Home

Add to Favorites

Why We Love Outing Internet Trolls

What Would You Do If Nobody Knew?
Michael Taft

Michael Brutsch appeared to be an upstanding citizen. He is the father of a teenage son who joined the Marines, loves cats, and lives with his disabled wife in Arlington, TX. As a programmer for a financial services company, he punched the clock daily and paid his bills. Yet behind this normal, even bland, exterior lives a monster, famous for being one of the most vile people on the entire Internet (which, as you may guess, is saying a lot). As the troll codenamed Violentacrez on social news site Reddit, Brutsch was responsible for some of the most disgusting, prurient, and transgressive content on a site that already pushes the boundaries for a living. He delighted in posting provocative photographs of underage girls (in a section called “Jailbait” which became the most popular area of Reddit), as well as creating a clearinghouse for voyeuristic shots of unintentional nudity. He was responsible for other sections on Reddit with names like Chokeabitch, Niggerjailbait, Rapebait, Hitler, Jewmerica, Misogyny, and Incest. You get the picture. This past week, Brutsch’s worst nightmare came true when his Reddit identity was discovered by a journalist and he was publicly outed. He's lost his job and thousands of Internet users are reveling in his downfall. Yet Brutsch could only do what he did because he was able to do it anonymously.

Anonymity is a new thing for humans. For the vast majority of our evolutionary history, we lived in small groups where, like that famous bar, everyone knew your name. In these tribal bands, to disregard social norms was to risk death by exile or direct violence. But as cities grew into civilizations and media technologies developed and spread, suddenly human beings had access to something new: the ability to be no one in particular. Anonymity frees us to be truly honest, without fear of reprimand or repercussion—hence the popularity of the anonymous confessional on sites like Reddit and Metafilter. And, at its most extreme, this sort of Internet anonymity allows us to become something more than honest: it can create trolls.

The troll is the ultimate cheater, because he or she is cheating at being a decent person, i.e. the sort of person who conforms to basic social norms. This kind of cheating matters to us because decency is the key to accessing a lot of fundamental social respect: the ability to have a good job, have your neighbors treat you well, have societal institutions deal with you fairly, and so forth. It is incredibly useful for a human being to be seen as an upstanding member of society, which is why we all strive so hard to protect that image of ourselves. There are many things we might like to do which we don’t do because it would compromise our standing. But cheaters like Brutsch try to have their cake and eat it too. They work hard to project the image of decency in their everyday life, while all the while taking actions that are utterly unacceptable to society or even sometimes illegal.

The story of Brutsch’s involuntary unmasking is burning up the Internet. We are enthralled by the outing of an anonymous rule-breaker. Why? Because our evolution as cooperative animals absolutely requires it. Cooperation was for a long time a mystery in evolution. Natural selection as Darwin modeled it was based on competition—the survival of the fittest—not cooperation. In this model the strong would always prey on the weak, and no group cohesion was possible. Then in the 1960s and 70s two new theories offered ways to scientifically understand cooperation. One, called kin selection, demonstrated that we could afford to cooperate with family members, because we share a lot of the same genes. The other, called reciprocal altruism, showed that it even made evolutionary sense to help strangers (people with whom we share very few genes), as long as there was the likelihood of strangers helping us sometime in the future. Both of these theories are described by concise mathematical expressions, and the one thing required for them to work—that is, to lead to a cooperative society—is a vigorous persecution of cheaters. Thus, human beings and human society evolved with a strong drive to unmask and punish those who aren’t following the rules. Any human group that didn’t have such a drive has long since ceased to be a group; it would have been driven out of business, so to speak, by cheaters sucking up all the resources and contributing nothing.

While Internet anonymity has been incredibly beneficial for societies in some ways (like the upwelling of freedom during the Arab Spring), it has also given rise to a whole new bestiary of bad actors: spammers, hackers, griefers, stalkers, fakers, and trolls. Anonymity can cause a psychological condition called “deindividuation” in which people lose their sense of self and responsibility. It’s similar to mob behavior, and can turn, well, a mild mannered computer programmer into a notorious creep. Once the healthy social checks and balances are removed, people can act out in astonishingly destructive ways. Or, sometimes, in particularly sad and creepy ways, like Brutsch.

When the reporter who outed Brutsch called him and told him about his impending unmasking, Brutsch was under no illusions about how important it was that he stay anonymous. He begged the reporter not to reveal his name, saying that it would negatively affect his job and his "real" life. The anonymous folks of the Internet call this piecing together of personal info "doxxing" and fear it, while many of the rest of us revel in the outing of trolls. The story of Violentacrez has been framed as a question of free speech and privacy. But when you go deeper it becomes a question of how human society cooperates in spite of all the things we would do if nobody knew.

 

As social media de-anonymizes much of the Internet, do you find interactions online changing? Share your stories and opinions in the comments!

 

photo by David King

 

 

Log in or register to post comments
William Casey
8 months ago

I was always taught that a person should stand behind her/his words and actions. Just thought I was "old school." Humans must compete AND cooperate.

Lindsay Starke
8 months ago

Extremely "old school". Paleolithic school, even.

Bryan Davis
8 months ago

Trolls will remain trolls, there are trolls out in public, wearing their normal heads and faces. Have you been to a suburban youth sporting event? There are real live trolls there. These people are mostly protected from their actions because the community is vacant anything resembling culture, a person can push all the way to illegal action with little repercussion. These people can exist in business and fund their lifestyles almost entirely without community interaction/support. Well then, back to your question- I think a few major players need to change their structure, Craigslist would be a great example. Removing anonymity would make that place a better experience for sure. eBay is an unusable piece of junk now, they don't seem to have the courage or sense to create a space for legitimate sellers of personal items (super low volume), it is entirely machined towards the super seller (mirroring our national economy, where growth is the only measure of value). Seth Godin has written on anonymity, can't remember which book. He didn't cover this from the evolutionary perspective but from his keen marketing mind. And he was, as usual, spot on. Twitter is winning this game currently, they really hit a sweet spot on user registration, (albeit failing just a bit in the spam department). One additional thought, the most common technique used to secure/register online involve credit cards, this is a massive mistake. Our online identity should not be based on our corporate culture credit. Most people of value, have no credit in this Corporatocracy. OK then, We're all agreed, I lack the ability to focus, and- Anonymity, be damned.

Darren Eskandari
8 months ago

I actually find the outing of this troll as distasteful (if not even more-so) as the trolling itself. One of the hallmarks of band level interaction is that your less savory social quirks are actually more acceptable. The us-and-them-ism is a built in mechanism of the brain; smaller groups automatically accept you as an 'us', acknowledging your behavior and forgiving to a greater degree the darker aspects of your humanity. Heck, they probably often even agree with it. This behavior is akin to outing homosexuals and heretics in times not long gone. Sure, our baser sides love it, but I would be hard pressed to consider it a positive thing. When it comes down to it, the offensive content that was created here is something that users would have to actively seek out on their own; just as easily avoided or ignored. Skewering one troll changes nothing, but is merely an act of hatred that to me appears to be even more violent.

Mark Sloan
8 months ago

David, your thoughts on the facts of the matter concerning 1) why we feel pleasure at punishing or witnessing the punishment of what we understand to be ‘bad’ behavior and 2) the cooperation decreasing effects of anonymity parallel my own understanding of the relevant science. This leaves open questions such as “Will Brutsch’s punishment, removing his anonymity as his Violentacrez persona, increase or decrease the benefits of living in our society?” The titles of his Reddit sections “Jailbait, Chokeabitch, Niggerjailbait, Rapebait, Hitler, Jewmerica, Misogyny, and Incest”, makes it sound at least highly likely that the exposure of his Violentacrez persona was a pro-social act. It is generally accepted that universal rights to privacy and un-anonymous free speech, almost without regard for consequences, on-average support a well-functioning society. The issue regarding Brutsch is not those rights, but does he have a right to anonymous free speech regardless of bad consequences to the same degree. A right to anonymous free speech, also almost without regard for consequences, is, in my view, an unjustifiable claim.

Darren Eskandari
8 months ago

What makes this situation something that we'd even bother discussing is that our society as a whole considers his behavior repugnant; those who do not share this perspective are likely on the fringe of our society. As humans, what makes us feel good about his downfall is that he is something we consider an undesirable element of our society, and we are willing to make an exception to the unspoken contract of internet anonymity to single him out. The original article by the journalist who outed him took the time to highlight that, even in these grotesque sections, he acted as a moderator to remove any actually illegal content. My point is not so much that he has the right to live without consequences, but rather that the boundaries for meting this level of retribution are mercurial; we as humans arbitrarily decide who to persecute based on a shifting perspective of what we consider distasteful. We want to make our environment a more inclusive, safe, and civil, but is vengeful retribution really the best way?

Mark Sloan
8 months ago

Darren, yes, “the boundaries for meting this level of retribution (for non-anonymous free speech that arguably causes harm) are malleable ones”. But based on lots of philosophical work over the centuries plus empirical historical evidence, societies, on average, benefit by defending rights to privacy and non-anonymous free-speech. I object to the apparent fuzzy thinking that similarly unfettered anonymous free-speech will necessarily also, on average, benefit societies. The ‘loudness’ and ease of anonymous free speech which is characteristic of the internet is something new. How we ought to define and enforce the social norms for the boundaries of this new form of anonymous free speech (new only in its ease and ‘loudness’) is a worthwhile question. The argument is not about “humans arbitrarily decid(ing) who to persecute based on a shifting perspective of what we consider distasteful”. The argument is about how we ought to define and enforce the social norms for the boundaries of this new form of anonymous free speech in order to, on average, most benefit society.

Darren Eskandari
8 months ago

You bring up a very interesting point. Though I don't believe the argument was made that "unfettered anonymous free-speech will necessarily also, on average, benefit societies," I do feel that the arbitrariness of how we consider things to be distasteful is fundamentally at the core of why we must consider how to enforce the boundaries of our social norms. Let's empirically consider the historical perspective for a moment. Have you done anything in the last 20 years on the Internet that would have turned you into a pariah if you were outed in 1950? Is there anything you've viewed, said, or participated in on the Internet that could have led to humiliation or maiming in the 18th century? What would have been done to the someone engaging in that anonymous behavior in the 15th century?

Mark Sloan
8 months ago

Perhaps I should have said that I objected to the criticisms of Brutsch’s punishment being based on fuzzy thinking claims that anonymous free-speech should morally be as unfettered as non-anonymous free-speech. Very different degrees of fettering may be required if the goal is to define norms and enforcement strategies expected to, on average, benefit societies. You may propose different criteria for deciding which norms and enforcement strategies morally ought to be enforced. I am not clear if you are arguing that norms and enforcement strategies morally ought to be enforced just based on whatever disgusts us personally (a bad idea), or just saying that is the tragically flawed way many “low intellectual effort” people actually judge who deserves to be punished (which is sad to the extent it is true).

Alexandra Souchkova
8 months ago

It seems like people who are secretly trolls are living their "real life" based on extrinsic values while their intrinsic values are left unsatisfied..there's obviously something else going on here--I wonder what overarching reason for this phenomenon is, if there is one. It can't be the temptation of being anonymously dubious, or else we would all be trolls. On another note, it's interesting that we as a society do enjoy seeing people get caught for doing something wrong. Reminds me of shows like "Cops," "Judge Judy" and "To Catch a Predator" (and maybe even Jerry Springer?!). I used to ask myself "..seriously, who watches this stuff?" when I flipped through the channels ...only to find myself hypnotized by the TV screen for at least a minute or five.

Josh Shadlen
8 months ago

I have a few thoughts about this, but they'll have to wait until beinghuman.org enables anonymous commenting.