I'm a disagreer and I have to disagree with the authors: disagreeing is not trolling, it's countering trolls. Trolls usually flood the zone with comments that seem elaborate but are ultimately low effort. They know persistence is key, so they don't bother much with replies that counter their claims; rather, they focus on those in agreement to manufacture consent.
It might look sinister if someone drops a reply and leaves, but that alone tells you nothing. In my experience, there is always Brandolini's law at play:
> The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.
If a reply takes a lot of effort and if you suspect the other side isn't arguing in good faith, one reply already feels like a waste of time and there's no reason to go for round two.
I think they should cast a wider net. Toxicity might discover trolls in the original sense, i.e. individuals seeking a dopamine rush. The trolls I have in mind try to steer the narrative on certain topics with comments that aren't rude or inflammatory per se and, like I said, even seem elaborate on the surface.* But if it's done for spin, it's still toxic nonetheless.
What the researchers say about disengagement also applies to these type of trolls. I mentioned persistence, it's what ultimately makes countering these users futile. Anyone who realizes that tomorrow there will be a new thread with the same narrative eventually disengages.
*) More often I see accounts posting long comments in such a short amount of time that I doubt a human was naturally engaging in an online conversation. I would be ashamed to admit how long it took me to write my two comments in this thread and then I see accounts posting much longer comments back-to-back in under two minutes.
It might look sinister if someone drops a reply and leaves, but that alone tells you nothing. In my experience, there is always Brandolini's law at play:
> The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.
If a reply takes a lot of effort and if you suspect the other side isn't arguing in good faith, one reply already feels like a waste of time and there's no reason to go for round two.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
Here's another data point:
"Online political debate isn’t inherently toxic, a new study of Reddit commenters finds. Instead, it becomes toxic because of the kind of commenters who opt in." https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/trolls-pois...
What the researchers say about disengagement also applies to these type of trolls. I mentioned persistence, it's what ultimately makes countering these users futile. Anyone who realizes that tomorrow there will be a new thread with the same narrative eventually disengages.
*) More often I see accounts posting long comments in such a short amount of time that I doubt a human was naturally engaging in an online conversation. I would be ashamed to admit how long it took me to write my two comments in this thread and then I see accounts posting much longer comments back-to-back in under two minutes.