"I'm outing this because I have a thick skin and, in the end, speculation on the size of..."

"... my vagina doesn't move me half as much as worrying about the next chapter of my book I'm supposed to write."

Professor Mary Beard pushes back the trolls.

ADDED: On scrolling down at the link, there's an offensive photoshop combining a face with female genitalia. I didn't put a NSFW notation because it's small and doesn't look like much of anything from even a slight distance, but commenters are requesting a NSFW. So there.

"So there you go: an internet troll. That's what they look like."

I thought this was a joke, but it's not. The BBC tracks down some piddling internet troll and confronts him.

"A challenge to our commenters: Just try to out-racist your counterparts over at Ann Althouse’s blog."

See? This is the kind of thing I have to contend with. Web writers who don't like me or don't like whatever side of politics they think I represent will comb through the comments to find whatever sounds worst and then smear me and the entire comments community here. As the discussion turns to affirmative action today, people who would like to discredit or silence me are going to be especially active looking for comments. What can be done? 1. Think about what you are writing and how it will look to outsiders, 2. Don't feed the troll, 3. Perceive the Moby.

Thanks to all my readers who gave immediate and overnight pushback to a vile new commenter...

... who I assume was pro-Obama and writing under a pseudonym here with the object of making this blog — and more generally, criticism of Obama — look racist. This coward put up his comment on my 9:50 p.m. post — "Should the President be insulting pop stars?" — at 11:52, presumably to maximize the time that it would be up on the blog and that it would sit here as long as possible before I would take it down, which I did as soon as I got on the blog this morning at around 9 (Central Time).

The commenter, Metlife, had never posted here before and had a profile showing that he'd joined Blogger just this month. He wrote — and the asterisks are mine: "can someone murder that f***ing n***** fast? It will be a good day when Hussein is murdered by one of our southern patriots."

The pushback was immediate. Joe wrote at 11:59: "Could the previous comment be stricken and the poster banned?" Just Lurking said: "Is that you moby?" (suggesting, as I am doing now, that Metlife was against not Obama but this blog community). John Stodder said: "Althouse is probably asleep, but if you have her phone number, wake her up and tell her to delete it." (No one did that.)

Seven Machos said: "Okay, first, get Metlife out of here. At least Cedarford is subtle and occasionally witty.... All racist ass clowns and pretend-racist-agent-provocateur ass clowns should take note of Cedarford's work. This is how it's done." (Cedarford is a longtime commenter who writes well but often expresses extreme ideas of the sort that I do not censor).

Peter Hoh said:

I'm guessing that nolife is a plant. A true Southerner always capitalizes the S.

And wouldn't a full-blown racist southerner consider that "southern" is an unnecessary modifier for "patriot"?

Plus he knew how to spell "Hussein."

Good ole boys spell it "Hoo-sane."

Former law student said...

Speak of laying a turd and someone does. Probably an agent provocateur, because he created a fresh identity for the occasion.

Blake said:

Ugh. The Mobys are getting disgusting in here.

Urban Dictionary defines "Moby":

An insidious and specialized type of left-wing troll who visits blogs and impersonates a conservative for the purpose of either spreading false rumors intended to sow dissension among conservative voters, or who purposely posts inflammatory and offensive comments for the purpose of discrediting the blog in question.

The term is derived from the name of the liberal musician Moby, who famously suggested in February of 2004 that left-wing activists engage in this type of subterfuge: “For example, you can go on all the pro-life chat rooms and say you’re an outraged right-wing voter and that you know that George Bush drove an ex-girlfriend to an abortion clinic and paid for her to get an abortion. Then you go to an anti-immigration Web site chat room and ask, ‘What’s all this about George Bush proposing amnesty for illegal aliens?’”

The strategy has been frequently attempted on conservative blogs, but has not been nearly as effective as Moby envisioned, since false rumors are easily debunked by fact-checking minions, and cartoonishly extreme commenters often get immediately identified as mobys and banned.

Lucid said:

Actually, Metlife, with his registration [email] and ip address, should be reported to the secret service. Threatening the president is a serious crime, as it should be.

I also wonder if Metlife is actually a lefty troll pulling an Alinsky.

Hey, Alinsky isn't defined yet over at Urban Dictionary. But I know what you mean, and I certainly think he is.

Jack said:

God, what a festering stinkhole of a web site this is. I don't know how you wingnut loons can stand stewing in your own shit like this, presided over by the shit mistress, Ann Althouse.

Of course she's too dishonest to tell you dumb motherfuckers that Obama's remark was made off the record, thus rendering her posed questions ("should the president be insulting pop stars?" and "what business is it of the presidents?") inoperative. And of course you stupid shit-for-brains don't follow the link to find out for yourselves. Maybe the ever-dull Althouse didn't bother reading enough of the story to find out that the comment was off the record, or maybe she's just dishonest.

You're stewing in a cesspool. And you like it!

And that's an example of the sort of comment I don't delete. I'm that into free speech. But Metlife deserves deletion and, as Lucid said, investigation by the Secret Service. I like to think the Secret Service is good enough that they are already on it.

"If I read all the vile stuff about me on the Internet, I’d never come to work."

"I’d scamper off and live my dream of being a cocktail waitress in a militia bar in Wyoming."

... a cocktail waitress in a militia bar in Wyoming... a cocktail waitress in a militia bar in Wyoming... a cocktail waitress in a militia bar in Wyoming....

Why a cocktail waitress in a militia bar in Wyoming....?

Of all the images Maureen Dowd could conjure up for her alternate self — the self who cares what nasty strangers say — why a cocktail waitress in a militia bar in Wyoming? It's got something to do with right-wing extremists, but I can't put my finger on what.

(I've quoted the first 2 sentences of what is a column about that model who sued the blogger who called her a skank. Dowd has nothing interesting to say on the subject of pseudonymity on the internet.)

"As the writer Katha Pollitt (who is also my ex-wife) puts it: 'I get a ton of hostile, misogynous, idiotic comments from anonymous trolls...'"

"'...when I blog at The Nation. Sometimes I feel like I am dancing on the table for an audience of drunks. Not only is it dispiriting — and let’s not forget that women writers on the Internet receive vastly more hateful comments than male writers — it has nothing to do with the brisk and vigorous exchange of ideas often said to be the reason for anonymity. Because there are no ideas and no exchange.'"

Oh, no?

"Folks — I think I have never commented here before, but I must say — some of you are amazing troll feeders."

"Those of you who attempt to engage [X] are giving him exactly what he wants. It is troll heaven! As long as it goes on, he can preen that he is 'correcting' all the wingnuts — you can all aim arguments, whether well-thought-out arguments or hasty blurts, it doesn't matter — why would he change his mind or tactics? Do you expect a conversion ('Oh, my God, you are all right! What a fool I've been')? Real trolls are like one of those Star Trek creatures or the "Id monster" from "Forbidden Planet" — beings who feed on negative energy and get stronger. It really is possible not to respond."

Thanks, Wally. I've said it myself any number of times. Well, not with the science fiction allusions (for which I thank you).

(Wally Ballou's comment appears after the 200th comment on the linked post, so if you want to see it, you have to click on "post a comment" and then "newer." A hassle, isn't it? But there wouldn't be all those comments if it weren't for all that troll feeding. But I'm not going to tell you to stop, because I already told you for the last time.)

***

Yes — since you asked — I actually do understand this cartoon.

I'm telling you for the last time.

If there is a troll here who talks too much, don't talk to him. That's what he wants and that makes him talk more. Don't post to bitch about it. If you do, you are the problem. Get it? You are the problem.

ADDED: If you want to interact with another commenter, go right ahead. But if your point is to make him stop, don't get him fired up by talking to him. And don't debate with him and also tell me I should do something to get rid of him. If you consider someone a troll, don't talk to him. On the other hand, if you are worried that you might be the troll, put that energy into writing better comments. Be concise and interesting. Be creative or funny or something. 

The Troll.

"Many blogs have developed successful communities of commenters, with many very interesting and substantive contributions and discussions."

"Unfortunately, this has not happened here."

Lawprof Jack Balkin nixes comments. Though his co-bloggers can still turn comments on for their individual posts, he's had it with trolls and name-calling:

There is very rarely any serious analysis; mostly there is point scoring and vitriol. Many regular readers have written to say that they find the comments section a distraction and think the blog would be far better without it.

Daniel Solove, who likes his own commenters, says:

It seems to me that different blog commenting cultures arise on different blogs. I bet that the readership for Balkinization and Concurring Opinions overlaps quite a bit, yet I have noticed that the comments at Balkinization are much as Jack describes them. Why have commenting cultures developed so differently at different blogs? I don't really know the answer, and it would be interesting to figure out why commenting cultures develop in the ways that they do.

One question I'd ask is: Do you go into the comments yourself and talk with your readers or do you just look on and hope for the best and fret and contemplate total destruction when things go to hell?

Orin Kerr says:

I suspect the explanation rests largely on the different moderation practices at different blogs. If a blogger doesn't moderate comment threads at all on a widely read blog, people who want to be shocking, mean, or just irrelevant realize they can do their thing and reach a decent-sized audience....

Over time, comment moderation practices end up having a profound impact on who comments, and different approaches either attract thoughtful commenters or keep them away.

A little too much stress on commenters behaving themselves? I think I have a taste for more wildness than these other law professors. I want something exciting to happen in the comments. To me, a troll is someone who's boring, verbose, and repetitive. There's no end to how creative readers might be if you give them a place to write. You need to care about seeing that happen.

IN THE COMMENTS: Henry Buck says:

He's complaining about point-scoring and vitriol in the comments of a blog that takes its name from a play on a word for diviseness and nationalistic hatred?

Ha ha. Yeah, he's long had that slogan: "Balkinization: an unanticipated consequence of Jack M. Balkin." Which made it sound like we don't expect it and he loves it and is going to going to serve it up for our pleasure.

"Why are people so cruel on the internet?" Tina Fey is asked...

... after winning a Golden Globe and telling various commenters at The Envelope to "suck it." Video and commentary here. And here are the commenters at The Envelope talking about Tina talking about them:

anyone who reads the Envelope even on a cursory basis knows that when she started with "Babson LaCrosse" (who has since slunk away and changed his screen name (hahahahahhaaha) and continued with "Dianefan" and "Cougar Lover" that she was talking about The Envelope....

Oh My God! Tina is among us! I screamed at the tv when she said 'dianefan' and 'Babson LaCrosse'... I'll just start to say bad things about her right now on every single thread of this forum...

Now, Jesus said "Love your enemies," and he was onto something. And I don't mean pussy Jesus with the lambs and such. "Love your enemies" can be a muscular strategy if you do it with style, as Tina did. And I think it works especially well on the internet, where everyone is looking for love, really — aren't they? — whether they're gawking at porn sites or trashing divas.

"Dinosaur-human relations are not, to the best of my knowledge, part of the bailout debate and its partisanship..."

"... otherwise known as the subjects of this thread."

Said Freeman Hunt, in that thread yesterday that went awry.



Thanks to Palladian for the LOLdino.

Now, did Sarah Palin say that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time"? I don't know, but it's such a charming, distracting controversy, compared to the -- what is it? -- impending depression.

ADDED: A little theme music:



(Suggested by Pogo.)

"You are also a paid astrotroller."

A comment on the "Brokaw's bizarre" post that got me wondering.

I know what an astrotroll/astrotroller is (and it hasn't even got an Urban Dictionary definition, which makes me feel very in-the-know). It's a commenter engaged in astroturfing.

Wikipedia says:

Astroturfing in American English is a neologism for formal public relations campaigns in politics and advertising which seek to create the impression of being spontaneous "grassroots" behavior, hence the reference to the artificial grass, AstroTurf.

The goal of such a campaign is to disguise the efforts of a political or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity—a politician, political group, product, service or event.

Does anyone really think that some of the commenters here are paid representatives of any political campaign or cause? It seems to me that there are many self-appointed boosters of one candidate or another, willing to put in a lot of effort for no pay. I've seen the comments of the particular individual who was accused of astrotrolling, but I can't believe a campaign would pay someone just to post numerous boring/abusive comments. Wouldn't the campaign hire someone competent who would blend in with the style of the blog comments section, seem like a real person, and slip in strong pithy arguments?

The real AstroTurf™ is green, not orange. The real Althouse astrotroll should be offbeat, funny, and smart -- with a memorable pseudonym and some personal details. Up your game if you're getting paid.

IN THE COMMENTS: Paddy O. quotes my questions -- "Wouldn't the campaign hire someone competent who would blend in with the style of the blog comments section, seem like a real person, and slip in strong pithy arguments?" -- and says "You miss Titus, don't you?" Well, let me ask you people:

Do you miss Titus?
	Yes! Whatever that dispute was, I wish he'd come back.
	I'd like him back, but "miss" is going a bit far.
	No! He was off-topic/obscene/a troll/unfunny.
	Who's Titus?
pollcode.com free polls

It's me and Megan McArdle on Bloggingheads!

Topics:

Joe Biden: the exciting/boring choice (06:07)
Is Hillary better off if Obama loses? (04:13)
Don’t we all aspire to own so many houses that we lose count? (03:46)
Irreligious Megan defends religion’s role in politics (13:53)
The psychology of online trolls (07:44)
Why Ann and Megan drive the commenters crazy (06:47)

Some good stuff in there. I'll resist doing a whole lot of clips, but will try to find something very short and pithy to amuse you.

"But these Internet Savages are more like unto Vagabonds, Wastrels, or even common Thieves, enjoying the Benefits of Society, whilst doing no Good."

Surely, you recognize the voice of our ghost commenter, Sir Archy, dead these 250 Years and more. We'd been missing him, and now he's made an appearance, on that post about the trolls of the web.

"Trolling is basically Internet eugenics... I want everyone off the Internet. Bloggers are filth. They need to be destroyed."

"Blogging gives the illusion of participation to a bunch of retards. . . . We need to put these people in the oven!"

The New York Times wants you to know there are some bad people on the internet. You know what? There are some bad people walking the streets of your home town.

The question is: What do you want to do about it?

Here's the conclusionish stuff at the end of Mattathias Schwartz's fascinating article. (He embedded himself with evil trolls and lived to tell the tale.)

Does free speech tend to move toward the truth or away from it? When does it evolve into a better collective understanding? When does it collapse into the Babel of trolling, the pointless and eristic game of talking the other guy into crying “uncle”?

(Hang on. I'm going to do a separate post about the use of the word "eristic.")

Is the effort to control what’s said always a form of censorship, or might certain rules be compatible with our notions of free speech?

One promising answer comes from the computer scientist Jon Postel, now known as “god of the Internet” for the influence he exercised over the emerging network. In 1981, he formulated what’s known as Postel’s Law: “Be conservative in what you do; be liberal in what you accept from others.” Originally intended to foster “interoperability,” the ability of multiple computer systems to understand one another, Postel’s Law is now recognized as having wider applications. To build a robust global network with no central authority, engineers were encouraged to write code that could “speak” as clearly as possible yet “listen” to the widest possible range of other speakers, including those who do not conform perfectly to the rules of the road. The human equivalent of this robustness is a combination of eloquence and tolerance — the spirit of good conversation. Trolls embody the opposite principle. They are liberal in what they do and conservative in what they construe as acceptable behavior from others. You, the troll says, are not worthy of my understanding; I, therefore, will do everything I can to confound you.

This is extremely useful to know. Remember that principle. People who want the most freedom for themselves and the least for you. They're not just the trolls of the internet. They're everywhere. Defend yourself by identifying them and continuing to claim a good amount of freedom for yourself.

[T]echnology reduces the social barriers that keep us from bedeviling strangers, it does not explain the initial trolling impulse. This seems to spring from something ugly — a destructive human urge that many feel but few act upon, the ambient misanthropy that’s a frequent ingredient of art, politics and, most of all, jokes. There’s a lot of hate out there, and a lot to hate as well.

It's human nature.

So far, despite all this discord, the Internet’s system of civil machines has proved more resilient than anyone imagined. As early as 1994, the head of the Internet Society warned that spam “will destroy the network.” The news media continually present the online world as a Wild West infested with villainous hackers, spammers and pedophiles. And yet the Internet is doing very well for a frontier town on the brink of anarchy. Its traffic is expected to quadruple by 2012. To say that trolls pose a threat to the Internet at this point is like saying that crows pose a threat to farming.

Ha ha. Great. Exactly.

So can we have maximum freedom of speech or do we need legal remedies for the really bad people?

Are we ready for an Internet where law enforcement keeps watch over every vituperative blog and backbiting comments section, ready to spring at the first hint of violence? Probably not. All vigorous debates shade into trolling at the perimeter; it is next to impossible to excise the trolling without snuffing out the debate.

That's Free Speech 101, but people seem to need to hear it again.

***

Schwartz assumes that trolls will successfully hide behind anonymity/pseudonymity, but we need to take note of the new developments in the AutoAdmit case:

With the help of a subpoena issued six months ago, attorneys for two Yale Law School students have succeeded in unmasking several anonymous users of the Web forum AutoAdmit whom the women are suing for defamation.

Some of the defendants will finally be named when the students soon file an amended complaint, said their attorney, Stanford Law Professor Mark Lemley, who declined to comment further....

John Williams, a court-appointed lawyer who represented AK-47, whom he has never met and whose identity he does not know, said he was disappointed by the judge's decision to sustain the subpoena, which he said went beyond where any other court has gone.

"Free speech takes another hit," he said....

Courts have long recognized that subpoenas may be available to identify anonymous commenters if litigants can demonstrate a plausible case for defamation and are not simply trying to intimidate critics, said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles....

“If you’re doing right, the First Amendment will protect you,” [First Amendment lawyer Marc] Randazza said. “If you’re doing wrong, it won’t.”

Actually, the First Amendment won't protect you. A court is going to decide whether the plaintiff has met the legal standard Volokh is talking about, and a judge may not care enough about the right to say fuck you. You need more than the First Amendment for protection, you'll need judges who care about it and will stand tough and enforce hardcore free speech values even when confronted by seemingly nice, respectable plaintiffs who are royally outraged at insults and obscenities and delighted to use the courts to ruin brash young people who have said too much.

"Select from the numerous web, blog and news sites listed here, go there, and make your opinions supporting John McCain known."

Is McCain's own website encouraging spamming and trolling? Look at all the links in the sidebar menus. (Actually, I can't get the "liberal" blogroll to appear.)

Wired reports:

The strategy reinforces the central role that blogs have come to play in shaping and framing the issues in the 2008 presidential election. The question is whether sending supporters to do grassroots lobbying in the comments section of activist blogs like DailyKos, whose membership is dedicated to defeating the Republicans in the general election, will really benefit McCain's campaign.

"I find it hilarious that McCain's campaign thinks that some astroturf copy-and-paste comments would do anything more than spark some vicious mocking," says Markos Moulitsas, founder of DailyKos, which is currently highlighted as one of three "featured blogs" on McCain's site.

On Memorial Day weekend for example, someone named "Jerry A" posted a news story in an open thread on DailyKos about McCain inviting Barack Obama to visit "post surge" Iraq. At the time, Republicans had launched a publicity campaign criticizing Obama for formulating Iraq policy without having visited the country for two years.

Four minutes later, "Cultural Worker" responded: "Thank you for sharing McCain's talking points of the day. Again."

So what is the problem, really? I don't think it's wrong to encourage your supporters to participate in the comments sections of a wide range of blogs. What's bad is to send out hordes of people who don't know how or don't care to become part of the comment community they enter. That is destructive to the blogs, and it doesn't help the candidate.

Of course, some blogs will reject commenters whose opinions don't conform to the blogger's opinion. If you know that, and you keep writing, you're just a troll. But even on blogs like this one, where you can have any opinion, you can be a troll if you repeatedly drop talking points and fail to interact with other people.

ADDED: And then there's the "genius commenter" invading McCain's own site.

"You may rest assured that I, and hundreds of supporters, will continue to contact you, by email, phone, and perhaps in-person requests...."

An excerpt from the most recent email received from a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

UPDATE: Comments from a 9/11 conspiracy website (which I won't link to). They're reacting to my statement ("I don't know why the University of Wisconsin has not rehired 9/11 conspiracy believer Kevin Barrett to teach a course on the history of Islam. But if we know a person believes something truly nutty, are we not entitled to use that as evidence of his intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness?") and to my rejection of a proposal that I debate Barrett (to which I responded, by email, that I would no more debate a 9/11 truther than I would a Nazi or a Klansman).

It appears that Ann Althouse is deranged. How can UW employee her? She insults Kevin Barrett's position on 9/11, but refuses to debate him. This is not rational behavior....

Why does UW continue to employee the increasingly incoherent Ann Althouse? She obviously has some type of mental disorder. The evidence of 9/11 as an inside job by people high in this administration is overwhelming. It only takes a modicum of research to understand that.....

Anyone as incoherent as Ann Althouse has no business teaching at a state university.

***

As a Wisconsite [sic] who is proud of our tradition of fair playing regarding all points of view, I questioned her conduct and told her I thought we had left Joe McCarthy's way in the world in our past.

I invited her to consider moving to another state where this kind of conduct in someone in her position would be seen as appropriate.

Maybe if she...and her boss...get a few more of these from those who pay their salaries, they will think twice about this.

***

Personally, I feel, it's time to push back--well past time!

Ms. Altman [sic] is a one-sided narrow-minded hippocrit [sic].

...and don't believe her!

Most recent email from a 9/11 "truther" —

You are the one defending the Fascist Nazi like regime we unfortunately call America these days. Turning a blind eye to the truth and calling people looking for the truth Nazis is truly the most deplorable position I know of. For those you defend will not a rats ass about you in the end. May you forever rot in the hell you have earned and rightly deserve.

AND: Another email:

I can't wait for you to debate the 'official' bullshit 9/11 lies, ass! I hope this gets you fired, you're obviously stupid. Do you read, books? There's plenty of proof 9/11 was an inside job. Try reading, if you know how.....lololol.

MORE:

there are only three choices for you girly..
1) You suffer from a severe case of cognizant dissonance (I hope);
2) you are an evil troll-shill for the perps who carried out the evil plan (most likely);
3) or you are just plain stupid(higly probabable), and you know absolutely nothing about controlled demolition, conservation of momentum(and the laws of physics in general), the effects of the transfer of heat though metal structures, load bearing, avionics, flight data recording interpretation....AND who really runs this world.

In any event you should not be permitted to teach anything to anyone...
those that carried out 9-11 will eventully be brought to the harshest form of acceptable legal justice, including their punk-ass neo-con supporters (like you). You think you know "law" now???...just wait. It will take a while to get to you lower level operatives but they will get to you. People like you are only ten minutes between this world and a better one.
YOU SUCK!

"You can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul."

Redstate cracks down on Ron Paul supporters. Captain Ed doesn't like it:

... I disagree with Leon's assumption that these Paul supporters are all or mostly cryptoliberals. Plenty of libertarian-leaning Republicans exist in the party, along with the former Buchananites and isolationists of the GOP. Instead of cutting these people off, it might be better for Redstate to keep engaging them. After all, Paul will not be in the race all that much longer, and we need those voters to stay in the GOP when Paul disappears. There are worse impulses than libertarianism.

Seems like there's a big fact question here. Are they "cryptoliberals" — and therefore trolls — or not?