this post was submitted on 06 May 2026
10 points (100.0% liked)

/0

2175 readers
32 users here now

Meta community. Discuss about this lemmy instance or lemmy in general.

Service Uptime view

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It's no secret that the fediverse has trolls. Trolling is IMO antisocial and disruptive. We have a few on dbzer0, with one casually saying they have 100 alts. I have to say, I'm unsure how to deal with this. I'm unsure how to deal with someone this dead-set on bullying people, even wanting to recall admins. I have been told this troll probably has ASD (as offensive as that is to me) and that I can't impose my beliefs on others. But I have never banned people for disagreeing with me, my problem was that I and others were trolled and harassed. You could tell trolls things like "please leave me alone" or "stop replying to me multiple times" or even "stop following me" and that does not get actioned because it is not against the rules to harrass people this way. Look at the disengage rule, it doesn't apply to these situations. And try hitting the search button for "troll" on the rules.

I've been told yes these trolls are annoying and disliked by many (if not most) people and yes they drive away people like me from participating at all on lemmy or matrix, but that is not enough of a reason to ban. There are also trolls who report everyone they argue with and use their account solely to argue and troll. I don't want dbzer0 to be known as the place that houses trolls that get anyone who argues with said trolls banned. Report abuse was not ok in other forums, but it is rarely actioned here. The trolls I am talking about have their accounts housed on dbzer0 btw, a place that is not supposed to be freeze peach.

I know many of our users like to tell off right-wingers and libs. That can be fine if it doesn't get out of hand ("kys" is explicitly banned). I could say, let's not allow people to troll, but maybe some only want leftists to not to be trolled. For instance, one group of trolls we have is antivegan. Is that considered an example of leftists that shouldn't be trolled (and I do mean trolled, harassed - not just disagreeing)? Right now, there is a lot of room for trolling all sorts of people. One reason for our zionist rule is because we had zionist trolls that weren't breaking our other rules even though our code of conduct does not allow supporting genocide. Our anti-AI rule was because others were harassing some of our stable diffusion mods. People have been sent nasty PMs as well. You can troll on this instance and get away with it as long as it is not explicitly stated as not allowed in our rules. I have been told it has to be explicitly stated, one of our trolls is a rules lawyer who believes they were given permission to troll before their account was made.

So tell me about your experiences with trolls. How do we fight them? How can we change or add to our rules? Which trolls have been bothering you?

This meta post was finally posted in response to my comment here:

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/25902072

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

just wanted to say i'm glad we're doing some pre-polling/workshopping before any Governance thread!

[–] YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago

Yes, I will personally keep doing this because more community feedback is good imo. And no worries, I still think even this needs more than one workshop before a governance thread haha.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Trolls should be banned. However someone having genuine beliefs which upset you is not a troll. Someone having 100 alts is not a troll. Someone refusing to back down until they're disengaged from, is not a troll. Someone not being polite, is not a troll.

The problem is not that we ignore trolls, the problem is that we disagree with your definition of a troll.

Typically, it's simpler to make rules about which positions we disagree with as an instance and prevent the proliferation of those opinions, instead of allowing those opinions as long as they're not a "troll". This is the approach we have taken with both oppressive positions (patriarchy, transphobia etc) and with things like zionism. We don't ban Zionists because they're trolling, we ban zionists because they're zionists.

Likewise, we explicitly do not follow the authoritarian approaches of other instances, where the admins and mods become instant judge and executioner because that creates massive chilling effect, is counter-productive as far as community goodwill is concerned, and can easily be turned inwards when it becomes established. It's unironically, a slippery slope to encourage admins to determine who is a troll based on positions that upset them personally (or their friends), and then take instant action. Because tomorrow another admin might find your friends, or your opinions distasteful, and label them as "trolls", and summarily ban. And that then causes inter-admin conflict and the whole things implodes.

As evidence, you don't need to look much further than the liberal instances regularly banning leftists as "trolls", especially those who dare to have an principled anti-electoralism stance.

And yes, I made this instance explicitly to be friendlier to ND people. I will not apologize for recognizing ASD behaviours and trying to be charitable to people who are otherwise always alienated - because the rules are not clear enough, but people rather rely on soft rules like "trolling" and who's friends with whom, and who's in the inside group. It's why I purposefully push admins to determine clear rules and agree with them and give second chances to people who might not know them , before taking action on peeps.

What I agree with, is that we should agree on a code of conduct where people should not engage in behaviour that is driving other anarchists away from our instance. But that is a difficult task to achieve without not also protecting people who must be driven away. Because any rule that says "stop engaging with people who told you, you upset them" can also be weaponized by, say a "brahnarchist" to avoid being called out for their sexist takes. It's not as simple.

[–] Azzu@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

I agree that it is antisocial, but it seems like what you're talking about here is not something that people should be banned for. Trolling is super hard to identify, because some people just genuinely have the troller's opinion, and you can't just ban people for having a certain opinion. I mean, you can, but this is a slippery slope that quickly lands you in the area of "the rulers control what people are allowed to say"...

It feels like this is more of a personal problem. If someone is being obnoxious, just block them. Blocking them is much faster than creating a new account.

I don't like to say this because it sounds like victim blaming, but this is not my intention. Trolls shouldn't be trolling, but trolls continue to do their thing because they can get a rise out of you. They will stop once they don't get a rise out of you anymore. So the easiest way to get rid of them is to just not care about them. I can't understand why you would ever write something like "stop replying to me". Instead of that, just press block, and they're gone. Pressing block 100 times still only takes like 100 seconds, annoying yes, but it's very likely they'll stop long before that, because it's also annoying to keep making more accounts for no "reward" (getting a rise out of people).

As a personal experience, I comment a lot, and I've just never experienced a troll with me personally. I've had situations where I had to stop replying, but I don't think they were trolling, I think they were just dumb and obsessive.

But I'm also no mod or admin, so maybe me not having an "A" or "M" next to my name shields me. I think those markers shouldn't exist unless you're speaking "as an admin" (i.e. explaining a ban). Maybe just using a second account without these markers might help you out.

[–] YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Ordinarily I would say blocking is enough, but I have seen trolls get reported over and over, by different people, and there isn't much that can be done. Those reports have to be ignored. I can also block one account on my side (unblocking to see reports by them and blocking again), but another account trolling very similarly will also start doing the same thing rinse and repeat. The reward continues to exist as long as there are multiple people to troll under each new account. If we let trolls say whatever they want and not moderate it, we wouldn't have a need for any rules, admins, moderators, anything at all. It would be a free speech Nazi bar. I've actually read so much reprehensible shit on lemmy that I'm surprised you haven't run into this.

Edit: I forgot to say for the "stop replying to me" this is because we have a disengage rule. If someone says "disengage" you have to stop. But, people will say some other variation instead and complain we didn't moderate a disengage violation. I've also seen trolls like spam people, multiple comments per reply, and that gets hard to track for me to understand where/when the disengage happened.

[–] Sickos@hexbear.net 2 points 1 week ago

I have seen trolls get reported over and over, by different people, and there isn't much that can be done. Those reports have to be ignored.

If someone walks onto the commons, and takes a shit in the well, we don't need to let them keep shitting in the well, or take a vote on whether to create a rule that allows enacting and enforcing a ban on shitting in the well.

You can just beat the crap out of them and kick them out.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 1 week ago

It sounds like a rule of traumatizing the many for the benefit of no one, including the troll. Ban them. If the community is messing with your mental health and the admins are inflexible, maybe step away from modding. I quit modding a community about which I cared very much because the owner couldn't keep their own rules and played dumb when confronted. That community is dead as a doornail, now.

[–] Sickos@hexbear.net 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

you can't just ban people for having a certain opinion

Skill issue

Edit: should have kept reading, sorry

[–] CARCOSA@hexbear.net 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Why can't you just ban the trolls? If you have multiple users who are reporting someone multiple times why do you have to ignore them? Why can't you change the disengage rules to cover being harassed? Why isn't the depression of community engagement not sufficient to remove someone from the community they are a detriment to? Reports are a vital function of the user -> mod -> community -> user cycle, the abuse of reports should be punished.

I think the execution of the code of conduct by a moderator or admin should be in the pursuit of protecting marginalized members of your community rather than centering the rights of a troll.

This summer will be 6 years with hexbear and there are people that will continue to press upon the limits of the code of conduct without breaking it while engaging in the behaviour you described. In my opinion those people who troll are a net negative and won't change so I ban them. People should be cycling accounts anyway for opsec reasons.

This series of mastodon toot's were shared with me a few years ago and I think they have great advice:

https://mastodon.social/@ifixcoinops/105778289798706182

[–] YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I can't ban trolls and must ignore them because trolling is not listed as being against the rules. Admins can ban trolls for another reason but this is very murky. I've tried to argue for multiple trolls to get banned but it led nowhere. It does bum me out when I see users getting trolled, I want to help them. I think if I was the only one being trolled, I could ignore it much better. The code of conduct even says you shouldn't harass others but sadly I get overruled and it is exhausting trying to advocate for others when I have trouble doing it for myself IRL (I am disabled). Report abuse should not be allowed but I've read the phrase "chilling effect" so many times I want to lobotomize myself. If users are scared to make reports, the chilling effect makes them not want to report their petty squabbles. If I ban trolls, they have a chilling effect of not wanting to use their accounts to spread hostility and negativity. I think my becoming an admin scared some of the trolls (chilling effect of someone who is not a bro becoming an admin), but they shouldn't even worry about it because the worst that will happen is I will make a ban, they appeal and get unbanned, and I am told I am being mean to someone who may have ASD. If I think a troll has alts, I am supposed to keep it to myself. That's why I'm trying to get trolls banned. Because maybe others already experience the chilling effect of not wanting to participate due to trolls. There are a few topics I don't talk about anymore, veganism is one, because I know it's asking to be trolled and no one will have your back. I know a lot of women left the fediverse because of how toxic it became towards women. Heck communities/instances have been moving to Piefed just to get away from downvote trolling and other troll behaviour.

[–] CARCOSA@hexbear.net 2 points 1 week ago

I am so sorry to hear that you and many other are on the receiving end of this so called chilling effect.

What you describe is part of the reason we removed downvotes, maybe consider the benefits such a change could have for the divisionsbyzer0 instance.

To me one vegan woman is worth more than 10 trolls, as such I do not care about their feelings or the impact banning them would have other than protecting the space for the people who are marginalized elsewhere.

The main way of determining governance here is upvote/downvote so how does permitting the 100 troll alts help the instance?

Banning someone isn't being mean to them it is fulfilling your duty as a community manager which can be part of an admin's role.

I'm closing I still think you should just ban them, and of they get appealed then when the behaviour is repeated, ban them again.

I would like to think the other admins here could see the benefit and if not the worst that can happen is you aren't an admin anymore in which case it isn't your problem anymore.

[–] Sickos@hexbear.net 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I can't ban trolls and must ignore them because trolling is not listed as being against the rules

Skill issue

People should be cycling accounts anyway for opsec reasons

Yes, this! Very very true!

[–] UniversalMonk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wait, who is saying that they have 100 alts?

[–] YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

It seems the responses to this are divided between ban trolls so they do not scare people off the site or let users get trolled and decide for themselves to stay and block trolls or leave the site. Perhaps we can get block lists going?

I personally think trolling is if someone is saying stuff JUST to piss people off and ragebait

I don't think what I do is trolling

We have legitimate trolls that piss people off and ragebait for fun, that is who I am talking about. But I also agree that if someone says something that they know upsets people and does it anyway, even after being told how their behavior affects others, they would be a troll to continue. For instance, I have not named names so they don't get bullied for being called out and it is up to them if they want to come forward. I have lost count of the number of times I left lemmy because I didn't want to deal with the negativity and inaction. I mean this second quote alone is something I've read too many times like copy-pasted lmao

thinking all opinions should be allowed

Yeah, no... I'm not into that at all. A place that welcomes all, including the intolerant, gets run by them. Why shouldn't we try to cultivate a space where many people, even the ones society neglects, feel welcome and contribute to positively? I have too many parts of me that get attacked (woman, lgbt+, racial minority, etc.) for no real reason. We shouldn't have sexists, racists, -phobes, and the fash. Period.

[–] UniversalMonk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Meh, I'm not afraid of the weirdos or their opinions. Bring one, bring all. I'll block who I don't wanna deal with. Blocking is sooo easy to do, I just don't understand why you want total bans when blocking works just fine.

I mean, no offense, but it sounds like you want the fediverse to be your way or the highway. But the whole point of the fediverse is so not one person can have say over everyone else. That's why people can just spin up their own instances. I have several of my own instances, just so I can do and read whatever I want. I think instances having their different rules on who and why they ban is fine.

I totally respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it.

I think db0 said it best in this thread: "However someone having genuine beliefs which upset you is not a troll. Someone having 100 alts is not a troll. Someone refusing to back down until they’re disengaged from, is not a troll. Someone not being polite, is not a troll."

[–] Nora@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

First I think it's important to break down what even is a troll?

I would argue that a troll is someone who is deliberately picking fights that they don't seriously believe in, a devil's advocate type if you will. But how do you enforce that? I mean it's not like you can really know what someone believes in? It makes punishing trolls incredibly vibes based and therefore prone to error.

Back in the day, I feel like everyone on the internet knew how to handle trolls. People would point out "bait" posts and any trolling was always met with "Do not feed the trolls." because trolls tend to be doing it for attention, and that seems to have become a nearly lost art these days. That being said, it's also not a helpful strategy from a moderation pov.

Maybe the answer is not to decide on who is trolling, but rather to see if a person is using the tactics that trolls tend to use?

For example, I frequently see these all over the internet:

  • "Just asking questions?"/sealioning
  • Concern trolling
  • Whataboutism
  • Ignoring someone's post in favor of focusing on semantics or being incredibly pedantic about something.

So maybe the answer is that the way we counter trolling, is to counter dis/misinformation strategies? That if someone shows a deliberate repeated pattern of utilizing these there is some punishment?

Of course, this has the flaw that basically anyone could accidentally trigger "troll" sensors Really, I don't know. Trolls have been a thing basically since the dawn of the internet, combating them is never easy.

[–] YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think people who antagonize others for no real reason, lean into troll behaviour. And it is hard to enforce because currently we have to make a new rule for every troll type we run into.

People would point out "bait" posts and any trolling was always met with "Do not feed the trolls."

I have been told it is "mean" when I do this. So I've gone back to just ignoring. It's been a while since I fed a troll. The number of trolls have not gone down tho.

I do like having some sort of criteria for a troll. I have seen some trolls do what you listed but it gets turned back into something like: sealioning/concern trolling = genuine beliefs, pedantic = ASD. It makes getting a consensus hard.

[–] Nora@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh it's definitely super hard to figure out, and the more details you put on the rules the more likely someone is to show up and say "Well actually the rules didn't say i couldn't post a sealion question at 3:24 PM local time on a Tuesday so I thought it was alright."

I would assume the trick would be to examine the frequency of the behavior. Someone, heck probably everyone has done those things on accident or at the very least done something that sounds like they were. For example, sealioning is a very easy one to accidentally do and sound like you're being factitious, as there is no tone indicators in text posts. Of course, that's why these techniques are ones trolls tend to use, there's plausible deniability in "just asking questions." Furthermore, nobody wants to turn away someone who is seriously just asking questions, but in the process trolls can weaponize our goodwill, and there's really not a great answer.

My thought would be that if someone is showing up to every single comment section sealioning or being incredibly pedantic, I don't think they're making a serious attempt at having a meaningful conversation. (Of course, this brings up the question "Is meaningful conversation the goal here?" which is full of it's own debate.)

Where you draw the line is the important part, because yeah, some people will accidentally use these rhetorical devices or say something that sounds like we are. Even worse, if you draw the line at say, 20% of posts, trolls will do exactly 19.99% of posts, this is why a lot of places on the internet that do have a blanket "No trolling" rule and it just ends up being enforced in a vibes based way.

For example, sealioning is a very easy one to accidentally do and sound like you’re being factitious, as there is no tone indicators in text posts.

Great point. I remember I when I first got accused of sealioning, I didn't even know what the term meant and had never even heard of the term before. By the time I looked it up, someone had banned me for it. After finally figure out what it was, I still don't think I did it. lol

I personally think that "sealioning" one of the more stupid and way too vague terms of the online world. I see so many accuse people of it, but I see rare examples of it actually happening.