A very interesting and well-thought-out article, but containing a few omissions. I agree that no-one should have to put up with trolls. However, the reporter doesn't really seem to distinguish between platforms that allow users to block and report trolls (e.g. Twitter), versus ones that don't (e.g. comments sections on news sites). Related to that, I would have liked to see more attention put on the idea that instead of ignoring trolls, we can block them so that we never have to deal with them - this only applies to platforms which allow that, of course. I do agree we shouldn't put up with trolls, but I feel like also, it's partly in the interests of the platform to have a zero-tolerance policy for trolls. Otherwise the types of legitimate users the platform is seeking will simply disappear because they don't want to be bothered with seeing hate speech. I see also that there are difficult areas of what constitutes trolling versus someone just saying their opinion (a difficult topic, but relevant, and one that wasn't even touched on in the article).

Overall, I don't like trolling and hate speech to the point that I won't read articles from certain news sites because of the hateful mentality of some of the people in the comments sections. My attitude is: "If people like that are hanging out here, I don't want any part of this". There are plenty of news sites with no comments sections; I gravitate toward those instead. I don't go on any social media platform where people are likely to rant (no Facebook for me!) Do I feel for a minute like I'm "missing out?" No way. I feel like I'm doing a good job protecting my mental health and being a good friend to myself first and foremost. If I'm not using certain platforms, ultimately I feel that is the platform's loss and not mine.

First off, the writer spends too much time on writing cleverly than on writing to the point. Secondly, they falls prey to their own mistake of over-simplification of the issue, summing up all Trolls in all eras and contexts - and conveniently ignoring the fact that the catch-phrase behind the article sprung from a specific one, to which it was particularly suited. It's never been a good fit outside of Forums & Newsgroups, where there is a 'Conversational' setting. IMO, Twitter isn't really that. Thirdly, as Starflower points out, they ignore Blocking and other Mod controls. Lastly, arguing with Trolls is ultimately pointless - it's the old saw of Wrestling With A Pig: "You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it", so really "The biggest mistake we ever made with trolls was" validating them and their behavior. You stand up and call them on it, and you don't allow room for debate. Behave or Begone. Confronting is not Feeding. And don't take anything they say to heart - most of the shit they say, they don't even believe, and seriously, Consider The Source...