[6SJ7]

This thought struck me with particular force on Sunday, as I read "Malwebolence," Mattathias Schwartz's extraordinary article about Internet trolls in this week's issue of The New York Times Magazine.

The "Malwebolence " article is a perfect example of why not to trust the MSM. The idiot writer was obviously pwned into writing about a fictional term called 'lulz' which is supposedly a measure of a troll's effectiveness.

I was listening to the TWIT This Week In Tech) podcast last week when this article was discussed, and none of the TWITs had ever heard of the term 'lulz'. The conclusion is that the writer was fed a line of hokum as a joke, and being the Times, printed the story. Why would the Times writer do this? Because in his heart, the writer wanted it to be true. MSM writers like Mattathias Schwartz see the great unwashed writing on the internet as a threat to his once 'noble' profession.

[whd23]

I was listening to the TWIT This Week In Tech) podcast last week when this article was discussed, and none of the TWITs had ever heard of the term 'lulz'. The conclusion is that the writer was fed a line of hokum as a joke, and being the Times, printed the story.

Simple Google of "lulz" turns up a reference in the 01.18.08 edition of Wired magazine.

Or perhaps you'd prefer an earlier reference? Blog posting from 10-FEB-2007

Looks as if the TWITs got it wrong.