Here I am, the rookie, and I start to wonder about being new to something.
I thought of a scenario. The same statement or political insight given separately, but not engaged with simultaneously, by two contributors. One, the newbie and the second the veteran. Would they be received similarly by you? Think subjectively and critically in this hypothesis. And, then the question why? This is the most interesting part.
In a place of anonymity - other than any avatar pic or meme - that deprives us of the regular human connection of interaction, why do we repeat the formal prejudices of our regular social understandings of hierarchy, accedence etc onto this unspecific social domain? We even let it color our response when doesn't it seem irrelevant in a world of immaterial capital? And yet we go as far to attempt to replay our regular social lives through it or rather project our ordinary social interactions onto it.
However, paradoxically we do the exact opposite. Trolling, is an example of heckling or combative expression but we, ordinary people, lack this forum of expression in our regular lives so why is it we invent aspects of law and propriety wherein it has none? Does it advantage us when it can be easily undermined in the case of trolling?
Policing this immaterial world of capital and intellectual property that is anonymous, to a degree, is so unusual and interesting. The expression of sedition in the form of trolling is explicitly primitive and yet the policing so arbitrary or lackluster (Facebook control). It intrigues me as to why primitive, almost exclusively ad hominem expression of disapproval, is the most facile expression of resistance to things we don't like on the internet. In this anonymous world can we rely on any source from the well-wishers to trolls?
Just a thought. Nice to meet you all - see there it is again.