Well if I think about what a troll is doing here, of all places, my conclusion is this: The philosophy forum probably ranks fairly highly on google searches for philosophy, in general. It has a pretty large and active thread named "Donald Trump". So someone looking up something concerning Donald Trump, and maybe the word "philosophy" might end up here. And since almost everyone here is highly critical of Trump, they'd normally find a fairly undivided message: A bunch criticizing Trump and his decisions, and noting possible negative consequences etc.

Now, with our vampiric friend, what they'd instead find is a lively "debate", where every post critical of Trump is followed by a Trump talking point. If someone is already inclined towards a certain position, they can now pick and choose whatever they like. And if someone is inclined to doubt this story or that, they can find confirmation.

A lot of ignorant guesswork has led to your equally ignorant conclusions.

I did indeed search in google for a philosophy forum. I did not search for “Donald Trump”. The Donald Trump thread was fairly active so it showed up in the feed on the front page. As a fan, I checked it out, and the consensus on there appeared to be a mishmash of conspiracy theory, group think and hatred—a toxic environment for discourse. Of course, none of these people were accused of being trolls or disinfo agents, even if every prediction they made has only led to disappointment. So I started sharing an opposing view, and was naturally met with opposition and hostility.

My relatively high comment count is only exceeded by my mentions. In other words, most of my comments are replies to people who @ me. I get the notifications in my email. I don’t comment to “sow division” or some equally absurd conspiracy theory; I largely comment to keep up a conversation.

That’s the extent of my trolling career.

The difference is I don’t need any resource beyond simple reason to teach me what’s true or false. — NOS4A2

Dumpertrumper,

Regarding fake news and Russian interference, are you using reason or your simple-reason, in determining your status as a misinformed troll ?

Sorry but you're too easy!

LOL

Another part of the effect relates to derailing - or controlling the conversation - making claims that lure people into responding and thus increasing the "broadcast strength"of the original message if the responses explicitly correct it and react to it rather than providing their own narrative. Even if everyone who responds to it disagrees with it. The "lure" works by exposing skeptical or hitherto unexposed people to a claim, or a framing context for a claim, in a situation of heated debate; so when you just "skim over it", you see good points from both sides, but one person (like @NOS4A2) is controlling the flow of conversation - what topics get brought up in what way, and what easy refutations there are for them.

I’ll respond to this because you invoked my name. I just want to note the magical thinking involved in the idea of “controlling the conversation” on a platform such as this or other social media. I believe, insofar as my comment-style differs from anyone else’s, that I am just one example of people losing control of the conversation—a form of control they mistakenly believed they had but was proven to be illusory with the mere insertion of an opposing opinion.

The United States formally acknowledged cyber operations as an acceptable means of influencing Russia's domestic politics over 10 years before Russian meddling in its own election of 2016. — Russian Cyber Warfare, Charles River Editors

Russians like to steal American technology, so the US embedded a virus in stolen pipeline software and later blew up part of the Trans-Siberian gas pipeline.

Later an Israeli-American virus appeared in a nuclear power plant in Russia. Russians said it could have resulted in a Chernobyl-style disaster.

Both countries know how to halt a country's banking, communications, and airline systems through DDoS attacks, which can also be used to start or stop protests.

So clogging the internet with fog is fairly mild compared to the whole range of cyber war tactics.

It's not infallible, but anytime you hear someone going on about how they truly mean it honestly, from the heart of their bottom or whatever, you can be sure you are dealing with an habitual liar. Honest folks just assume their own honesty. Rather the way smart people don't go on about how smart they are, they rely on the smart things they say to convey it.

It's not infallible, — unenlightened

Right, because even an honest person knows when they're about to tell you something that sounds totally coo-coo-bananas.

Media Bias Fact Check is a decent website; it's upfront about what its methodologies and axioms are in regards to how it labels sites, and has a decent list of major news or information websites, (such as identifying factuality, or whether or not the source is partisan "left" or partisan "right" bias).

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/