Internet Trolls

[Ten oz]

In the wake of the Florida shooting some victims have addressed claims they're not actors separately I have seen radio and YouTube personalities claim that White people aren't welcome to watch the recently released Black Panther Movie. Just two examples I believe to be the work of Internet Trolls being passed off as real things groups of people are seriously saying. Very few or perhaps even no one at all honestly believes the Florida shooting was faked. Just as there is not a movement within the Black community seeking to bar White people from watching the Black Panther.These are fictions created to generate views and shares on the internet. 

One person can have multiple YouTube, twitter, and Facebook accounts. A Troll can tell a lie on twitter, make a video about the lie on YouTube with a different name, and then reference both (twitter and YouTube) on Facebook under yet another name as anecdotal evidence the lies are real things. A handful of people can generate large amounts of traffic that on the surfacecan appear to be coming from large diverse groups of people. I think it is clearly unhealthy society. I grew up understand that everything on the internet cannot be trusted however it seems people are more vulnerable to disinformation now in a large part to social media. Perhaps receiving information as a group from those they assume to be peers reduces skepticism. What are the long and shot term implication of people believing the fiction of Internet Trolls? What can be or should be done about it?

I put this in Speculation and not in Politics because neither the motives of Trolls or the  implications of their actions are always political. I think often it is just a combination of attention seeking and greed (money can be made off of traffic).

 

[geordief]

Are the big players going to be forced to address this now?

 

Can algorithms and teams of moderators weed out the disinformation in real time?

 

Should those "big players" be held legally responsible for the content posted if they ignore the above approaches?

 

Should social media be taxed (the time we spend on it) to pay for regulation? (is it a bad thing to use it too much anyway and so this can be sold as a mental health issue)

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, geordief said:

Are the big players going to be forced to address this now?

 

Can algorithms and teams of moderators weed out the disinformation in real time?

 

Should those "big players" be held legally responsible for the content posted if they ignore the above approaches?

 

Should social media be taxed (the time we spend on it) to pay for regulation? (is it a bad thing to use it too much anyway and so this can be sold as a mental health issue)

!

Moderator Note

The questions being asked are "What are the long and shot term implication of people believing the fiction of Internet Trolls? What can be or should be done about it?"

Address these questions, rather than adding your own — that should be in a separate topic.

 

[Ten oz]

Free speech is free speech and all Western Democracy protect free speech. I don't think it can be weeded out or moderated in real time. I do think those who have monetized blogs, webpages, social media accounts, and etc should lose their anonymity. If it is speech for profit the source should be known. 

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

What are the long and shot term implication of people believing the fiction of Internet Trolls? What can be or should be done about it?

The long-term is a small fraction of people entertain it in their minds for a while, an even smaller fraction of those people tell others about it, and an even smaller fraction of those people permanently believe it.

That being said, those who do believe it most like believe other things like the Earth is flat, we didn't land on the moon, and that Bigfoot was the thing that stole their grilled cheese sandwich off the grill when they weren't looking.

As for the "shot" term implication, it causes mild inconvenience to those who have to listen to those people who tell others, they'll almost all be convinced and set back on the correct path, and the smallest of those who can't be convinced by others will continue believing it along with all the other random conspiracy stuff they believe.

 

 

There's virtually nothing we can do about. And in my opinion, nothing should be done about it. Always remember folks that free speech applies to stupid.

 

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Free speech is free speech and all Western Democracy protect free speech. I don't think it can be weeded out or moderated in real time. I do think those who have monetized blogs, webpages, social media accounts, and etc should lose their anonymity. If it is speech for profit the source should be known. 

Even that I'd disagree with.

There are those who hold blogs, websites, social media accounts, etc, that spread stupid stuff, are anonymous, and make money. 

The vast majority of them don't. And even if you did take away their anonymity, people would probably still believe them.

It'd be a hassle to enforce, pointless, and fruitless.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

There's virtually nothing we can do about. And in my opinion, nothing should be done about it. Remember folks, free speech applies to stupid.

Free speech doesn't protect those who'd yell fire in a crowded theater just to see people panic. Let's not forget a man open fired in  Washington DC restaurant during the 2016 Election (pizza-gate) because of anti Clinton propaganda. The negative consequences are real and post a tangible threat to the public.

[Raider5678]

11 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Free speech doesn't protect those who'd yell fire in a crowded theater just to see people panic. Let's not forget a man open fired in  Washington DC restaurant during the 2016 Election (pizza-gate) because of anti Clinton propaganda. The negative consequences are real and post a tangible threat to the public.

I said it applies to stupid, not to danger.

I'll be negotiable on guns.

I will not be swayed that making it a crime to say stupid stuff is a good idea.

If the stupid stuff is dangerous, like yelling fire in a crowded theater, then fine.

 

[DrP]

44 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I will not be swayed that making it a crime to say stupid stuff is a good idea.

I agree with you here...  but there is a difference between stupid and just plain lies.  Plain lies are propaganda - political lies designed to enflame your anger and get you to vote a certain way.

46 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

If the stupid stuff is dangerous, like yelling fire in a crowded theater, then fine.

It's called 'Hypernormalization' I think.  It is where there is so much shouting and stupid stuff done deliberately that you then do not notice the very plain and simple change made by the people designing the mayhem. It just goes un-noticed or just seems pretty normal and acceptable compared to 'everything else going on'...  which is nothing, just there to obfuscate something else. You let pass something big hidden as small because no one can see through all of the deliberately confused misdirection and 'stupid' stuff.

[iNow]

It's a form of desensitization. In terms of the current POTUS, I call it the "swarm of bees" strategy. We're so busy swatting at each individual bee that they're stealing the honey right in front of us.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

will not be swayed that making it a crime to say stupid stuff is a good idea.

I said those who monetize it should not be anonymous. I DID NOT say it should be a crime. 

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

It's a form of desensitization. In terms of the current POTUS, I call it the "swarm of bees" strategy. We're so busy swatting at each individual bee that they're stealing the honey right in front of us.

That is one of the short term impacts for sure. What are some of the long term ones and what can be done? 

 

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

The long-term is a small fraction of people entertain it in their minds for a while, an even smaller fraction of those people tell others about it, and an even smaller fraction of those people permanently believe it.

Unless of course they get amplified via social media, politicized and publicized by the certain media outlets and shows.

I mean, can you imagine that some actors could weaponize social media and put out coordinated fake stories out there to disrupt and destabilize societies? Too ridiculous to entertain that thought right? It would never work in highly educated societies, right? Haha ha... ha.

[Ten oz]

20 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Unless of course they get amplified via social media, politicized and publicized by the certain media outlets and shows.

I mean, can you imagine that some actors could weaponize social media and put out coordinated fake stories out there to disrupt and destabilize societies? Too ridiculous to entertain that thought right? It would never work in highly educated societies, right? Haha ha... ha.

From Brexit to Trump!! That said the issue transcends politics. Actual journalism is regulated. A journalist for the New York Times can lose it's license or be sued. Some anonymous person on YouTube sourcing some anonymous Twitter feed that itself is sourcing something on Instagram can basically say anything. In many cases the size of the audience is greater for the person on YouTube. Regulation hasn't kept up with the changes in the way people consume news. 

[CharonY]

23 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

From Brexit to Trump!! That said the issue transcends politics. Actual journalism is regulated. A journalist for the New York Times can lose it's license or be sued. Some anonymous person on YouTube sourcing some anonymous Twitter feed that itself is sourcing something on Instagram can basically say anything. In many cases the size of the audience is greater for the person on YouTube. Regulation hasn't kept up with the changes in the way people consume news. 

There is also the issue that folks are consuming more youtube videos or blogs rather than vetted media outlets. And indeed, there are political powers who actively try to minimize the influence of mainstream media ("fake news", and in Germany even bringing back the loaded term "Luegenpresse"). This can only accelerate the process of dissemination misinformation. I fear we are seeing a rise of youtube-personality cults that may be the basis of the worldview of many young people. 

In fact, I do start to see it in undergrad students where arguments made by these types of personalities (i.e. folks without actual credentials in the areas they talk about) are taken as gospel without second thought. To be fair, it is not an entirely new phenomenon. Dawkins could be seen as one of such personalities which arose during legitimate concern about creationism influence in biology classes. While the initial core where well-educated on the subject, at a certain size there were folks who started to take his words, even outside of his expertise as gospel and it got a cultish hue with got increasingly toxic.

That being said, it was relatively mild compared to what I see with some political commentators that are around now. Young folks, such as students are still trying to find their way in the world (not yet realizing that it is going to be a long search with no real answers) and these folks give them a very simplistic world that they can grasp immediately. These shortcuts have always been the selling point of snake oil salesmen, but now they the largest platform imaginable. 

Edited February 21, 2018 by CharonY

[Raider5678]

22 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Actual journalism is regulated.

 

Really?

Man. I should start believing all those headlines saying an asteroid is going to crash into earth tomorrow and kill everyone.

 

25 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

From Brexit to Trump!! That said the issue transcends politics. Actual journalism is regulated. A journalist for the New York Times can lose it's license or be sued. Some anonymous person on YouTube sourcing some anonymous Twitter feed that itself is sourcing something on Instagram can basically say anything. In many cases the size of the audience is greater for the person on YouTube. Regulation hasn't kept up with the changes in the way people consume news. 

Provide an example of an anonymous YouTuber who has a devoted audience that's greater than mainstream media.

18 minutes ago, CharonY said:

There is also the issue that folks are consuming more youtube videos or blogs rather than vetted media outlets. And indeed, there are political powers who actively try to minimize the influence of mainstream media ("fake news", and in Germany even bringing back the loaded term "Luegenpresse"). This can only accelerate the process of dissemination misinformation. I fear we are seeing a rise of youtube-personality cults that may be the basis of the worldview of many young people. 

To be fair, mainstream media is biased.

Have you ever seen fox news? 

 

I would actively try to eliminate the influence of mainstream media. Because it's biased. Left or right, everyone has an agenda. And especially in America, everything is always painted as doom and gloom, because they get more views. Which is another problem.

Mainstream media makes up headlines that are extremely misleading. I saw one that said the U.S. declared war on North Korea. Months ago. We're not at war.

It's getting to the point I'd sooner believe a YouTuber who explains what he/she believes and why they believe it, over someone reciting a headline they read off of a news article.

People are less likely to read an entire news article then they are to listen to someone explain an issue.

Additionally, on youtube, the comments will call them out for outright lying and making misleading thumbnails/clickbait.

 

 

24 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I fear we are seeing a rise of youtube-personality cults that may be the basis of the worldview of many young people. 

 

To be fair, this has been a position for almost every older generation.

"Look at all these younger people, look who their role models are, look what they support, look where they get their information from(first books, then radio, then tv, now the internet)" etc.

[CharonY]

59 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

To be fair, mainstream media is biased.

 

I think you are missing the point. The issue is not only that it is biased, but rather that they straight up make up stories. And that there are concerted efforts by Russia, and I imagine other state actors that use it for propaganda purposes. Just a few examples:

Check out social media coverage of the Syrian volunteer organization White Helmets. Check out the youtube videos and the comments beneath it (really youtube comments are cesspool in general). Have you formed in your mind what they are and have and idea regarding the controversy? Now check this out.

For more blatant examples, take a look at videos regarding Muslims in Europe. What we see there is not bias, but vile conspiracy theories ranging from "no-go zones" to "white genocide". If that was in mainstream media there would be some kind backlash. Here, we get likes.

The recent indictments have shown the influence of Russia on US elections via social media. 

You want to confirm your (insert group you belong to)-related fears? There is a channel for that. Do you want to get told that mainstream is bad, just listen to us because we validate you? Just click on subscribe. Make no mistake, it is not isolated individuals, if you check out the networks that have formed to create bubbles based on their own identity and worldview. It is a haven for those feeling underrepresented in society (justified or not) and is a breeding ground for radicalization. Terror organizations but also e.g. Russia have seized on that and have used it to radicalize, sow dissent and influence politics. The difference to mainstream is that the platforms are now individualized. You can pick and create your own bubble entirely independent from the person next to you. This makes you much more vulnerable to specific influence as you reinforce the misinformation by yourself. 

If you go through several newspapers, you are exposed to different views. Go to social media, they conveniently filter out everything that may upset you. Control of the userbase does not work either. As it has been shown, the groups consolidate around reaffirming ideologies. It is possible that we will get a handle on things. But I increasingly believe that unchecked it will become a bigger issue. 

I further believe that there are several, if  somewhat related issues. Among my students I found that youtube fake news and trolling was rather quickly spotted and ignored (with exceptions). What is more attractive to them, however, are social media personalities that reflect their respective viewpoints. What they offer are not insights, but soundbites. But for reasons that I do not understand, they seem to be incredibly popular. Associated with that there seems to be a breakdown in communication between students with even slightly different viewpoints. They get so used to their own respective bubble that it is harder for them to accept or discuss even moderately diverging views. What I have also found is that if there is a discussion folks start throwing eerily similar soundbites at each other, which I assume are taken directly from these personalities (they all have in common that they sound clever, but are in fact incredibly stupid). 

While it does not happen that often, I do see an increase which makes creating discussion rounds, especially on the undergrad level, increasingly difficult.  So far, the majority still form original thoughts which help me lead the discussion. But I definitely have seen a shift in the last decade or so. 

Originally I was big fan of possibilities of borderless communication. And I still do see the vast possibilities. However, I now also see increasingly issues with it. The good news is that increasingly it is seen by society and there have been calls to teach kids critical media consumption (though I do think that it should also be extended to the older generations).  

[Raider5678]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

 

You want to confirm your (insert group you belong to)-related fears? There is a channel for that. Do you want to get told that mainstream is bad, just listen to us because we validate you? Just click on subscribe. Make no mistake, it is not isolated individuals, if you check out the networks that have formed to create bubbles based on their own identity and worldview. It is a haven for those feeling underrepresented in society (justified or not) and is a breeding ground for radicalization. Terror organizations but also e.g. Russia have seized on that and have used it to radicalize, sow dissent and influence politics. The difference to mainstream is that the platforms are now individualized. You can pick and create your own bubble entirely independent from the person next to you. This makes you much more vulnerable to specific influence as you reinforce the misinformation by yourself. 

1

If I want to confirm my (insert group you belong to) - related fears, I can find a news site just for that.

And you are entirely correct, I could find a youtube channel for that.

 

To address the two things you've put up:

I can't even begin to explain.

First, the white helmets. This "widely spread conspiracy" and "highly believed" is bullshit. One, if you read farther into the article, you'll realize the conspiracy was created by the media. Not social media, the media. Which, then gaining a lot of retweets, spread it to social media. I hardly feel it's fair to blame it on social media as the creation of this conspiracy, so I'll just let it go. Unless you refuse to accept it, in which case it's not a denial of facts on either of our parts, it's opinionated. I don't believe it's fair to blame social media for something started on mainstream media, while you think it's fair because ultimately it's social media that caused it to spread. Additionally, most of the news story was built around isolated tweets that didn't receive many retweets, likes, etc. Sure, a few hundred may sound like a lot, but when you account in bots, people who are already convinced, it's not like they're building massive followings as the article suggests. 

 

Second, those networks are crackpot conspiracy nuts. Neo-nazis existed pre-social media, there's no need to point it out. The fact that they're creating their own websites because social media doesn't allow them on it kind of proves it's own point.

 

 

Make no mistake, I know for an absolute fact that there are terrible side effects from some social media users spreading false rumors.

But there are also terrible side effects from mainstream media. On virtually everything. Hell, even something as small as the tide pod challenge was made almost 100 times worse because of mainstream media and required social media to help fix the problem.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, just ask and I'll explain. The short story is that a few kids ate tide pods every week for a couple of years. Someone makes a joke about poisoning and casually mention they're going to eat tide pods from now on. Mainstream media latches onto this, presents it as a "massive trend"....... that they created. The number of kids eating tide pods intentionally went from typically 10-11 a week, to well over 1.5k of them. 

Again, if you'd like me to elaborate farther I can get out the numbers and that, it'll be a long and boring post, however. I am not intentionally leaving out evidence.

 

As for social media being a breeding ground for radicalization, I'd like to point out that there hasn't been an 

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Provide an example of an anonymous YouTuber who has a devoted audience that's greater than mainstream media.

 

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

. A journalist for the New York Times can lose it's license or be sued. Some anonymous person on YouTube sourcing some anonymous Twitter feed that itself is sourcing something on Instagram can basically say anything. In many cases the size of the audience is greater

I said some anonymous YouTube channel have the same size audience of some licensed journalist; not mainstream media at large. 

This is the second time in this thread you challenged me based on an idea I didn't post or imply. Please take better care to read my posts before arguing. If you need clarification, ask. 

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Man. I should start believing all those headlines saying an asteroid is going to crash into earth tomorrow and kill everyone.

https://www.fcc.gov/media/customer-service-standards#block-menu-block-4

The FCC does regulate the industry. 

[Raider5678]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

https://www.fcc.gov/media/customer-service-standards#block-menu-block-4

The FCC does regulate the industry. 

 

That link has to do with customer service standards regarding internet maintenance.

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I said some anonymous YouTube channel have the same size audience of some licensed journalist; not mainstream media at large. 

 

You're right.

I meant to say journalist, that's my bad.

Either way, still provide a link.

[Ten oz]

33 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

That link has to do with customer service standards regarding internet maintenance.

It is the FCC's official page. You can search whichever standards you want to know about as it relates to the FCC.

48 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Either way, still provide a link.

What size audience do you think average journalist has? I ask because numerous YouTube channels have millions of subscribers and I am sure you are aware of that. So what exactly are you challenging? I am not in the mood to provide links just to chase you down a rabbit hole of "what about this" challenges.

[Ten oz]

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43144717

Twitter to action against bots today. Accounts were locked till verified via phone number. That is a good start to limiting those with numerous accounts using bots to make their position seems bigger than it is. Provided Twitter isn't editing individual content I like it. 

To that end if numerous accounts are using same verification phone number I think there should be a feature reflects the fact all the accounts are mutually managed. Free speech is a terrific thing but I think people should have some idea where the speech is coming from. I don't home addresses but rather affiliations. 

 

[Raider5678]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

What size audience do you think average journalist has? I ask because numerous YouTube channels have millions of subscribers and I am sure you are aware of that. So what exactly are you challenging? I am not in the mood to provide links just to chase you down a rabbit hole of "what about this" challenges.

1

Many youtube channels have millions of subscribers, correct.

Show me a crackpot one that's feeding false news, that has over 1 million.

No. 500k.

Wait, no.

100,000 subscribers of a youtube channel/social media account that presents crackpot conspiracies. Or sells political lies. Either one.

 

 

[Ten oz]

27 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Many youtube channels have millions of subscribers, correct.

Show me a crackpot one that's feeding false news, that has over 1 million.

No. 500k.

Wait, no.

100,000 subscribers of a youtube channel/social media account that presents crackpot conspiracies. Or sells political lies. Either one.

 

 

Alltime Conspiracies, they have 1.5 million subscribers. There about page references a Facebook page and the about feature on the Facebook page references the YouTube page. 

[Raider5678]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Alltime Conspiracies, they have 1.5 million subscribers. There about page references a Facebook page and the about feature on the Facebook page references the YouTube page. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5s3QDqPTHc

Yeah..... because this video is so crackpot..... pointing out it has nothing to do with the Bermuda triangle, and that most likely Atlantis was based on an actual island city that sank....

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG0zbgfeqKE

Or this one, where they point out the likelihood of an alien civilization living on the moon is unlikely.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZau0M0xKoM

Or this one that analyzes evidence to determine if Hitler killed himself like the Soviet Union said or not(Fine. I'll admit this one. They came out with "Probably, we're not really sure. Questionable sources")

 

Have you watched any of their videos? These are the first three videos I picked out, at random, and none of them seem all that crackpot to me. They proved the moon landings happened, they pointed out Atlantis was most likely based off of an interesting island, they speculated on Hitler and determined the most likely killed himself and wasn't held secretly by American spies, they pointed out that Nasa is most likely not hiding aliens on the moon and that it just costs a lot of money to go there.

Is it clickbait? Absolutely. But from the videos I watched I didn't find any false information. Now, I didn't spend hours researching them as I'm sure you have to make sure they were actually crackpots, so if you could provide the video that's absolute bs, I'd appreciate that.

Otherwise, pick another group.

[Ten oz]

8 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Have you watched any of their videos? These are the first three videos I picked out, at random, and none of them seem all that crackpot to me. They proved the moon landings happened, they pointed out Atlantis was most likely based off of an interesting island, they speculated on Hitler and determined the most likely killed himself and wasn't held secretly by American spies, they pointed out that Nasa is most likely not hiding aliens on the moon and that it just costs a lot of money to go there.

Is it clickbait? Absolutely. But from the videos I watched I didn't find any false information. Now, I didn't spend hours researching them as I'm sure you have to make sure they were actually crackpots, so if you could provide the video that's absolute bs, I'd appreciate that.

https://www.youtube.com/user/AnonymousWorldvoce/videos

There is literally a Youtube page called Anonymous with 1.9 million subscribers. There are many of these pages. Let's go back to my original post you are challenging:

19 hours ago, Ten oz said:

A journalist for the New York Times can lose it's license or be sued. Some anonymous person on YouTube sourcing some anonymous Twitter feed that itself is sourcing something on Instagram can basically say anything. In many cases the size of the audience is greater for the person on YouTube.

I have already provided you the proof you asked for (twice now) showing that there are anonymous people on YouTube with a greater audience than some journalists. My post was about their anonymity.  The post I made is 100% accurate.You do not know who the writers and producers are or who is profiting from channels like Anonymous and Alltime Conspiracies. Arguing about the the content of those pages is not in context with the post you are responding to. 

This thread asks a couple of questions: " What are the long and short term implication of people believing the fiction of Internet Trolls? What can be or should be done about it?". In response to what can or should be done I recommended that monetized blogs, YouTube, and Social Media accounts shouldn't be anonymous. I think we should know who is producing and profiting. That would not infringe on free speech. Knowing who journalists and  pundits are doesn't prevent their speech so I don't see what the different is. What problems do you see or have with that suggestion?

 

 

 

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

https://www.youtube.com/user/AnonymousWorldvoce/videos

There is literally a Youtube page called Anonymous with 1.9 million subscribers. There are many of these pages. Let's go back to my original post you are challenging:

Oh my god. Those assholes. Saying Donald Trump is corrupt and that we have to stop trying to blame everything on immigrants.

What a bunch of crack pots.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

I have already provided you the proof you asked for (twice now) showing that there are anonymous people on YouTube with a greater audience than some journalists.

No. You haven't. The proof I asked for was to show me a youtube channel posting crackpot/political propaganda with more than 1 million subscribers. I showed that the first one wasn't crazy, they were, for the most part, disproving conspiracies. The second one is denouncing racism and saying we have to do more to help those in need. Now perhaps you wish to claim that's evil political propaganda, etc, but I choose not to. Read my quote below. You haven't provided the proof I asked for.

14 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Show me a crackpot one that's feeding false news, that has over 1 million.

No. 500k.

Wait, no.

100,000 subscribers of a youtube channel/social media account that presents crackpot conspiracies. Or sells political lies. Either one.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Arguing about the the content of those pages is not in context with the post you are responding to. 

Your problem, specifically, wasn't that there were anonymous people online. It was that you believed there were massive cults of them spreading political lies and propaganda. You've yet to show me one that does. However, if that's not what you're worried about, and you're just upset that anonymous people make money online, I still disagree.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

This thread asks a couple of questions: " What are the long and short term implication of people believing the fiction of Internet Trolls?

You've yet to show me a large internet troll.  However, I've already answered this question. 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

What can be or should be done about it?

I've answered this too. Nothing.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

In response to what can or should be done I recommended that monetized blogs, YouTube, and Social Media accounts shouldn't be anonymous. I think we should know who is producing and profiting. That would not infringe on free speech. Knowing who journalists and  pundits are doesn't prevent their speech so I don't see what the different is. What problems do you see or have with that suggestion?

First, Youtube and Social Media know who it is. It's not like the government couldn't track them down or anything. You can't monetize without proving your identity. 

Next, why should people have to know? If they want to watch someone anonymously, why do you say they must know? What difference does it make?

I have problems with that suggestion because you're going to make a lot of youtube channels, that produce good content, have to reveal who they are publically. I don't see why it's necessary. 

 

You based your argument on the idea that there are internet trolls. There are. I said they weren't that popular, you've yet to prove they are. 

I fail to see what the point of making all YouTubers reveal themselves publically. Just because you want to know who they are?