Big news piece: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Patients Push for an Elusive Cure

[SOC]

I'm pretty much always in favour of trying to argue things out though (in theory, even if I'm sometimes to lazy in practice).

Feeding trolls isn't arguing things out, it's giving them the power to continue their campaign to harm people -- fragile sick people in this case. Trolls are not there to learn and converse, they're there to irritate people and get attention. The more attention they get, the more they are encouraged to irritate people. It's an adrenaline rush for them. Engaging trolls leads to a dreadful downward spiral.

That is not to say that one shouldn't try to educate people who simply don't understand. That's an entirely different matter. One needs to learn to distinguish the ignorant from the trolls. It's really not that hard. Trolls don't learn. They don't listen to what other people are saying. They repeat the same tired argument over and over and over and over... with a few additional insults here and there.

This particular article comments section has at least one very clear troll who should not be fed. Trolls who are not fed go somewhere else for their sustenance. They lose interest when they don't get the argument they relish.

Don't feed the trolls.

 

[Sean]

I guess the points I am trying to make about trolls is that they are 1) not your target audience, and 2) not interested in a good faith discussion.

Therefore, don't waste your time on them. Certainly not directly.

 

[Forbin]

Somehow, I am pretty surprised that there are trolls hanging out at The Atlantic. I mean did these guys first have to prove themselves by harassing people over at the Journal of Library Science?

 

[Valentijn]

Respond to any points worth responding to, correct any important factual errors (preferably with a reference or two to back your claim). But don't respond to them directly or even acknowledge their existence.

I think you're wrong, to an extent. I have had people start out behaving like trolls who actually seemed to take things on board when I replied with some information regarding objective information, followed by a couple questions from them and a couple more explanations.

I think it's also unhelpful for the public to see Troll Comments with a couple up-votes from their fellow trolls, followed by no rebuttal, or a brief explanation of why they are wrong. I don't see that as talking to them when I respond, but rather as talking to everyone else.

What I do think is not helpful is to repeatedly go back and forth when the troll is ignoring what has already been said. Then there is really no point, and it's those snippy back-and-forths which are never looking good.

 

[Kati]

Honestly, the most important part is the content of the article. What has been said by the author is what counts.
Do we honestly have the energy to fight people who won't change their minds? How can we best channel the advocacy efforts and time?

Just food for thoughts

 

[Sean]

I think it's also unhelpful for the public to see Troll Comments with a couple up-votes from their fellow trolls, followed by no rebuttal, or a brief explanation of why they are wrong. I don't see that as talking to them when I respond, but rather as talking to everyone else.

What I do think is not helpful is to repeatedly go back and forth when the troll is ignoring what has already been said. Then there is really no point, and it's those snippy back-and-forths which are never looking good.

Fair points.

 

[Sasha]

I think you're wrong, to an extent. I have had people start out behaving like trolls who actually seemed to take things on board when I replied with some information regarding objective information, followed by a couple questions from them and a couple more explanations.

I agree that that can happen sometimes but the vast majority of the time, it doesn't. Someone who starts off posting like a troll keeps on posting like a troll. I don't think it's possible to predict which "trolls" might shift their position and become reasonable so if one of us responds to a troll in the hope of it turning into a reasonable discussion, they'll have fed a whole bunch of trolls who won't be reasonable and the thread will go down the pan.

I think it's also unhelpful for the public to see Troll Comments with a couple up-votes from their fellow trolls, followed by no rebuttal, or a brief explanation of why they are wrong.

I think we can down-vote the troll with no problem, and that we can rebut their argument, but I really do feel very strongly that we should rebut it and explain why it's wrong without directly replying to to troll, and ideally without appearing to have noticed their existence. A "those unfamiliar with ME/CFS might like to know that the prestigious Institute of Medicine report said the the disease is clearly not psychological in origin", for example, rather than "it's wrong to say that ME/CFS is all in our heads".

People on the internet have got used to seeing trolls on comments threads and they know what they are. A troll who is getting ignored by everyone looks like a weak troll - someone who is so despised by the others on the thread that they don't even bother responding to him/her. A troll who is getting a lot of energy expended on him/her looks like they've hit a sore point where our argument must be weak, otherwise we wouldn't be spending all our time and focus defending the point.

Also, a troll who is getting a response and getting attention will keep posting. And because on a thread, people who read the article see the most recent comments, there's a good chance they're going to read the latest vile post from a troll who has kept on posting because he/she has got lots of attention. We don't want people seeing this crap. We want them reading the positive messages about donating and supporting the research effort and about how the science is progressing and the personal things about how awful this disease is, and so on. We want those troll messages buried at the bottom of the pile where they won't be seen.

I don't see that as talking to them when I respond, but rather as talking to everyone else.

If you weren't hitting the 'reply' button, I'd agree - but it's hitting the 'reply' button (or otherwise making it clear that you're making a direct response to the troll) that feeds the troll with attention and keeps them posting.

What I do think is not helpful is to repeatedly go back and forth when the troll is ignoring what has already been said. Then there is really no point, and it's those snippy back-and-forths which are never looking good.

I agree that that's also not helpful but I think that that's another reason for not responding to the troll in the first place - in fact, for setting the example of never responding to the troll. Other PWME read these threads and when they see someone engaging the troll, they try to join in so that they can help but they do it poorly and those threads turn to shit.

Sorry to disagree with you on this, Val - your responses to the trolls are so well-framed and clever but there's a deep sickness with those trolls and I just don't think it's possible to engage with them directly and have a good outcome be at all likely.

But it's always possible to knock down their arguments without replying to the troll directly, and that's going to make us as a community look far stronger. I'd love for us to just ignore the trolls and leave them looking like the isolated nutters that they are, ignored by everybody at the party.

Glad we're talking about this - it's an important discussion.

 

[Snow Leopard]

The key point with comments is quality, not quantity.

 

[halcyon]

Unfortunately there isn't or I'd have been all over it!

There is a button, if you mouse over the comment there is a flag icon to the top right of it.

 

[Sasha]

There is a button, if you mouse over the comment there is a flag icon to the top right of it.

 

[Bob]

Don't feed the trolls.

I'm happy if I can still feed the ducks?

 

[Snow Leopard]

I'm happy if I can still feed the ducks?

*seagull swoops in and steals food*

 

[duncan]

Sasha, I agree with everything you've said. I do not enjoy turning my back on trolls - it takes an act of will sometimes - but it is the best way to deal with them.

I do want to point out, though, there are two broad groups of trolls. The first is The Bully. This is the guy who gets his kicks demeaning others. He has a visceral sense of where the juggler is, and if he smells blood, he'll snake right over to it, some of his buddies will join in, and it's an ugly feeding frenzy. Most of us met him back in elementary school when we were kids.

His ilk is the kind to ignore.

The other group is more serious. This is comprised of individuals with a vested interest in the broader medical community, but often worse, our specific niche. These people know the science, and they have an agenda. You'll know them by virtue of the depth of their knowledge.

If you don't respond to these asses, they can articulate points that are not dripping in ignorance or bias. Quite the opposite. Their arguments sound intelligent and principled. Their job is not merely to mock you and try to ridicule the sick. They'll attack your science, even claim that you are anti-science, and that they can prove why. And then they will proceed to do just that. They will have scientific arguments that will paint you not only lacking in any scientific acumen, but as either malingerers or crack-pots, and the researchers and clinicians who support you as charlatans.

Ignoring them is still an option, but if we are trying to win the hearts of readers, we want to showcase prejudice and bias for what it is. That's easy to do with the Jerk - we simply turn our back on him. It's more difficult to do with an industry insider who has an agenda. The last thing we want is to allow poor science out-muscle us....To reduce belief in our disease to a run off vote between two briefly expressed opinions.

When these people show up, sometimes it is necessary to stand up to them and call them out for what is behind their agenda, expose what their motives are.

That is hard sometimes. Sometimes we may be too sick. I never admit that, though. If I engage, then I do my best as long as I can. There will be many of us who cannot do that as we are too sick at that given moment. But there is usually at least one who can. Fortunately, I don't think you see it as much in ME/CFS circles. But it does happen. You DEFINITELY see it in the Lyme world. We frequently know the industry expert we are up against.

 

[SOC]

I think it's also unhelpful for the public to see Troll Comments with a couple up-votes from their fellow trolls, followed by no rebuttal, or a brief explanation of why they are wrong.

You can still refute their incorrect statements without clicking Reply and talking to them directly.

Sensible people with any interest in listening will read your presentation of the truth and learn. It will have more impact if it's not seen as just another post in an ongoing argument.

 

[Sasha]

I do want to point out, though, there are two broad groups of trolls. [...] The other group is more serious. This is comprised of individuals with a vested interest in the broader medical community, but often worse, our specific niche. These people know the science, and they have an agenda. You'll know them by virtue of the depth of their knowledge.

If you don't respond to these asses, they can articulate points that are not dripping in ignorance or bias. Quite the opposite. Their arguments sound intelligent and principled. Their job is not merely to mock you and try to ridicule the sick. They'll attack your science, even claim that you are anti-science, and that they can prove why.

I'm not saying that if someone is making a scientific claim they should be ignored (someone rather oddly claimed on that thread that there were a disproportionate number of gay men among CFS patients, I think, and was politely and factually dealt with). I'm thinking more of the kind of person who is just plain insulting ("You should run round the block and that will solve all your problems").

But if you have someone who is both being insulting and making scientific claims ("You're all lazy and should run round the block and Study X explains why"), I think that in most instances it would still be possible to avoid hitting the "reply" button but to deal with the general point with engaging the troll directly.

If someone has a hidden agenda then I'm happy for their agenda to remain hidden. If they want to cite rubbish science, then it's fine to contradict them. But if they're being insulting then they're being trolls in the normal sense of that word and feeding them is just going to drag any thread down the plughole.

Or have I missed your point? Were you talking about a different kind of situation?

 

[duncan]

Sometimes you encounter someone who takes a position and dogmatically defends it - at your expense. Imagine if someone from the BPS school commented and made it clear they believed all ME/CFS was psychological. That all efforts to prove the contrary were not only anti-science, but were counterproductive and were being made at the expense of people with clearly psychological issues.

This is not someone who is simply getting his kicks by demeaning others. This is someone who has an overt agenda. This person, imo, needs to be engaged.

Most of the time, we do not see this sort. But they surface every now and then.

As I mentioned, this happens all too frequently in Lyme situations.

 

[Sasha]

Sometimes you encounter someone who takes a position and dogmatically defends it - at your expense. Imagine if someone from the BPS school commented and made it clear they believed all ME/CFS was psychological. That all efforts to prove the contrary were not only anti-science, but were counterproductive and were being made at the expense of people with clearly psychological issues.

This is not someone who is simply getting his kicks by demeaning others. This is someone who has an overt agenda. This person, imo, needs to be engaged.

Most of the time, we do not see this sort. But they surface every now and then.

BTW, this happens all too frequently in Lyme situations.

When we're talking about trolls, I'm not sure that we're talking about the same thing, duncan. When I talk about trolls, I talk about people who are being overtly insulting and provocative ("you're all lazy, you're all deluded, you've got too much time on your hands, people should just drag you out of bed and throw you out on the street and then you'd get your act together", etc.). Those are the people I'm saying we shouldn't engage.

I think you're talking about something else. If someone is mounting an argument with reason and evidence, even if their reasoning is faulty and their evidence is rubbish, then I don't see a problem in using reason and evidence to counter their position.

But if someone is being insulting and provocative with name-calling and stick-poking, they're a troll and shouldn't be fed.

 

[duncan]

Point taken. If you know who it is, or even think you do, then technically they are not trolls.

Often they are under pseudonyms, though, and sometimes with that anonymity comes a certain harshness and mean-spiritedness that is troll-like - the difference being there IS an agenda, and it is not random, only you have to discern what they are about.

In these cases, you could still ignore them. If I am up to writing, then, I try to deal with the position, though, not the identity, if I think I sense an agenda (insurance co, psych school, mainstream Lyme?) that isn't random.

 

[Sasha]

Point taken. If you know who it is, or even think you do, then technically they are not trolls.

I think that someone can be a troll even if you know exactly who they are. It's someone's behaviour that makes them a troll, not whether we know their names or not.

Often they are under pseudonyms, though, and with that anonymity comes a certain a harshness and meaness that is troll-like -

If they're being rude and mean, they're acting like a troll and that's what counts. Whether they've got a special interest in the topic and a special agenda isn't relevant to whether they're behaving like a troll, I think.

Basically, if someone is being rude and nasty, they're a troll, whoever they are and whyever they're doing it, and those are the people who I don't think we should feed by engaging with them.

If someone is putting forward arguments and reasons without being rude (even if we disagree with their position) I don't see any problem at all in engaging with them.

I just don't want to see us feeding trolls and letting them drag these threads down the pan.

 

[Sasha]

444 responses to that article now.

Good to show these media outlets how much interest there is!