For the ones of you who still don't know it, PuntoInformatico is a daily Italian online newspaper about the net and technology, and it exists since '96.
It presents itself as «the most authoritative daily newspaper on Internet and Technology in Italy since many years now [...] celebrated for this with prizes and acknowledgements, and an amount of readers constantly and continuously growing up [...] a specialized newspaper registered by Rome law court» ([1] translated from Italian by me).
Basically a serious newspaper.
I read PuntoInformatico (PI, from now on) almost daily, since around 3 years.
I always found it a valid resourse and a good reference point.
But I'm now perplexed about it.
Like every online activity, as times go by it changes skin, grows up, and increases the amount of services (specific sections about thelephony, advised websites and softwares, video, job, ecc..).
The 1st and most obvious integrating service offered by such site (actually by almost any website of a certain level) is a way to interact with people, the readers. The tools used for this are generally the forums.
PI has its own forums. Like anyone.
Nothing strange in this.
Nope.
PI hasn't one only, but TWO! : )
The normal forum... and the FORUM OF TROLLS!
Who browse the web already knows very well who the trolls are, but let's refresh our minds.
TROLL:
«[...] is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion. [...]»
(from wikipedia [2])
The PI forum with the link marked
---
WHUT'S THAT?
Apart for the nonsense (forum is a place for social interaction, troll is someone who disturb such interactions), we can say it's some kind of special section of the regular forum which seems to have been isolated trying to
1. please peoples unforbearing for moderation (?!)
2. concentrate who was disturbing in a made-on-purpose area, to let him vent, with relief of the base forum.
Basically it's a NO RULES (!) AND NO RESPONSIBILITY (!!) ZONE where all the fellows orbiting around PI who made of "being annoying" an art and a reason of their presence online (probably not only in this context) do concentrate themselves, along with occasionally observers and passive visitors.
And during months, this sections has become a place in its own.
"Without responsibility" 'till a certain extent, because IP address of active users are stored, but once entered, whatever page you're trying to access, at the 1st attempt a disclaimer is automatically shown, and this immunizes active users (not the simple visitors) as well as the owner/manager.
The majority of users, being mainly occasionally observers and passive visitors, are basically not hurting people.
Sadly --as I seen by myself reading some posts-- there are also some users who, if they are what they do write, they are definitely not a good company, and surely persons with som-... hm.. a lot of problems...
Searching in the PI archive I also found (again) a page published more then a year ago, that I remembered having read at that time but not carefully, which announced the remake of the whole site and the decision to close the forum of troll [3].
Some days later, another page [4] informed that because of a load of complaining emails (more than 400, with also a petition!), the editorial staff decided to let it be, and also to provide it a dedicated domain!
This according with the little info I managed to acquire (from the regular forum too).
---
WHERE'S THE PROBLEM?
Here it is.
Neither cases of defamation of important persons, nor copyright violation going to crash old and well known consolidated industries. Not that I'm aware of, at least.
Well, in a place without rules anything is for sure and surprises are beyond the corner. But it's not this.
It's more like something which hurts me personally.
Thanks to a report I got the chance to verify that in such (anti)forum there's now the habit, since an undefined amount of time, of occasionally quoting or linking posts taken from "another" forum related to some kind of psichiatric/psicologic diseases.
A wide range of issues: anxiety [5.a], depression [5.b], social phobia [5.c], panic attacks [5.d], agoraphobia [5.e], claustrophobia, obsessive compulsive disorder [5.f], derealization [5.g], depersonalization [5.h], bipolar disorder [5.i], food and sexual disorders... [5.j][5.k] ...
With all the consequent mess, like familiar problems, hard and underpayd or worse missing job, social environment missing or reduced to almost zero, sentimental/sexual life missing, medicines dependence, zero selfrespect, drinking, drugs...
It's a group of problems much more diffused than what you could think.
As it's easily foreseeable according with the facts of this forum of trolls, this custom to copy/paste/link stuff can produces a short lightweigth discussion which dies by itself, as well as derision and scorn. Or maybe something worse. (keep in mind that the reason-to-be of that place is the lack of moderators and that people goes there right for this!)
Pratically everyone who goes into that forum (the serious one!), can anytime become subject of fun (?!) for 4(hundredsandmore) idio-... trolls WHO HAVE BEEN PROVIDED anything they need, IMMUNITY AND ANONIMITY TOO! (till a certain extent, becouse, as I said, PI protects itself storing IP addresses of writers, but for the rest of the world it's still anonimity.)
I cannot define the level of the problem. I've seen only 4-5 pages. But according with the info I have, it seems that it's all but a news: it's some sort of sport played since months now, even if not constantly.
When I discovered it, I wasn't alone, and the 1st general thought has been «I wonder how many times they laughed at me, and I didn't know a heck of nothing about it!»
The second or third quote which has been linked to me was: «But why doesn't someone like him commit suicide?».
no comment.
Now, considering all the info so far acquired, any way I try to consider such statement I CAN'T FIND A SINGLE REASON TO PUT UP A WHOLE SYSTEM TO GIVE SUCH IDIOTS THE TOOLS TO SAY SUCH IDIOCY.
All this has been reported quickly to the editorial stuff (pi@deandreis.it), but despite the good intentions expressed already in that old page that announced the acquire of a dedicated domain («PuntoInformatico [...] consider fundamental to reply to all the problems raised by the load of readers about what happens in the forum of troll», which in fact says, as they admit, that it were a well know problem at that time yet),
after 10 days and a reminder NO REPLY HAS COME.
---
THE DISCLAIMER
IF YOU'RE AN USER OR A SUPPORTER OF THE FORUM OF TROLLS, GOING ON IN READING
YOU DECLARE:
THAT YOU'RE AWARE THAT THE CONTENT OF THIS PAGE MAY OFFEND YOU;
THAT GIVEN THIS, YOU ACCEPT SUCH CONTENT INTERELY, AT YOUR OWN RISK;
TO RISE UP HIS AUTHOR FROM ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGE YOU CAN GET FROM THIS PAGE.
YOU DECLARE ALSO:
THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO MOVE AGAINST THE AUTHOR WITH ATTEMPTS OF REVENGE AND RETORT, IN ANYWAY.
AND WHILE WE ARE AT IT,
YOU ALSO CONFIRM YOUR INTENTION TO REDEEM YOURSELF FROM YOUR
BLEAK TROLL PAST.
: )
Here we are.
The disclaimer that you get entering the forum of trolls is like this, just a bit longer.
According with its content (making a little abstract), going on in browsing it:
1. you confirm of being 18+ years old
2. you declare that you know that its content may offend and hurt and that anyway it's not affordable
3. you accept any consequence of this
4. you confirm to know that there's neither control nor moderation and thus you accept to raise up his owner from any responsibility (...?)
I see some little contradictions in it, like defining his "owner" "not responsible" (I can understand being nor responsible for what's not manageable, but this place is not controlled on purpose) as well as asking to the reader to confirm that he's aware of the chance of being offended and then, on the next line, asking him to not being offended.
oh, well... details, I guess... (or not? hmm..)
Anyway, Let's analize it deeply.
First of all, there ISN'T an "accept" nor a "confirm" button, just a not-binding "enter" link: you just need to reaload the page you was trying to load at the first attempt (when you've been forced to the disclaimer), and it then loads up correctly. Technically speaking you don't accept anything. You're just being informed..
It works like some kind of big sign placed in front of a rubbish dump: "Warning: danger!". You see it, but you don't need to sign in. You can freely move to see where does the smell you're getting in home comes from .
Anyway I don't understand how someone can ingenuously believe
1. that such warning is enough to justify anything that happens beyond it
2. that this is the only one, thus correct (?), consequence of such approach
3. that in such way, anyone who is damaged by what's protected by the sign cannot complain because anything is his own business (or even worse that it's his own fault since he went searching for it!).
I'm referring mainly to their user-... professional-disturber who, trying to save their slice of anarchy, hiss anyone who complains slamming said disclaimer in their face (they did it with me too, when I went to the regular forum; about this I still don't get what's the kind of mind disease that causes so many persons as I met to fail in reply to a simple question with a consequent simple coherent reply).
There's a side question that they may have missed. That sign, the disclaimer I mean, is a restriction for anyone who come from the outside, BUT NOT FOR ANYONE WHO COME FORM THE INSIDE, who, once exited, is forced, yes, to follow outside rules, but then he just has to take what he need and then move back inside to be free to do whatever he want. : )
It's argued that if you don't enter, what happens inside is not your business.
But there's a specific case that simply breaks this rule: i.e. when what has been taken from the outside is something that in someway is related to you directly, because in such case you've been dragged in.
Example:
You're at a friends party, in their home, with your girlfriend. Suddenly you notice that she's missing, along with someone else who has been interested in her all night long. Then you go searching for both of them, worried. The only one room you didn't check already has a closed door and a sheet of paper stuck over, with a message "Warning: the content of this room may offend you. Entering here you accept that neither the owner nor the persons you're going to find inside are responsible for this. You enter at your own risk."
I dunno about you. I think I'd crash down the door. And about accepting conditions... no way!
It's a bit excessive as example, I agree, but it gives you a better idea of what I was talking about.
Once you come there, you already know/suspect that you are going to find something hurting inside. You come there right for this reason. And the sign just confirms this, giving more reasons to enter, rather than to stay outside. Nor you feel yourself forced to accept anything, once you decide to enter.
Otherwise, for example, I could say that users/supporters of the forum of trolls are idiots. Becouse according with that (counter)disclaimer I wrote above, I should be ok whatever I say, isn't it? : )
(well, perhaps this trick doesn't work with trolls: they roll in offences. ; ) )
---
ARGUMENTATIONS
As I said before I tried collecting some info, to understand: source, reasons to be, opinions of people about such forum and of my interlocutors about this case.
First of all, who is into the trolling-place is not enclosed in it, and consequentrly can freely come and go on the "clean" forum, which then isn't clean. Quite the opposite, it seems.
As a proof of concept, this topic (complainings about forum dei troll) is basically forbidden. Well, you can, but it's not recommended.
Try entering and rising up the question: you do it at your own risk.
The most funny/ridiculous thing when I went there, has been asking me why I didn't go directly on the "alternative" forum.
It should be clear enough at this point that, with all respect for anyone who go there just to read, according with the facts I collected so far, I don't consider it neither a forum nor any other kind of place to go to discuss something.
Nor I'm so stupid to go into the lair of the wol-.. troll, passing under the sign "if you'll enter it'll be your problem".
Let's ask it to the one who laughs at people behind a disclaimer, without even autenticate himself. Let's ask him why he doesn't do it in place, subscribed and with a nickname, so to be eaten alive by other users for like ten pages and then being throw out by the moderator.
Anyway the few argumentations I managed to collect, give a clear idea of how much such thing is passively accepted (when not, at worse, supported).
1.
One of the reasons of existence for such place seems to be just "for trolling".
Now, we can even accept this as a verb, a neologism, useful in the right contest.
But said it in this way it seems that it's a kind of regular activity. Normal and licit like a sport. Positive, even. It relaxes, does strech body, and gives you a wonderful skin.
"What did you do today?"
"Oh, I trolled."
Sure. If there wasn't a trolling-place, someone should have invented it.
What the heck? Are you joking?
Listening to some good music? Having a walk? Drinking a beer with friends?
Sometimes I suspect that human evolution is just our silly illusion: we're going backward.
Or moving around, in the best case.
2.
Another reason I heard of is that who don't want to be subject for derision should avoid to expose himself.
hmm.. It could have been different to say this in another context. But being a reaction to the case I reported, it seems to me like the growling of the wolf blocked while running away after a raid in the poultry run. : P
This point is highly debatable. It's similar to the one that condamn the victim of a car stealt, because the victim left his car open with keys up.
I agree that who expose himself accept consequences, but nothing more (and still to a certain extent).
Let's not revert things. Laughing at someone for something which isn't his own fault IS REPREHENSIBLE, A SHAME AND VILE (even more anonimously..), as well as stealing a car is an illicit act punished by law. FS. FullStop.
Also, let's consider that the content of a free website is, yes, public, but it's not enforcedly distributed. It's just like a virtual room where certain activity takes place, which has its door open so that everyone is free to come and go and take advantage of the ideas and information exchange. Surely not to go there stealing what's needed to laugh at people somewhere else.
3.
As I said before, such schism seems to be a consequence of some users being intolerant for moderation.
Not even this is a strong point.
If administrator/moderator do abuses of his power, then the problem is the person, not the moderation. What should be done is trying to change such person, not to acquire favoritisms and protected areas (it's possible to get the second option but not the first one?)
If it's not this the case, instead, then the problem is the user: which means that this forum (or, probably, any forum) isn't a place good for such person, simply because the moderation is a "builtin-base" feature of the system. (I guess such function has a reason to exists, isn't it?)
In this case people entered into someoneelse's system, at the same level of all other users, ACCEPTING ITS SHAPE AND RULES, MODERATION TOO, AT THE VERY MOMENT OF SUBSCRIPTION. And then later, they changed their mind and push/pulled to subvert the management logic, suddenly refusing what has been accepted at a 1st time, and asking for different privileges. (A bypass!)
What's really absurd is that it's demanded that "everyone" accept the rules of an anomaly GENERATED BECAUSE AND FOR A MINORITY WHICH REFUSED BASE RULES (AFTER HAVING ACCEPTED THEM WITH SUBSCRIPTION)!
Why not just moving somewhere else, opening a place under self responsibility?
(risky?)
On the other side, cleaning the site face by sweeping dirt under the mat is something that doesn't convince me either.
How long can you do that? And how long it'll remain there?
4.
Both users and the editorial staff talk about it as a place of freedom.
There's a mistake, I'm afraid.
Lack of rules isn't freedom but anarchy. Two radically different things.
I agree that control "imposed" from above isn't really a better choice, but anarchy is a not-explosed mine.
Freedom ISN'T an absolute concept: freedom of a person ends where the one of another person starts.
5.
And anyone keeping tell me how trolls are "generally" harmless.
Harmless is a relative word: what's not a problem for you can be a problem for someone else.
And "generally" isn't "always".
It would be possible to say that also depression "generally" doesn't kill. (Only 5-10% of depressed dies. By committing suicide..)
It doesn't seems to me a valid point..
6.
Someone spoke me of an example of selfmanagement experiment.
Experiment, surely. Interesting too, maybe.
Not selfmanagement. Would it be a wiki, every user would be able to fix what others say (the history would remain, anyway). But in a forum without administration/moderation, nothing can be done but adding. Or reporting abuses to the editorial staff.
Which, anyway, as said, remains quiet.
Obviously no one of these pro-trolls points convinces me.
Maybe there's something else?
I dunno...
---
CONCLUSIONS
The issue touches me directly and I find very objectionable that behind such place there's a national newspaper like PI.
Even worse once I discover that showing disagreement means to risk a flame, while the responsible ones don't care about it at all.
I don't have neither time nor wish to start actions against it, this post is all I can do.
But as soon as I find a chance to help getting that place closed, with a petition or whatever, I'll surely do my best to help, without thinking at it twice.
Stay tuned. ; )
y.
