[kyro]

Many of the comments there are chastising Kathleen for how she responded, but I sympathize with her. As wonderful as the internet has proven to be with connectedness and giving the masses a voice, I struggle to accept that people like Blythe, who abuse their newfound reach, just happen to be the cost of an open online world, not having to bear any consequences for their actions.

The potential damage that one person can now cause online is real and substantial. All it takes is one malicious individual to rile up the online troops to doxx, smear, and ruin a person and their career. And there's almost no risk involved in participating in such an act -- you are anonymous and not held accountable for anything you do.

So while Kathleen's response might seem a bit excessive, I can certainly understand why she acted that way. She was being attacked by an individual who had all the voice and reach in the world, on a mission to destroy her literary work, using a platform that's frustratingly conducive to mob-creation but not debate. I might have done the same.

I don't know what the solution is, or even if one exists, but this is a real problem. We saw the other week how Twitter was used to volley targeted death threats, and how the individual on the receiving end felt genuinely unsafe for her life. And yet Twitter, Reddit, et al. are very blasé about the severity of it all. You wouldn't want to hurt your growth rate, I guess.

[HillRat]

To me, what's really interesting -- and depressing -- about the article is not just how easy it is for a mob to get whipped up by a dedicated troll, but by the (alleged) identity behind the trolling.

We're used to thinking of trolls as teenaged or twentysomething male denziens of 4chan, reddit or Anonymous' IRCs, and yet this article suggests that behind a troll who (again, allegedly) whipped up a hate-mob against a 14-year-old girl could lie a seemingly well-adjusted, gainfully employed middle-aged woman with a couple of dogs and a neatly tended split-level ranch.

In other words, trolling may be more of a universal phenomenon than we usually consider it to be. And if the woman in question was the true identity of the poster, her reaction suggests that she's not the kind of dead-eyed psychopath we normally associate with "swatting," "doxxing" and "the lulz" -- and that trolls may be otherwise normal people who are in thrall to a kind of psychological compulsion occasioned by social networks, pervasive pseudonymity, and the thrill of socially transgressive behavior. Call it something like "electronically-dissociated antisocial personality disorder."

[kyro]

Yeah, agreed. It's both interesting and quite disturbing to think about.

I have a pretty cynical view on social media and its effects on society. I think Blythe, and many others, do this out of a hatred of themselves and their own lives -- a hatred amplified by social media. She admits to stealing her friend's FB picture to use as her own, and if you look at the accounts linked to here, the picture is of a pretty attractive women. I'm willing to bet Blythe sees herself as unattractive, is constantly bombarded by photos of her attractive friends and their escapades, feels comparatively bad about herself, and reacts by creating a persona of who she wants to be, which would explain the pictures of her nonexistent trip to Greece.

I'm not saying the internet, particularly social media, is the reason these people exist, but I can't help but feel that it has both worsened their pre-existing conditions and equipped them with a dangerous coping method. I know a few people whose depression is proportional to their FB use and who react by either isolating themselves or overcompensating by crafting a public shell of happiness and adventure.

[leoc]

The grim recent story of the "McCann troll" from the UK who had a high-profile exposure on TV illustrates this well: http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/2629697/exposed-mcc... There's another recent exposure from the UK which I can't find a source for now but is another good example: one of the most active griefers on (iirc) Facebook, who when tracked down by a journalist turned out to be (again iirc) an unemployed middle-aged man, basically a career petty criminal. When he was asked whether he was worried by the possible jail sentence for his actions, he claimed to be pretty unconcerned: doing some time in prison was nothing new for him. In venues like FB or Twitter which have userbases which no longer lean youthful or nerdy, I assume that the malicious users no longer lean young or nerdy either. I do assume that the really dedicated online abusers tend to be either bitter and unhappy or happily soulless sociopaths, but those traits aren't exclusive to the young, male or geeky.

[dobbsbob]

Media has distorted the meaning of trolling. You would never outright threaten or ad hominem attack somebody while trolling them because that would be too obvious. This is what trolling actually is (well, was) http://youtu.be/AHqGV5WjS4w

Doxing, also now totally misused. Hackers would drop dox on each other to expose them to all the secret service agents and FBI agents watching. If somebody is not wanted by the feds and using their real name on social media there's no point in telling the world their information, considering there are eleventy billion personal data mining services to find out anybody's complete personal info for under $10. We're all already doxxed.

The worst thing you can possibly do when a horde of e-cretins is trying to bait you into losing face in public is to acknowledge them by writing "I'm a victim" posts and articles. That's exactly what they want. If you get death threats sue their asses or call the police. Otherwise that horde is just a bunch of meaningless text on a screen you can safely ignore that will quickly move on to a more responsive target.

[kevingadd]

Ignoring them doesn't work anymore because modern social media and communication tools have given them power that doesn't depend on whether you're paying attention.

They can send shopped nudes with your face on them to your parents, they can call & email your boss at work to try and get you fired, they can threaten to rape & murder your sister. Sure, ignore that, it'll go away.

[dobbsbob]

It does go away, nobody remembers Boxxy/Katie of youtube/4chan fame? The horde went after her worse than threats and calls yet she's still there making vids. She didn't write a big victim blog or appear on Oprah (Jessi Slaughter) and the lynch mob quickly lost interest when denied their reaction prize.

Threats of course should be handled by police and not ignored, but the moment you seek media attention or acknowledge how the horde has "ruined your life" you are throwing gasoline on the fire.

[abroncs]

On the other end of the spectrum are people ( teenage girls mostly) who actually kill themselves from the relentless online harassment.

Different people will react differently, just like in an offline setting. There isn't really a solution that works for everybody.

[anonbanker]

> The worst thing you can possibly do when a horde of e-cretins is trying to bait you into losing face in public is to acknowledge them by writing "I'm a victim" posts and articles.

So, Lennart Poettering's recent post [1] doing exactly that was a sign of a crack in his armor. I can't begin to tell you how that improves my outlook on life. Thank you.

1. https://plus.google.com/+LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/post...

[__david__]

> Call it something like "electronically-dissociated antisocial personality disorder."

That's a nice name for it. Penny arcade came up with a more colorful name 10 years ago: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19

[phreanix]

I feel like any type of online review site must be moderated. I've seen firsthand the damage it can cause a legitimate enterprise. On the flip side, I've also seen the difference a 3 star to a 5 rating on Yelp can do, and it's not insignificant.