Attack of the Nazi Trolls: A Lesson for Message Board Moderators

Richardpoe.com ^ | 10-27-03 | Richard Poe

[SJackson]

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 at 13:41

Attack of the Nazi Trolls: A Lesson for Message Board Moderators

In a recent blog entry titled, "I've Been Red-Baited!", I wrote, "I'm not familiar with LibertyForum.org, but it appears to be an anti-Bush, anti-war message board with a distinctly anti-Jewish undertone."

A member of LibertyForum.org named Max Soldo (aka "thoughtcriminal") has responded by e-mail and provided further clarification of LibertyForum's political orientation. He writes:

This forum is a libertarian forum, and is devoted to the libertarian concept of unabashed free speech. With that principle in mind, most posters aren't libertarian as many fringe types have taken advantage of this policy (which includes a no-banning policy) to run amok...hence the preponderance of anti-Jewish posts on this forum.

All of this raises interesting questions for any message board moderator -- such as myself -- who has tried his best to allow a relatively high level of free expression. Inevitably, Nazi trolls find your forum and begin probing your defenses. If you allow them to post messages, they immediately spread the word to other Nazi trolls and soon your message board is infested.

At that point, all the normal people stop posting. It's a bit like when a fight breaks out in a bar and everyone stops talking and turns to watch the fight, transfixed. Suddenly, your message board becomes an arena for Nazi trolls and people arguing with Nazi trolls.

This is called "free speech."

I decided long ago that allowing Nazi trolls to occupy my message board and drive off everyone who does not share their idiosyncratic obsessions is a very poor method for encouraging "free speech." Therefore, I make frequent and forceful use of such allegedly un-libertarian methods as censoring and, when necessary, banning troublemakers, brownshirted or otherwise.

Apparently, the decision-makers at LibertyForum.org have adopted a different approach. As a result, their self-styled "libertarian" message board has become, by Mr. Soldo's description, a playground for non-libertarian "fringe types" to "run amok."

"It does get quite ugly at times, but that's the price one pays for sticking to one's principles," writes Mr. Soldo in a subsequent e-mail.

Well, if that's the price, I don't think I'm willing to pay it. I will add the sad fate of LibertyForum.org to my growing list of reasons for rethinking whether or not I wish to continue calling myself a "libertarian."

 

[Dane]

In any gathering of 50 or more, there's someone dressed in garish clothes, with toilet-paper stuck to the bottom of their shoe, dancing around waving their arms hoping desperately that someone who matters will notice them.

That's you on FR

Whew, thought I would never see it stated publicly in speech on FR, but OWK, your elitism is showing and is on par with Barbara Srteisand, IMO.

Oh my life is over since I have been slashed in the neck, by the "one who knows"(i.e the Libertarian Barbara Streisand wannbe). LOL!

[aloysius89]

We seem to be having a discussion of unadulterated, unmitigated, unalloyed free speech, the pure uncut stuff. It was always my impression that free speech did not include the right to shout FIRE in a crowded building nor the right to shout down the opposition. I am genuinely curious as to your thoughts on this view.

Thank you.

[r9etb]

Either you forgot the /sarcasm tag, or you forgot your medication. Maybe both....

[.cnI redruM]

Wow, I actually agree with you for a change. The programmer owns his/her own virtual program. The adminmoderator could kick someone out for halitosis and he'd still be within her/his rights.

[tpaine]

Down boy..

[F.J. Mitchell]

Liberaterianism was tried and discarded as impossible a long time ago. That era is recorded in history as the stone age.

[Dane]

I'll be 943 next month

And I have no doubt, that you believe that as the truth. Given your diva like hubris.

[dirtboy]

You freaking fascists calling the CENSORSHIP at FR

Censorship, Cato? Censorship is a government function, not a private one. Last I checked, the Supreme Court upheld the right to freedom of association of private organizations - or does that 1st Amendment right not carry any weight with you?

Freedom of association is what allows the Boy Scouts to exclude gays and FR to exclude Nazis. It's just as essential to our liberty as freedom of speech.

You know what I find ironic? One reason that FR is still the leading conservative site by number of posters and volume is BECAUSE the wingnut garbage is thrown in the dumpster. If LF had a greater volume than FR, you wouldn't care about what JimRob does. But since FR is the place for conservative ideas to be seen by large numbers of people, you complain about the moderation here - WITHOUT REALIZING THAT THE MODERATION MAKES THAT VOLUME POSSIBLE.

[yonif]

I posted specifically of your performance on another thread when you suggested that natural disasters strike the United States when Israel is slighted.

I have never suggested such a thing on a thread. Show me where. I remember posting an article about that from CBN, but it didn't mean I believed in it (which I don't) If you have me saying that on a comment in a thread, show me where.

[OWK]

We seem to be having a discussion of unadulterated, unmitigated, unalloyed free speech, the pure uncut stuff. It was always my impression that free speech did not include the right to shout FIRE in a crowded building nor the right to shout down the opposition. I am genuinely curious as to your thoughts on this view.

My philosophy prohibits the initiation of force or fraud.

Shouting fire in a crowded theatre would not only be morally legitimate, but in fact appropriate if the theatre were on fire.

But if the theatre were not on fire, it would be fraudulent speech, which would be morally subject to restraining or punative force.

[yonif]

Ping.

[yonif]

Acts of God: America's Warning Not to Divide Israel CBN ^ | June 26, 2003 | Jennifer James Posted on 06/28/2003 8:49 AM PDT by yonif

Yeah so. I admitted posting it. Where did I say I support what it claimed?

[JohnGalt]

I will mark the occasion with a pint of ale!

[yonif]

Interesting take on the issue.

It is interesting, so what, from one of the Christian perspectives. If you imply something is interesting does it mean you support it?

That is one real strong argument against me you got there.

[Catspaw]

And yet you're able to post your screed about censorship here. How ironic.

[JohnGalt]

U.S. to Withhold Some Funds from Israel; because of its settlement activities in Palestinian areas
To: yonif

Who has the list of tragic weather events the US has suffered after we have taken actions against the interests of Israel?

Read it a couple of times here...sobering "coincidences".
15 posted on 09/15/2003 1:46 PM PDT by Brian S (Vote Freedom First!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Just so we are clear, I welcome this point of view to the site; I am not suggesting you should be banned. Exposing it to light is in the best interest of those who disagree with you.

[yonif]

Are you reading what you just posted? Where does it say I support these claims? Why do you keep saying that I do?

[Romulus]

Thanks for the publicity.

As you know very well, there are several respected posters at LF who're of a like mind wrt your Favorite Topic. Any time you think you're equal to the challenge, you're free to join them.

[Catspaw]

Why didn't you ping Brian S when you posted his post from he to Yonif?

Bad form.

[aloysius89]

if fraudulent speech would be "subject to restraining or punitive force", would not equally fraudulent speech such as the shouting of slogans at a speech or the spamming or flaming of internet communication in order to prevent the exercise of free speech (i.e. communication of ideas) be equally subject to some restriction, regulation, or at least moral approbation?