While I am grateful for what you have written here regarding your perception of internet trolls, I bristle sometimes at the usage of the word "troll" since it, like many labels, is often subjectively applied to find fault with or invalidate or otherwise put shame onto someone's differing perspective.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the concept of Nonviolent Communication (NVC), but whenever I perceive someone saying or doing something that triggers me, I think to myself that the person is simply tragically expressing their unmet needs in ways that are unlikely to meet those needs. I don't want to put some people in a box labeled "trolls" since that creates certain unhelpful connotations that can cloud my perception of their humanity. If I lack the capacity in the moment to response compassionately to those whose communication does not meet my needs (understanding, compassion, respect, etc.), then I have learned the hard way through experience to remain silent and disengage until I can or simply move on, especially if it's just words on the Internet since they only have power over me when I focus my attention on them. I don't perceive verbal punishments through the use of shaming messages, ridicule, or moralistic judgments to be useful if I genuinely desire respect and understanding in the communication of others.

Also, I would like to add that it's possible to interact compassionately with those who have claimed to be victims of violence while still maintaining a healthy dose of skepticism on a site where such stories may result in financial reward, regardless of the veracity of such claims. Empathy and skepticism need not be mutually exclusive.

Thanks for your thought-provoking article.