Trolling and the value of the discussion
Vol.10,No.1(2018)
Purpose
The article deals with the phenomenon of trolling in relation to the concept of discussion and its value. Our objectives are as follows: Explore trolling as a phenomenon from different perspectives, put trolling in relation to the concept of discussion and its value, bring new arguments for the widespread belief that there is an ethically acceptable and unacceptable trolling, to specify criteria for recognizing the value of discussion and acceptable and pathological trolling and presenting how we can fight the pathological trolling.
Design / methodology / approach
Based on a literature review, we define trolling for the purposes of this article and set the initial hypothesis that there is an ethically acceptable and unacceptable trolling. Using the Jakobson model of communication, we analyze the concept of the value of the discussion in relation to its function and put it in relation to the concept of trolling in order to verify the initial hypothesis. From the concept of information, we derive the criteria for recognizing the value of the discussion and, following the elements of the communication process, we acquire the criteria for discerning trolling - along with certain ethical limits we set, we are able to recognize the circumstances in which trolling can be used. In conclusion, we provide an overview of possible responses that can be used in case of pathological trolling.
The general methodological starting point of the article is critical realism, which we adopt as the noetically best grounded direction. The realistic view is influenced by the belief that we are able to adequately define concepts and analyze the relationship between them, that the notion of discussion value can be derived from its focus on the truth, and from the realistic definition of information we can obtain the criteria for recognizing the value of the discussion. If we evaluate trolling from an ethical point of view, we do not stand in the position of consecvenalism, which is governed only by the purposes of negotiation, but we consider that the criterion of correctness of the act is not only the aim of deed but also the act itself.
Results
The main results of the article include the fact that we have succeeded in defining trolling using the concept of discussion and based on the definition of discussion as communication with the cognitive function we have determinated the value of the discussion and distinguished acceptable trolling from unacceptable trolling.
Originality/Value
The basic contribution of the article is that we consider the introduction of the concept of trolling into the Czech information science environment, where a systematic treatise of this type has been missing.
trolling; definition of trolling; causes of trolling; trolling characteristics; trolling motivation; effects of trolling; discussion; discussion value; trolling acceptability; response on trolling; information ethics
Aristotelés. (2010). Magna moralia. Praha: Petr Rezek.
Aristotelés. (2013). Etika Níkomachova. Praha: Rezek.
Bates, M. J. (2006). Fundamental forms of information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(8), 1033-1045.
Bentham, J. (1960). A fragment on government and an introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Bishop, J. (2013). Examining the concepts, issues, and implications of internet trolling. Hershey, Information Science Reference.
Bishop, J. (2014). Representations of 'trolls' in massmedia communication: A review of media-texts and moral panics to 'internet trolling'. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 10(1), 7 24.
Bishop, J. (2014a). Trolling for the lulz?: using media theory to understand transgressive humour and other internet trolling in online communities. In Transforming politics and policy in the digital age, (pp. 155-172). IGI Global.
Capurro, R. & Hjørland, B. (2003). The concept of information. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 37, 343-411.
Cornelius, I. (1996). Information and interpretation. In Integration in perspective: Proceedings of CoLIS 2: Second International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science, (pp. 11 21). Oxford: Pergamon-Elsevier Science.
Craker, N. & March, E. (2016). The dark side of Facebook®: The dark tetrad, negative social potency, and trolling behaviours. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 79-84.
Derr, R. L. (1985). The concept of information in ordinary discourse. Information Processing & Management. 21(6), 489-499.
Dretske, F. I. (1981). Knowledge and the flow of information. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Dynel, M. (2016). 'Trolling is not stupid': Internet trolling as the art of deception serving entertainment. Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(3), 353-381.
Farradane, J. (1979). The nature of information. Journal of Information Science. 1(1), 13-17.
Furner, J. (2004). Information studies without information. Library Trends. 52(3), 427-446.
Feser, E. (2010), Can philosophy be polemical. Retrived from: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.cz/2010/06/can-philosophy-be-polemical.html.
Fichman, P. & Sanfilippo, M. R. (2016). Online trolling and its perpetrators: Under the cyberbridge. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Gredt, J. (2009). Základy aristotelsko-tomistické filosofie. Praha: Krystal OP.
Hardaker, C. (2010). Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to academic definitions. Journal of Politeness Research-language Behaviour Culture, 6(2), 215-242.
Hardaker, C. (2013). "Uh. . . . not to be nitpicky, but.. the past tense of drag is dragged, not drug": An overview of trolling strategies. Journal of Language Aggression, 1(1), 58-86.
Hardaker, C. (2015). 'I refuse to respond to this obvious troll': An overview of responses to (perceived) trolling. Corpora, 10(2), 201- 219.
Herring, S., Job-Sluder, K., Scheckler, R. & Barab, S. (2002). Searching for safety online: Managing "trolling" in a feminist forum. The Information Society, 18, 371-384.
Hjørland, B. (1997). Information seeking and subject representation: an activity-theoretical approach to information science. Westport: Greenwood Press.
Hopkinson, Ch. (2013). Trolling in online discussions: From provocating to community-building. Brno Studies in English, 39(1), 6-25.
Hume, D. (2006). An enquiry concerning the principles of morals: a critical edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Jansen, E. & James, V. (2002). NetLingo: The internet dictionary. Oxnard, CA: Netlingo.
Kant, I. (1996). Kritika praktického rozumu. Praha: Svoboda.
Kant, I. (1992). Základy metafyziky mravů. Praha: Svoboda.
Krappitz, S. (2012). Troll Culture. Retrived from: http://wwwwwwwww.at/downloads/troll-culture.pdf.
Mannheim, K. (1991). Ideologie a utopie: přednášky a eseje. Bratislava: Archa.
MacIntyre, A. C. (2004). Ztráta ctnosti: k morální krizi současnosti. Praha: Oikoymenh.
Madden, A. D. (2004). Evolution and information. Journal of Documentation. 60(1), 9-23.
Nauta, D. (1972). The meaning of information. The Hague: Mouton.
Platón (1994). Euthyfrón ; Obrana Sókrata ; Kritón. Praha: Institut pro středoevropskou kulturu a politiku.
Pratt, A. D. (1977). The information of the image: a model of the communications process. Libri. 27(3), 204-220.
Smith, A. (2005). Teorie mravních citů. Praha: Liberální institut.
Stodola, J. (2015). Filosofie informace - metateoretická analýza pojmu informace a hlavních paradigmat informační vědy. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
Stodola, J. (2014). The concept of information and questions of users with visual disabilities: an epistemological approach. Journal of Documentation, 70(5), 782-800.
Thompsen, P. A., & Ahn, D. K. (1992). To be or not to be: An exploration of E-prime, copula deletion and flaming in electronic mail. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 49, 146-164.
Thomson, F. B. (1968). The organization is the information. American Documentation. 19( 3), 305-308
Utz, S. (2005). Types of deception and underlying motivation: What people think. Social Science Computer Review, 23(1), 49–56.
Zuska, V. (2002). Mimésis-fikce-distance: K estetice XX. století. Praha, Triton.
___
Článek byl k 17. 6. 2020 autorsky upraven. Vypuštěny byly dvě věty a poznámka z kapitoly Motivace trollingu, a celá kapitola Příklad přijatelného trollingu.
Copyright © 2018 ProInflow: Časopis pro informační vědy