(warning: this is longish - blame the 119 bluebooks...) I'm interested in this discussion for three reasons: I'm a list member; I'm a list member with some outider-ish attributes; and I've just finished grading a long seminar paper on patent trolls and how to define them. I'll take these in reverse order: On definitions: Among folks who care about such things, how to define a patent troll is hotly disputed. Some say trolls are unproductive rent-seekers who exploit the US patent system's lax standards of obviousness to hold up legitimate market participants. Others say that by identifying and resuscitating poorly-performing assets, parties labeled trolls perform a valuable market-clearing function analogous to that performed by, say, ASCAP or the Copyright Clearance Center. The right answer seems to be a little bit of both: some "true trolls" are mere exploiters, while other "market-clearers" are moving the market for intellectual property licensing in a direction that, 10 or so years from now, will seem wholly unremarkable. It seems to me that the same might be said of trolls on lists: some are "true trolls" while others are trying to move the discussion in a legitimate direction, albeit one that many list members find a tiresome hobbyhorse or otherwise want to avoid. [This should be obvious but in case it isn't, I intend no comment on which characterization fits the present controversy.] Some potted etymology: My dictionary lists roughly three definitions for "troll": to sing over and over again, as a round; to fish with a long line; a creature that lives in a cave. Patent trolls and list trolls present an oddly apt merger of the three definitions, which can be framed in a relatively neutral fashion: they fish with the same bait over and over again for a particular "catch" of interest to them, and many find them unsightly. (yup, way too many bluebooks!) On list outsiders: How do we decide what counts as trolling for AOIR purposes? Discussion of this question has mixed two distinct subquestions. The first subquestion relates to what counts as "internet research." This list's membership is diverse, and that's a good thing. I joined it because I had had my fill of "law and economics"; I figured a group of humanities and social science scholars would be more eclectic and openminded. That's true -- oy, except when it isn't. I've met a number of you and thought you were all very nice people, but you do tend to close ranks in a hurry when there is a whiff of crass commerce in the air. Whatever our faults, lawyers tend to be made of sterner stuff, and fwiw I think that behavior is worth reconsidering. These days, the age-old wall between "pure" academia and crass commerce is anything but. Foundations with agendas, partisan think tanks, corporate research centers, and even - gasp - for-profit educational centers are everywhere. The way most of us were educated, the old world made more sense, but the new one is rife with the sorts of hybridity and slippage that excite intense interest to list members when they crop up in other contexts. It would make more sense to consider the interesting questions before rushing to condemn whatever it is. The second subquestion relates to what counts as appropriate behavior on this list. I agree that bad behavior can poison even what ought to be a good topic. But it seems to me that blame is more equally distributed here than many acknowledge. I'm with whoever (Suzana?) suggested a fundamental distinction between calling someone a troll, forever and for always, and accusing someone of trolling. As I'm lawyering today, let's take the facts in the light most favorable to the "accused": someone who believes that he is an internet researcher and that list membership will assist him in pursuing his professional interests, and who wants to stop trolling and conform more closely to the etiquette of the list, might feel that he had done himself such irreparable harm the first time around that pseudonymity is the way to go. Unless you are someone who believes that trolls are trolls, forever and for always, that ought to be defensible. That doesn't make it the smartest choice; for myself, I would have preferred an apology to the list and a statement of intent to try harder not to insult people and waste their time. Two caveats, though: It's amazing how often otherwise-fully-functioning adults have difficulty doing this. It's also amazing how unforgiving other adults can be. Which brings me, in a roundabout way, to my last point: One fairly reliable way of distinguishing between "true trolls" and (trollish) market clearers seems to be that true trolls thrive on attention for its own sake. Whether they receive it, however, is one thing that is not within their control. So enough already about WRC. Please. Julie Julie E. Cohen Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center jec@law.georgetown.edu http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/jec/
Thanks, Julie, for your (as usual) most helpful and insightful comments. I would, however, like to respond in turn to one of your central points:
As I'm lawyering today, let's take the facts in the light most favorable to the "accused": someone who believes that he is an internet researcher and that list membership will assist him in pursuing his professional interests, and who wants to stop trolling and conform more closely to the etiquette of the list, might feel that he had done himself such irreparable harm the first time around that pseudonymity is the way to go. Unless you are someone who believes that trolls are trolls, forever and for always, that ought to be defensible. That doesn't make it the smartest choice; for myself, I would have preferred an apology to the list and a statement of intent to try harder not to insult people and waste their time. Two caveats, though: It's amazing how often otherwise-fully-functioning adults have difficulty doing this. It's also amazing how unforgiving other adults can be.
No doubt - and this is why, as I remind my students on a weekly basis, why every major world religion (and most of the "minor" ones I know anything about) insist that forgiveness and compassion are primary virtues. Three comments. 1) Many of us tried the forgiveness and understanding route early on - I would be happy to share with you off-list some of the vitriol we got for our trouble. Beyond what those responses may suggest regarding the chances of needed changes in behavior - what I find interesting is that we now have a kind of in-between the two poles you suggest - i.e., once a troll, always a troll vis-a-vis trollish behavior that can be amended and forgiven.
From my perspective, a useful name for this is the pseudo-troll - both because the one-time troll both now strays into troll-like behavior and because the one-time troll hides behind a pseudonym. From the standpoint of ethical analysis, this is a helpful point to make because it points us beyond the either/or that lurks - however unintentionally - behind your manifestly well-intentioned distinction, leaving us with the pointed question: what to do with the in-between of the pseudo-troll?
2) While I'm generally inclined to head in the direction of forgiveness and compassion - more than once, but not, sorry to say, the "70 x 7" commanded by Jesus; and thereby open to the possibility of helping a recovering troll learn and practice better behavior - where I find an ethical complication here has to do with the use of a pseudonym. As lots and lots of studies articulate what many of us know from long experience - trust is essential in communication per se, and in the online environment, trust is even more essential while simultaneously all the more fragile. Many of us have plenty of war stories - and I can also cite studies, if need be - of lists being destroyed by pseudonymous writers who gain the trust of participants: once their real identities are discovered/revealed, oftentimes a critical mass of participants lose the trust essential to further participation in the list, and the list simply dissolves. My concern, then, with pseudonymous "participants" - whatever their intentions and hopes for recovery - is that it seems abundantly clear that pseudonymous "participants" threaten the trust levels required to sustain a list. 3) Moreover, if we're genuinely concerned about forgiveness and compassion fostering a movement beyond destructive behaviors - then, as most ethical and religious frameworks recognize (and, FWIW, AA rightly emphasizes) - such recovery will only begin when one takes clear and public responsibility for one's behavior. Hiding behind a pseudonym, it seems to me, does not encourage movement in that direction. Hence I worry that opening up the list to participation from behind a pseudonym, however right and noble the motives are of justifying this in the name of helping someone move towards more appropriate behavior on the list, is countered by the risk of such participation to the trust levels essential to fruitful conversation online. What the are the chances of recovery, on the one hand? What are the chances of damaging trust levels, on the other hand? Suggestions for how we might decide in the face of the these two competing possible outcomes of allowing pseudonymous participation on the list would be welcome! Cordially, charles ess Distinguished Research Professor, Interdisciplinary Studies <http://www.drury.edu/gp21> Drury University 900 N. Benton Ave. Voice: 417-873-7230 Springfield, MO 65802 USA FAX: 417-873-7435 Home page: http://www.drury.edu/ess/ess.html Information Ethics Fellow, 2006-07, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, UW-Milwaukee <http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/SOIS/cipr/ethics.html> Co-Editor, International Journal of Internet Research Ethics http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/SOIS/cipr/ijire.html Co-chair, CATaC conferences <www.catacconference.org> Vice-President, Association of Internet Researchers <www.aoir.org> Professor II, Globalization and Applied Ethics Programmes <http://www.anvendtetikk.ntnu.no/pres/bridgingcultures.php> Exemplary persons seek harmony, not sameness. -- Analects 13.23
Charles, I'm neither an ethicist nor an expert on the world's religions. At present many of my guiding principles are derived from parenting. Here are the relevant two: 1) Learning acceptable behavior is hard and backsliding is inevitable. It should be addressed gently but firmly, and with a minimum of fuss. I.e., if you freak out every time your kid sticks his finger up his nose, he'll do it even more often just to watch you bounce off the ceiling. Good behavior, such as attempts to engage others in a constructive manner, should be rewarded. 2) If it reminds me of something I might hear from my 4-year-old ("Mommy, James took my toy. Mommy, Jeremy called me a poopyhead."), I don't want to hear it on this or any other list. The pseudonymity thing doesn't bother me at all in the context of this list, because I don't think this particular organization needs to rely on the kind of trust you describe. None of us is a shrinking violet; we all have experience publishing and standing behind our own words. For me, at least, whether I remain a member of this list has almost nothing to do with trust and almost everything to do with whether I think it is wasting my time. More generally, I think your middle category is really just the first category in disguise (if you call your kid a "pseudo-nose-picker" nobody is going to be under any illusion about what you really called him). Best, Julie -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Charles Ess Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:46 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Trolls Three comments. 1) Many of us tried the forgiveness and understanding route early on - I would be happy to share with you off-list some of the vitriol we got for our trouble. Beyond what those responses may suggest regarding the chances of needed changes in behavior - what I find interesting is that we now have a kind of in-between the two poles you suggest - i.e., once a troll, always a troll vis-a-vis trollish behavior that can be amended and forgiven.
From my perspective, a useful name for this is the pseudo-troll - both because the one-time troll both now strays into troll-like behavior and because the one-time troll hides behind a pseudonym. From the standpoint of ethical analysis, this is a helpful point to make because it points us beyond the either/or that lurks - however unintentionally - behind your manifestly well-intentioned distinction, leaving us with the pointed question: what to do with the in-between of the pseudo-troll?
2) While I'm generally inclined to head in the direction of forgiveness and compassion - more than once, but not, sorry to say, the "70 x 7" commanded by Jesus; and thereby open to the possibility of helping a recovering troll learn and practice better behavior - where I find an ethical complication here has to do with the use of a pseudonym. As lots and lots of studies articulate what many of us know from long experience - trust is essential in communication per se, and in the online environment, trust is even more essential while simultaneously all the more fragile. Many of us have plenty of war stories - and I can also cite studies, if need be - of lists being destroyed by pseudonymous writers who gain the trust of participants: once their real identities are discovered/revealed, oftentimes a critical mass of participants lose the trust essential to further participation in the list, and the list simply dissolves. My concern, then, with pseudonymous "participants" - whatever their intentions and hopes for recovery - is that it seems abundantly clear that pseudonymous "participants" threaten the trust levels required to sustain a list. 3) Moreover, if we're genuinely concerned about forgiveness and compassion fostering a movement beyond destructive behaviors - then, as most ethical and religious frameworks recognize (and, FWIW, AA rightly emphasizes) - such recovery will only begin when one takes clear and public responsibility for one's behavior. Hiding behind a pseudonym, it seems to me, does not encourage movement in that direction. Hence I worry that opening up the list to participation from behind a pseudonym, however right and noble the motives are of justifying this in the name of helping someone move towards more appropriate behavior on the list, is countered by the risk of such participation to the trust levels essential to fruitful conversation online. What the are the chances of recovery, on the one hand? What are the chances of damaging trust levels, on the other hand? Suggestions for how we might decide in the face of the these two competing possible outcomes of allowing pseudonymous participation on the list would be welcome! Cordially, charles ess Distinguished Research Professor, Interdisciplinary Studies <http://www.drury.edu/gp21> Drury University 900 N. Benton Ave. Voice: 417-873-7230 Springfield, MO 65802 USA FAX: 417-873-7435 Home page: http://www.drury.edu/ess/ess.html Information Ethics Fellow, 2006-07, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, UW-Milwaukee <http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/SOIS/cipr/ethics.html> Co-Editor, International Journal of Internet Research Ethics http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/SOIS/cipr/ijire.html Co-chair, CATaC conferences <www.catacconference.org> Vice-President, Association of Internet Researchers <www.aoir.org> Professor II, Globalization and Applied Ethics Programmes <http://www.anvendtetikk.ntnu.no/pres/bridgingcultures.php> Exemplary persons seek harmony, not sameness. -- Analects 13.23 _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
On 5/17/07, Julie Cohen <jec@law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
None of us is a shrinking violet; we all have experience publishing and standing behind our own words.
I'm not sure that is the necessarily the case. Many subscribers are students; I seem to even recall an undergrad or two posting to the list in the time I've been subscribed. I also seem to remember that some of us are practitioners and not full-time, published scholars, professors, or teachers. I am very comfortable in my ever-evolving, shifting, and multiple roles but to project that comfort and sense of authority and experience onto others seems a bit unwise. I would also assert that part of this organization's duties, implicit or explicit, is the nurturing of new talent and assisting new, inexperienced, or shy would-be contributors, particularly students. Given the interdisciplinary nature of our work, I would also imagine there are some among us who have no local support for the work we do and the interests we exhibit (folks in my profession certainly don't know what to make of me sometimes!). Hence some of this dialog is, perhaps unconsciously, focused on the future rather than the past. It's related not just to present and past behavior but expectations of (and hopes for) future behavior. Kevin
You are right about this of course. My apologies. I would think, however, that the reactions of random pseudonymous people would be fairly low on a student's list of worries. -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Guidry Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 6:31 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Trolls On 5/17/07, Julie Cohen <jec@law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
None of us is a shrinking violet; we all have experience publishing
and standing behind
our own words.
I'm not sure that is the necessarily the case. Many subscribers are students; I seem to even recall an undergrad or two posting to the list in the time I've been subscribed. I also seem to remember that some of us are practitioners and not full-time, published scholars, professors, or teachers. I am very comfortable in my ever-evolving, shifting, and multiple roles but to project that comfort and sense of authority and experience onto others seems a bit unwise. I would also assert that part of this organization's duties, implicit or explicit, is the nurturing of new talent and assisting new, inexperienced, or shy would-be contributors, particularly students. Given the interdisciplinary nature of our work, I would also imagine there are some among us who have no local support for the work we do and the interests we exhibit (folks in my profession certainly don't know what to make of me sometimes!). Hence some of this dialog is, perhaps unconsciously, focused on the future rather than the past. It's related not just to present and past behavior but expectations of (and hopes for) future behavior. Kevin _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
I know from my PhD project that many students feel quite inadequate in the presence of Real Academics. Whether they should or not is another matter, but many have been treated quite badly in academic forums (or seen other people so treated). It can be really difficult for them to trust these forums, and it sometimes doesn't take much to send them scuttling for cover. This list always, in my experience, works hard to provide a safe and welcoming space. M-H On 18/05/2007, at 10:56 AM, Julie Cohen wrote:
You are right about this of course. My apologies. I would think, however, that the reactions of random pseudonymous people would be fairly low on a student's list of worries.
I'm sure you're right, and it is regrettable. It does tend to suggest, however, that poor treatment of students probably isn't correlated with whether or not a list permits pseudonymity, and that the intimidation factor may well be negatively correlated. Best - Julie -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Mary-Helen Ward Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:06 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-l] students on lists I know from my PhD project that many students feel quite inadequate in the presence of Real Academics. Whether they should or not is another matter, but many have been treated quite badly in academic forums (or seen other people so treated). It can be really difficult for them to trust these forums, and it sometimes doesn't take much to send them scuttling for cover. This list always, in my experience, works hard to provide a safe and welcoming space. M-H On 18/05/2007, at 10:56 AM, Julie Cohen wrote:
You are right about this of course. My apologies. I would think, however, that the reactions of random pseudonymous people would be fairly low on a student's list of worries.
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
participants (4)
-
Charles Ess -
Julie Cohen -
Kevin Guidry -
Mary-Helen Ward