell you, ignoring the child usually leads to escalation. Cry . i Un. v. harder, scream louder, and in the most desperate scenarios, become . Ch. engchi. 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. . . 18 .