Troll Slayer
June 2, 2009 11:28 AM   Subscribe

This cartoon caught the attention of Lawrence Wilkinson. He calls it a cautionary tale.
posted by bz (37 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: There's not really much post here, is there? -- cortex



 
Sorry, I couldn't think of any clever or valuable way to add anything else to this post. I think it stands on its own.
posted by bz at 11:30 AM on June 2, 2009


Noted.

wait, what?
posted by MysticMCJ at 11:30 AM on June 2, 2009


Didn't the real-life version of this already happen, with Gaia?
posted by Greg Nog at 11:33 AM on June 2, 2009


All he does is repost the cartoon. His commentary is brief and cryptic. Can you throw us a bone here?
posted by GuyZero at 11:34 AM on June 2, 2009


Yeah. Sorry.
posted by bz at 11:35 AM on June 2, 2009


So it's a XKCD cartoon that the chairman of an investment firm posted to his blog?

That said, I find it somehow reassuring that he's familiar with what 4chan is. There's way too many people in power who talk about how the Internet is Serious Business without having a clue what they're talking about.
posted by dunkadunc at 11:35 AM on June 2, 2009


Hey, that was funny!
posted by bitteroldman at 11:38 AM on June 2, 2009


With the inclusion of references to Gresham's Law, O. Henry and the law of the west, I am further confused.

He may (or may not) have learned of 4Chan through reading TechDirt. He seems like a well-rounded internet citizen, with some extra clout for real-world worth (or something).
posted by filthy light thief at 11:39 AM on June 2, 2009


Everyone knows what 4chan is.
posted by delmoi at 11:40 AM on June 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Oprah doesn't.
posted by Navelgazer at 11:43 AM on June 2, 2009


I think I must be missing something. Otherwise this just looks like another xkcd comic post.
posted by dead cousin ted at 11:43 AM on June 2, 2009


OK, so bad money drives out good, and bad (unstylish) community drives out good (trollboys) community- seems like this is yet another restatement of the tragedy of the commons, but using attention and community as resources shared rather than sheep.

So, yet again, that lousy $5 fee seems like a worthwhile investment in keeping the nattering nabobs away.
posted by jenkinsEar at 11:44 AM on June 2, 2009


Except Fox News, who calls them "The hacker group Anonymous" while showing stock footage of vans blowing up.
posted by dunkadunc at 11:45 AM on June 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


And you get a chance to use words like "nabob"!
posted by backseatpilot at 11:46 AM on June 2, 2009


Edward is so dreamy.
posted by Joe Beese at 11:46 AM on June 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Can we get Oprah to call us names and show vans blowing up?
posted by Artw at 11:46 AM on June 2, 2009


So, yet again, that lousy $5 fee seems like a worthwhile investment in keeping the nattering nabobs away.

I think it does a pretty good job of keeping trolls away, but we're pretty much all "nattering nabobs of negativity" around here.

OK, maybe just me.
posted by gurple at 11:47 AM on June 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Er. Negativism, even.
posted by gurple at 11:48 AM on June 2, 2009


jenkinsEar, I disagree on your connections.

On further re-reading, it seems Wilkinson is calling this "a cautionary tale" for internet marketers. Wilkinson's point, as I read it, is that internet marketers should be careful how they try to hype their Next Big Thing. If they attempt to co-opt a forum or discussion area that their product is not directly related to (attempting to create memes or whatnot), they could be called out by the overseeing entity with a vengeance.

He seems to be associating internet marketers with 4chan, and online marketing techniques with invading the Twilight message boards. As payback, the author refers to 4chan in the next book as "the darkest place on the internet, where all [the character's] vampire compatriots spend their time." 4chan is then overrun by the very thing they mocked. What a twist!
posted by filthy light thief at 11:49 AM on June 2, 2009


So googling gresham's law gives a bit more insight but I'm not exactly sure what good money and bad money are in this case. I mean, to someone who isn't a member of either of those boards it looks like bad money all around. I mean, if Twilight fans and 4chan were both trapped in a burning building and I could only save one, it would be a question of leaving to get gas to put on the fire or staying to ensure firefighters can't put it out.
posted by GuyZero at 11:49 AM on June 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


On /b/ for the last day or two, the title bar has read:
"Twilight Appreciation Station
The darkest place on the internet—for vampire compatriots."
posted by Dr-Baa at 11:53 AM on June 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I have serious doubts that Twilight fans, who like vampires who glitter (I call these "glampires") could handle /b/. 4chan would probably create a board for them, to draw off masses of thirteen year olds who like a vampire series written by a woman who ... *drumroll* had a hard time making it through The Lost Boys 'cause it was scary! Some fans would run away screaming; others would be converted into b-tards, straight out of Lovecraft.

Recall 4chan's sudden welcoming of furries after years of them wanting to go the hell away. First, the mods made a furry board. Then, they encouraged people to join. They waited a bit, then dropped the banhammer on people who posted to the new furry section. Many diaperfurs and yiffers knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the b-board that day, I can tell you.

Pretty much the same thing would happen to Twilight fans.

Oddly, this leads right back to vampires, in that it would be not unlike that old story about Vlad Tepesh throwing a party for all of the beggars in the city and asking them if they would like to never again know hunger or want, then mercilessly slaughtering them in the banquet hall with a hail of arrows.
posted by adipocere at 11:53 AM on June 2, 2009 [9 favorites]


The fallacy here lies in thinking that /b/tards (ie 13 year olds, either real or mental) are somehow above Twilight fans (ie 13 year olds, either real or mental).
posted by daniel_charms at 11:58 AM on June 2, 2009


adipocere: who like vampires who glitter (I call these "glampires")

I prefer the term "sparkle-pires"
posted by vernondalhart at 12:04 PM on June 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Vam-glams sounds so much better.
posted by daniel_charms at 12:08 PM on June 2, 2009




Twilight: Shadow of Boxxy
posted by ALongDecember at 12:10 PM on June 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Lawrence Wilkerson's noticing of that cartoon failed to catch my attention, a fact I will shortly be blogging about preparatory to having a friend make a MetaFilter FPP about it.
posted by DU at 12:13 PM on June 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


No. He isn't anyone I know. It seemed more interesting to me than it really is. Sigh.
posted by bz at 12:17 PM on June 2, 2009


How do you ban someone from a board on which everyone is anonymous?
posted by JHarris at 12:18 PM on June 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Too bad I'm not a nabob, 'cause this would be the perfect time to commence nattering.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 12:20 PM on June 2, 2009


What is 4chan again?
posted by snsranch at 12:26 PM on June 2, 2009


I'm still pissed about this XD
It was SO not a double ..
posted by zenzizi at 12:31 PM on June 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I thought Teresa Neilsen Hayden was the Troll Slayer, what with all her gleeful ampu-texting or whatever the fuck it's called.
posted by Ratio at 12:31 PM on June 2, 2009


He may (or may not) have learned of 4Chan through reading TechDirt.

Or the Wall Street Journal.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:36 PM on June 2, 2009


Hi, is this the thread where we try to guess what the thread is about?
posted by Outlawyr at 12:47 PM on June 2, 2009


Where do I click to Digg this?
posted by incessant at 12:50 PM on June 2, 2009


« Older Now I Wanna Be Your Insightful, Respectable Rock...   |   A livingroom built inside the hollow, under a pier Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments