I have been thinking a lot about online harassment in software communities lately.

Harassment is nothing new in our spaces, and I even have a bunch of fun stories from trolls, past and new. However, all these stories have one thing in common: they are irrelevant to modern harassment and trolling. So I would like to humbly propose a new framing of this whole issue.

Harassment In The Troll Feeding Days

Perhaps the most jarring change in online culture has been in how harassment happens on the internet. Spending our formative years in forums, IRC, and mailing lists, we got used to the occasional troll that after a few annoying interactions would get blocked by an admin.

Back then, a troll was limited to baiting for replies, and that power was easy to take away. Remember, removing a troll was as simple as blocking an email address or banning an IP on IRC.

In short: Don't feed the troll and it will either get bored and go away, or be blocked by an admin. Right?

Online Harassment Is a Different Game Now

The days of starving trolls are over. Trolls now have metaphorical DoorDash, UberEats, and are even decent cooks themselves.

It is now impossible to defend an online community by simply "blocking the bad apples". A determined troll now has access to its own audience, peers to amplify their message, and even attack tools that used to be exclusive to nation states.

A DDoS attack can be implemented with a few dozen dollars and cost thousands to defend. Social media accounts can be bought by the hundreds. Doxxing is easy for motivated individuals. Harassment campaigns can be orchestrated in real-time to flood comment sections, media outlets, employer inboxes, and even deplatform creators.

Deterrence used to work because the trolls would lose access to attention and relevance if banned. This is no longer the case. In fact, trolls now have a lot to gain by building an audience around being ostracized by their targets, portraying themselves as brave truth tellers that are censored by evil-doers.

A strange game indeed, and not playing it doesn't work anymore.

Rules Are No Longer Enough

All of the above means that online communities can no longer point to the "No Trolls Allowed" sign and consider the job done, this "rules-based" framework is no longer viable deterrence. A different approach is needed, one that is not naive to the ruses and concern trolling of contemporary harassment.

A relevant example comes to mind. The popular "Nazi Bar" story as told by Michael Tager:

"(...) Tager recounted visiting a "shitty crustpunk bar" where he saw a patron abruptly expelled: the bartender explained that the man was wearing "iron crosses and stuff", and that he feared such patrons would become regulars and start bringing friends if not promptly kicked out, which would lead him to realize "oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now" only after the unwanted patrons became too "entrenched" to kick out without trouble."

(...) "(Internet slang) A space in which bigots or extremists have come to dominate due to a lack of moderation or by moderators wishing to remain neutral or avoid conflict." From Wiktionary

The story is not about the necessity of having a better rulebook. No, the point is that, in some circumstances, moderation can not afford to be naive and has to see through the ruse of bad actors appealing to tolerance or optics. Some times you have to loudly tell someone to fuck off, and kick them out.

This might seem counter intuitive if you grew up in the "don't feed the troll" era. But trolls no longer need the attention of their victims to thrive. In fact, some times silence and retreat from conflict are even bigger rewards.

The Trap Card of Behavioral Outbursts

Because the rules-based framework considers any engagement a failure, it leads groups to avoid conflict at all cost, not realizing that they are already in conflict with their harassers. Taken to an extreme, any push-back against harassment is seen as bad as the harassment itself. This flawed reasoning might even lead to throwing others under the bus, or walking back statements of support, all done in the name of keeping the harassers seemingly silent.

Unfortunately, conceding to trolls after receiving push-back is one of Behavioral Psychology "trap cards". The concept is formally known as "Behavioral Outburst" and describes how a subject will intensify an unwanted behavior after receiving push-back. The classic example is a kid having a tantrum:

A kid is at the store with their parent. The kid starts crying, asking for a new toy. The parent says no and warns the kid that they will go back home if they keep crying.

The kid keeps crying and the parent decides to fulfill the warning to go back home.

As a response to this consequence, the kid then has an outburst of the unwanted behavior: louder crying, screaming, throwing themselves to the floor.

The parent gets overwhelmed and ends up buying a new toy for the kid.

The above example is commonly used to demonstrate two concepts:

  1. When an unwanted behavior is met with resistance, it frequently leads to an outburst of that behavior to "defeat" such resistance
  2. If the outburst succeeds, then the outburst becomes the new baseline for responding to any resistance

We should understand that applying consequences to a harasser (bans, warnings, condemnation) is likely to cause an outburst of the unwanted behavior. This is unavoidable. However, it is a fatal mistake to cede to a behavioral outburst. If consequences are taken back, then the outburst becomes the new default level of harassment.

Even worse, an illusion of control is introduced: we harass, they fight back; we intensify the harassment a little bit, they concede.

Why Speaking Up Is Important

Communities are not corporations and morale is not set by a rule-book or by mandate of leadership. Communities, specially the ones giving away tens of thousands of dollars in value to each other, are held together by mutual trust.

One element of this mutual trust, maybe the most important one, is knowing that your colleagues have your back and will defend you from anyone unfairly coming after you. Just like a soccer team will swarm a rival to defend a teammate.

Knowing that your team will loudly tell those coming after you to fuck off is not only good for morale, but also a necessary outlet and catharsis for a community. Silence only leads to festering of the most rancid vibes, it erodes trust and creates feelings of isolation in the targeted individuals.

If solidarity and empathy are not demonstrated, is that any different from there being none?

A New Framework: Never Cede To The Troll

We need a new framework for how to defend against "trolls". The feeding metaphor ran its course many years ago. It is done and will not be coming back.

New online risks demand that we adapt and become proactive in protecting our spaces. We have to loudly and proudly set the terms of what is permissible. Those holding social or institutional power in communities should be willing to drop a few loud fuck offs to anyone trying to work their way in by weaponizing optics, concern trolling, or the well known "tolerance paradox". Conceding through silence, or self-censorship, only emboldens those who benefit from attacking a community.

It is time that we adopt a bolder framework where defending our spaces and standing our ground to protect each other is the bare minimum expected.