From the Freakonomics blog:
We’ve written before about the occasional hyper-critical comments on certain blogs, but such comments are like valentines compared to what some Amazon.com customers heap upon The Rolling Stones, The Godfather, The Diary of Anne Frank, and other standards. The Cynical-C blog lists the most caustic of these every day.
Recently I read an article that was attempting to address the online phenomenon where, given an anonymous identity and a lack of accountability, people say and do the worst things to one another.
I took the article as a challenge, and decided to review some of my own online interactions with others. Long story short, I wasn’t happy with what I saw. Even though my views probably could have been considered by most to be far above average on the scale of internet decency (and magnitudes above the average YouTube comment), that’s not saying much…
I learned that, if I use my real identity, I put a lot more thought and care into the things I say to others because there is a chance I might be held responsible, or they might want to contact me with a response.
The point I’m trying to make is, the internet is dominated by trolls. As long as the internet is dominated by systems where everybody’s identity is kept anonymous, people will continue to push their negative cynicism because that is the general culture of internet commenting.
Don’t take it personal. The fact that you’ve attracted a general audience that isn’t dominated by trolls is about the best you can ask for.
Check out this site. You might get a kick out of it like I did. http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/troller.htm
It’s so sad that people who blame the respective authors of their blindness/lack of originality/stupidity/what not, don’t realize that classics are proven with time. If something is really so bad, it doesn’t usually get publicity.
And I also found that most of the faults people blame on the authors are often found in themselves. That is, the log in the eye…