If you post with the intention of spreading political views then it's not trolling, even if it annoys people. Trolling is posting specifically with the intention of annoying people and getting an angry reaction. Part of the point this article makes is that it can be hard to tell the difference. If I make a post on the Guardian expressing rightwing views, it may be because I genuinely hold them and am keen to convert all the lefties. Alternatively, it may be because I just get a laugh from seeing all the po-faced angry responses that I know I'll get. The latter is trolling, the former isn't, but it's hard to tell given that precisely the same post might be made in each case. (Indeed, the troll may actually hold the views he posts – or he may not). Sometimes trolls can only be identified as such over a long period of watching their posting behaviour, and even then it can be hard. The most difficult cases are where the person genuinely holds the views that they post, but at the same time, they know that posting them will get a negative reaction. Whether that counts as trolling or not is hard to say.

Trolling is different from cyberbullying, because with cyberbullying – as with all bullying – there's an element of the bully having power over the victim. If I've never been on the Guardian website before, and I join in order to post a single fiery post of right-wing fury specifically to annoy the Guardianistas so I can sit back and enjoy their angry responses, then I'm certainly trolling, but I can hardly be said to be bullying anyone. If, however, I constantly make inflammatory comments on some particular person's blog, then I arguably am cyberbullying them, and that's different.

If you post with the intention of spreading political views then it's not trolling, even if it annoys people. Trolling is posting specifically with the intention of annoying people and getting an angry reaction. Part of the point this article makes is that it can be hard to tell the difference. If I make a post on the Guardian expressing rightwing views, it may be because I genuinely hold them and am keen to convert all the lefties. Alternatively, it may be because I just get a laugh from seeing all the po-faced angry responses that I know I'll get. The latter is trolling, the former isn't, but it's hard to tell given that precisely the same post might be made in each case. (Indeed, the troll may actually hold the views he posts – or he may not). Sometimes trolls can only be identified as such over a long period of watching their posting behaviour, and even then it can be hard. The most difficult cases are where the person genuinely holds the views that they post, but at the same time, they know that posting them will get a negative reaction. Whether that counts as trolling or not is hard to say.

Trolling is different from cyberbullying, because with cyberbullying – as with all bullying – there's an element of the bully having power over the victim. If I've never been on the Guardian website before, and I join in order to post a single fiery post of right-wing fury specifically to annoy the Guardianistas so I can sit back and enjoy their angry responses, then I'm certainly trolling, but I can hardly be said to be bullying anyone. If, however, I constantly make inflammatory comments on some particular person's blog, then I arguably am cyberbullying them, and that's different.

I think Jonathan does a splendid job of getting to the heart of the problem, which is to recognise that trolling isn't just a convenient term for taking offence at someone who disagrees with us, or a handy insult with which to brand people we dislike. It also doesn't just capture the obvious tirades or rants. Instead, Jonathan recognises that it can happen in much more subtle ways and that this is exactly where it gets very difficult to deal with, because what we may be thinking of as trolling might not be, and what we might be excusing as ongoing misunderstandings could be trolling.

I think Jonathan does a splendid job of getting to the heart of the problem, which is to recognise that trolling isn't just a convenient term for taking offence at someone who disagrees with us, or a handy insult with which to brand people we dislike. It also doesn't just capture the obvious tirades or rants. Instead, Jonathan recognises that it can happen in much more subtle ways and that this is exactly where it gets very difficult to deal with, because what we may be thinking of as trolling might not be, and what we might be excusing as ongoing misunderstandings could be trolling.

So, in conclusion, what you really want is more public funding for your dubious "research" and meal ticket. God … at least we trolls don't suck on the public teat.

So, in conclusion, what you really want is more public funding for your dubious "research" and meal ticket. God … at least we trolls don't suck on the public teat.

It might seem odd for me to choose a self-proclaimed troll's post, but while the tone is a little abrasive, I do think there is, underneath, a good point to answer – namely, does research into trolling merit public funding? On the surface, to some, the topic might seem a dubious candidate for funding. However, the research suggests a tie between trolling (causing general arguments with whomever will bite) and an escalation into more serious behaviours such as cyberbullying (targeting specific individuals for abuse) and cyberstalking (as with cyberbullying, but with a serious risk of offline harm).

In short, if a troll is seeking a particular type of response, they are likely to home in on those who provide it, and if they start targeting that individual repeatedly, the behaviour has turned into something more serious. In turn, these kinds of behaviours have driven both children and adults to self harm, to leave homes, schools, and jobs, and even to commit suicide. To return to the main point, then, I do think that it's useful to ask whether research into trolling is useful, because it makes those of us working in this field re-evaluate what we do, and in light of the damage that trolling can cause in its own right, and given its relationships to other, much more serious online behaviours, my answer – no surprise – would be that it really does merit attention, research, and funding.

It might seem odd for me to choose a self-proclaimed troll's post, but while the tone is a little abrasive, I do think there is, underneath, a good point to answer – namely, does research into trolling merit public funding? On the surface, to some, the topic might seem a dubious candidate for funding. However, the research suggests a tie between trolling (causing general arguments with whomever will bite) and an escalation into more serious behaviours such as cyberbullying (targeting specific individuals for abuse) and cyberstalking (as with cyberbullying, but with a serious risk of offline harm).

In short, if a troll is seeking a particular type of response, they are likely to home in on those who provide it, and if they start targeting that individual repeatedly, the behaviour has turned into something more serious. In turn, these kinds of behaviours have driven both children and adults to self harm, to leave homes, schools, and jobs, and even to commit suicide. To return to the main point, then, I do think that it's useful to ask whether research into trolling is useful, because it makes those of us working in this field re-evaluate what we do, and in light of the damage that trolling can cause in its own right, and given its relationships to other, much more serious online behaviours, my answer – no surprise – would be that it really does merit attention, research, and funding.