On 07/10/13 02:34 PM, mez breeze wrote:
>
> "flamewar" bait (remember when it was called that instead of
> "trolling"?)
Ooh yes, flamebait. :-)
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flamebait
> I do, however, find certain
> academically loaded documentation that's being highlighted here as
> representative a type of neutral playback of the period partially
> problematic, and highly skewed. This type of sanctioned retelling carefully
> omits any expressive value of the performative material produced, and
> interventions occurring, on certain mailing-lists during (especially but
> not limited to) the 1994 - 2001 period.
The lists also contain the expressive value of reactions to those
interventions. ;-)
> I'm also somewhat perplexed by the labelling of uncategorised creative
> actions as "trolling" (via the Luther Blissett/NN Facebook thread). There
> seems to be a developing contemporary need to assign any type of activity
> that leaks outside of traditional, institutionalised borders as "trolling"
> (ie power-loaded endeavours intent on terrorising others). As I've said
> previously<http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/10/27/the-problems-with-anonymous-trolls-and-accountability-in-the-digital-age>,
> this highly negative labelling of actions that don't clearly fall into
> established categorisations seems puzzlingly reductionistic: *"There are
> those that think the act of trolling may also operate at a far more
> innocuous level, originating from those with more positive intentions or
> altruistic motivations. This troll version is termed the constructive
> troll. The constructive troll advocates social change through exposing
> establishments, organisations and individuals they view as corrupt,
> deceptive, or criminal. Constructive trolling differs from negative
> trolling through its lack of malevolence (think: Devil’s advocates or
> whistleblowers) with a deliberately funny, or cheeky, emphasis.
> Constructive trolls may seek to bring attention to issues like the
> suppression of freedom of information laws, covert censorship, or
> hypocrisies evidenced at a heavily-institutionalised level (think:
> Wikileaks or the Occupy movement)."*
I find the idea of constructive trolling to be like that of "white hat
hacking", it's a moral recuperation of unfettered and therefore amoral
creativity.
Etymology aside, I think that this is a form and content problem.
Disruptive forms of intervention are disruptive. If they are meant to
have artistic content then that content had better have a pretty high
value to justify displacing the content that it displaces by disrupting
the list. I didn't know NN, but the trolls I encountered failed that
test at great length.
There many forms of disruption however. Flooding a list with responses,
carrying on threads way past their natural end, comments posted in
anger. I'm guilty of all those things, as some of the links I've posted
show.
> And don't even get me started on image boards (4chan, /b board
> relevancies)...]
How about as they relate to online art history? :-)
|