There are a number of key characteristics among the type of troller called a ‘Hater.’ Haters usually have a high expectation of what it means to be successful, which is higher than they are able to attain. This results in them resenting others who think they are successlul but whom fall below their standards. It also results in them showing resentment to those with a similar background to them who achieve successes they are unable or unwilling to. Notably in this study, the Hater resented the fact that the author-participant had a high regard for his degrees, when the Hater had applied for, but never taken to risk of going onto the degree programmes they were offered.
It might be that Haters have average abilities, and thus being demotic. Their resentment of those who excel from being Hi-Functioning Empathics or Hi-Functioning Autistics, seek to confirm their sense of lack of worth, resulting from them wanting to be the best at everything and instead being the best at nothing. The psychotic and neurotic symptoms they should could therefore be an outcome of a failure to choose between excelling in life as an empathic, or indeed as an autistic.
This should not be seen as their fault, but a result of a highly demanding society unlike anything humans have had to do in the previous 200,000 years of existence. One might argue the only long-term solution to this form of psychopathy is for neuroscientists to force the evolution of the brain. It is clear that being both empathic and autistic has its advantages. If humans could choose, for instance, to be autistic whilst studying, and empathic while socialising, then many of the miscommunication that occurs among autistics, empathies and demotics could be as trivial as knowing whether to kiss someone on the cheek, shake their hand, or nod ones head as It is found that there are serious problems with the application of the criminal justice system in relation to the cases of Internet trollers, which seem to be based more on what the public is interested (i.e. “trolls”) than the public interest at large.
Indeed on nearly all stages of the criminal procedure rules, there is clear evidence of shortcomings in the way the authorities deal with Internet trollers. In terms of ‘acquitting the innocent and convicting the guilty,’ it is clear that some people are “more guilty” than others. In other words the current legal system resembles a pre-Henry II legal system where decisions are not based on precedence but expedience. This has resulted in unfair outcomes where in virtually identical situations people have been treated completely differently by the authorities. However, it is clear that it instruments like the Trolling Magnitude Scale are adopted, then it will make it easier for the police and other law enforcement authorities to prioritise who is prosecuted in an objective way, rather than feel obligated to take action when it may not be in the public interest to do so.
The preference continuum can also be helpful in ensuring fair outcomes, as it will make it easier to see what it was driving a particular person to take a particular action in a particular situation. It is clear that the situation as it stands is unsatisfactory. Perpetual trolls like the one interviewed, who have grudges against certain people have no action taken against them, whereas those who make offensive jokes in the moment feel the full force of the law because of “public outers’.” The law enforcement authorities need to get a grip, and take action against flame trollers only when set thresholds are met and not in response to media-led public opinion.
Jonathan Bishop (2013). The effect of deindividuation of the Internet Troller on Criminal Procedure implementation: An interview with a Hater. International Journal of Cyber Criminology 7(1), pp. 28-48. Available online at: http://www.jonathanbishop.com/Library/Documents/EN/docIJCCPaper_Hater.pdf