Even in the most openly hostile troll communities (FYAD, /b/, etc.) there is a solid "trust": you will be trolled.
This idea of trust is a very strange thing, to me. If I present an argument or point logically and it is accepted, then there is no problem. If I do so and it is rejected logically, there is no problem. If I do so and are assailed with noise and rubbish, then it is usually pretty clear that it's just garbage and to be ignored.
If I seek affirmation and reassurance from people online instead of flesh-and-blood folks I can talk to directly, I being to wonder if this is actually an okay state of affairs. If my support group could be replaced with a bunch of clever Python scripts, Markov models, and machine learning algos, I would suggest that something is deeply wrong--and that is exactly the sort of inscrutable interface forums provide.
Only when you start to "trust" the personas you encounter online and become invested in your model of them do you actually run the risk of getting hurt. Treat it like a game, learning what you can when you can and ignoring the rabble, and things go best.
The kind of trust I'm talking about is trust in honest discourse. If I don't trust that others on a forum will engage with me honestly, then I am less likely to engage with them honestly. As a consequence, the overall discussion on the forum degrades.
I don't strictly disagree, but imo you're trying to generalize a personal preference for discussion styles into general observations, by using normative and inflammatory (is "inflammatory" like "trollish"?) terms like "poison" and "degrades", as opposed to "I don't like".
But when a community has set a precedent and an expectation for trust and respectful discussion, it is poisoning and degrading that community to come in and disrupt it intentionally for your own amusement. If you dump toxic waste into a pool, you've poisoned the pool, accusing the fish of just not liking it doesn't work.
He appears to be arguing that it's bad even when the community doesn't have that precedent/expectation, though (my examples were of communities where various varieties of "trolling" are expected/normal, like SA's FYAD, and 4chan's /b/). Plus, ecosystems are complex; Slashdot's is a bit of a mix. You can't napalm the "intruders" and accuse everyone burnt by napalm of just not liking it!
Out of genuine curiosity, how would you define "honest discourse"?
Online forums are, by definition, right there on the 'net along with Google and Wikipedia and other resources, so flat-out misrepresentation of facts seems somewhat difficult. If somebody chooses to be irrational, they are readily identified as such, right? So where does honesty fit in all this?
Every time I have seen (or heard in person), "I would like to participate in and read honest discussion", it has been someone who turned around and accused anyone who disagreed of "trolling" or of being "close-minded". I have found it a waste of time arguing with them, if it hadn't been the general topic of this thread, I would have just ignored the comment entirely.
Honest discourse is when both parties are willing to work to understand each other, and not just trying to "win." Both parties default to the most reasonable interpretation of what the other says - having all of the facts available doesn't help much if you spend most of your time clarifying what you're trying to say.
I guess I just frankly disagree with that, though perhaps we have some different definition of "trolls". I haven't seen more trust (and community) in a forum than in the more playful/trollish forums I've been part of. Too much seriousness, on the other hand, I think poisons intellectual discussion.
HN is a good example, I'm not afraid to post an idea, a response, or understanding, here. I know that if I'm wrong, but I presented my thought well with reasoning, I'll receive an honest and intelligent response as to why I am wrong or why someone differs in opinion. That's trust. Trust in a community to respect each other.
Trust on the internet is dangerous. You should exercise your judgement and not let it be impaired by a perceived absence of trolls. There are trolls, flamebaiters, astroturfers, bots, vested interests, paid posters and spammers everywhere on the internet. Once upon a time, appeal to authority arguments actually influenced most of the population. Let us not go back there, it is better for us all if we don't trust everything we see and hear.
I'm a very trusting person. I don't lock my doors, for instance. But I exercise, or at least I like to think I exercise, a healthy scepticism without falling into paranoia. You can never really know or understand what everyone else's motivations and intentions are and you should remember that fact at all times.
