Internet trolls come in many forms. Some are just angry. Not just at you or me or whoever they're trolling but the world in general. Mean spirited, nasty and suffering from self-inflated self-importance.
Some internet trolls though come in a more sophisticated form. They have blogs or even columns on respectable sites or in respectable newspapers. Or the Daily Mail. They have realised that the best way to drive traffic to their sites, increase hits and attract advertisers is to write (and write again) in a way that is certain to cause outrage. The outrage will cause people to draw attention to them and clickity-click-click people come to their site to have their outrage confirmed.
Some journalists have carved out entire careers doing this, even before the internet came along. Pressing buttons - usually the tedious ones about 'political correctness gone mad' - that lead to them being talked about. All publicity is good publicity they seem to think. If you can do this and pander to your natural constituency at the same time then it is a win-win situation.
Now of course the internet has given us all - in theory - a voice. This is mine. A veritable mouse in the wainscotting of the mighty internet but I can say what I like.
I could froth on to my hearts content drawing attention to myself by writing a fact free rant about women in the world of technology for example. This would be a deeply tragic waste of virtual space of course. But somewhere out there someone is doing just that just now. It's been picked up, RT'd and traffic is tripping along to that column to be outraged.
Now there is - as always in these situations - a difficulty. Can you let misogynistic bullshit go unchallenged? Should you? Perhaps not. But I'd suggest cutting off the oxygen of attention might do a better job of stopping people writing this kind of bullshit than any criticism.
People that write this kind of stuff do so knowing the effect it is going to have* and they don't care. I suspect they are also the sort of people that wouldn't be swayed by argument, especially if it comes reinforced by facts. Facts aren't of interest to these people. They're interested in perceptions and opinions. Not facts. Facts just get in the way of a damn good argument.
They've not interest in your story, they're just here for the clicks.
So next time let's just ignore the bastards. Or at least make sure that they're columns are put somewhere where clicking on them has no possible benefit to them.
*Stewert Lee (the British comedian) explains this best when he gives the following example: "Jeremy Clarkson, who has his political incorrect opinions for money." (That may be slightly inaccurately remembered but you get the jist.
PS I've not even touched on the freedom of speech arguement. That's a whole other kettle of rabbits.
