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."

 

[stands2reason]

If you want to compolain about someone, it's considered good form to ping him to said complaint.

[JohnGalt]

Oh I am sorry, I assumed you actually read the post SJackson was responding too.

I never said you supported the US getting hit by hurricanes, but you thought it 'interesting.'

That kind of crap offends me, being a patriot and all, but I don't think you should be banned. I did point out that SJackson and his ilk were very quiet on the issue.

[Rebelbase]

"Instead of a nice, free-wheeling give and take (such as we enjoy here at FR), "

FR is a censored site.

[cinFLA]

This forum is a libertarian forum, and is devoted to the libertarian concept of unabashed free speech.

Same here. The Libertarians love to bash Bush and his foreign policies.

[JohnGalt]

Because this conversation has taken place many times and they usually choose not to comment on the subject or do what yonif is doing in claiming that he just posted the article, he did not think it was a good thing.

BTW, do you think its 'interesting' that the US gets struck by natural disasters when the United States slights Israel?

Or do you think it's just anti-American crack-pot crap?

[veronica]

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

And unlike at LF, his opinion is not downrated by a ridiculous point system which allows a cabal to get together and gang-rate a poster whose views the resident cabalists don't like.

To say LF is not censored is quite laughable. :)

[yonif]

I never said you supported the US getting hit by hurricanes, but you thought it 'interesting.'

Oh so I thought it interesting that the US was being hit by Hurricanes? No I didn't. I said that it was an interesting take saying that these natural disasters were because of US policy vs. Israel

That kind of crap offends me, being a patriot and all, but I don't think you should be banned. I did point out that SJackson and his ilk were very quiet on the issue.

Please clarify what you are trying to say here.

[Dane]

My philosophy prohibits the initiation of force or fraud

Huh you were pretty fraudulant with your accusations earlier on this thread that LF had become a neo-nazi sanctuary, because of Jim Robinson, IMO.

JMO, but you OWK as a human with human frailties shouldn't try to play God.

But what the hey, that's the OWK everyone has learned to know and expect.

[OWK]

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?

fraud \Fraud\ (fr[add]d), n. [F. fraude, L. fraus, fraudis; prob. akin to Skr. dh[=u]rv to injure, dhv[.r] to cause to fall, and E. dull.] 1. Deception deliberately practiced with a view to gaining an unlawful or unfair advantage; artifice by which the right or interest of another is injured; injurious stratagem; deceit; trick.

Fraud has two components...

Dishonesty...... and intent to bring about damage or to secure unrightful advantage.

Two merely speak dishonestly, is not necessarily fraud.

[r9etb]

FR is a censored site.

"Censored" only in the sense that whackjobs are excluded from this privately owned and operated forum.

[OWK]

two merely = to merely

[Catspaw]

Gee, John, before you go into full attack mode, I was pointing that that it's good form to ping the freepers you mention in your post. I just did it for you.

Temper, temper.

[veronica]

"Censored" only in the sense that whackjobs are excluded from this privately owned and operated forum.

I guess Jim just doesn't want his website to become a "Free Ernst Zundel from jail" outpost.

Imagine that. ;)

[Catspaw]

And unlike at LF, his opinion is not downrated by a ridiculous point system which allows a cabal to get together and gang-rate a poster whose views the resident cabalists don't like.

I haven't been to LF in quite a while, but I always wondered about that point system. "Some are more equal than others" was my take on it.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

It's possible to consider the door of a mens' room stall a "publication"--but aside from such as that, publications which attract an audience are edited for the taste of that audience. The owners of the publications see to that, and have a right to do so.

A libertarian has no objection to property rights, and so has no logical objection to any particular publication's ownership editing the publication--even if that publication's ownership is libertarian.

FR is a moderated forum; its ownership has a right to moderate it. Its moderation is what defines its character, and its character defines, late or soon, its audience. IMHO any unmoderated forum is an open invitation to a de facto denial of service attack, in which the perspective of the forum is drowned out by noise expressing other perspectives without limit.

I see no constructive point to any such forum, over any length of time.

[Little Ray]

Thanks for keeping the board free o' trolls!

[dirtboy]

Well stated.

[OWK]

IMHO any unmoderated forum is an open invitation to a de facto denial of service attack, in which the perspective of the forum is drowned out by noise expressing other perspectives without limit.

Perhaps....

Or perhaps there are other ways of dealing with the potential of these sources of noise that don't require censorship and overt control...

Many are under consideration.

That's what makes the net fun.

[Brian S]

or the folks on this site (Brian S and Yonif) who believe that the United States is struck by a natural disaster when the US slights Israel.

Excuse me?

If I remember correctly, I may have asked the question once if somebody had the list of events that seemed to correlate with US actions against Israel.

It must have made quite an impression on you to remember such a request.

BTW...Have the common courtesy of "pinging" me if you care to "trash me". I rather enjoy the "entertainment" and its pleases me to the fullest to know I'm having an impact! ;)

[Neets]

The FR malcontents kinda remind me of a little song that goes something like this:

Mirrors on the ceiling
Pink champagne on ice
And she said
We are all just prisoners here
Of our own device
And in the master's chambers
They gathered for the feast
They stab it with their steely knives
But they just can't kill the beast Last thing I remember
I was running for the door
I had to find the passage back to the place I was before
Relax said the nightman
We are programed to recieve
You can check out any time you like
But you can never leave