Troll Ads Are a Psychological Defense Mechanism on Social Media

Who Is a Troll, Really? Who Isn’t?

The question “Who is actually a troll?” lies at the heart of many social media debates today. Over time, this concept has strayed far from its original meaning and has become a label almost anyone can use to shut others up.

In the early days of the internet, the concept of a “troll” was much clearer. Trolls were people who deliberately wrote to provoke others, create tension, and sabotage discussions. Their goal wasn’t to produce ideas, share information, or reach a conclusion. Their main aim was chaos—to make people angry and to attract attention.

A true troll typically exhibits certain behavioral patterns. They provoke constantly, use harsh or derogatory language, divert the topic intentionally, and resist the healthy progression of a conversation. They thrive on the reactions they receive. The angrier others get, the more satisfied they feel.

For a troll, being right isn’t important—visibility is. The result of the discussion doesn’t matter; the noise they create does.

However, the definition has largely eroded today. On social media, one doesn’t even need to provoke to be labeled a troll. Simply offering a different perspective, challenging a mainstream opinion, or asking an uncomfortable question can be enough to earn the “troll” tag.

When someone disagrees with us, we often don’t pause to reflect. Instead of asking ourselves, “Could this person be right?” or “Might I have overlooked something?” or “Is there any truth in this criticism?”, our minds take a much shorter route:

“That’s a troll anyway.”

With this statement, the thinking process ends. The other person is no longer someone whose ideas need to be heard; they become a figure unworthy of consideration. This way, we avoid questioning our own beliefs.

What’s happening here is simple: our minds don’t want to confront unsettling possibilities. The idea that we might be wrong is threatening to the ego. So the brain goes into defense mode and protects itself by discrediting the other person.

The “troll” label comes into play exactly at this point.

If the person is a troll, their words have no importance. They cannot be right. They don’t need to be listened to. Their ideas aren’t worth pondering.

And so, we feel comfortable again.

Yet, most of the time, the person we call a “troll” is simply someone who challenges our familiar thought patterns. Someone who disrupts our comfort, pushes us, and makes us reflect. And precisely because of this, they are unsettling.

Until we learn to distinguish between a true troll and someone with an uncomfortable but valid perspective, we will continue to perceive every critique as a threat. Gradually, social media becomes a space where labels, not ideas, dominate the conversation.

In the end, the concept of “troll” loses its original meaning. Genuine provocateurs get lost in the crowd, those who want to think are silenced, and everyone continues to live in their own echo chamber.

---

The Mind’s First Reaction to Criticism

The human brain does not particularly enjoy being criticized. The reason is simple yet powerful: criticism directly touches a person’s sense of self. When someone questions our ideas, behavior, or beliefs, we don’t perceive it merely as a challenge to our thoughts. Subconsciously, a far more personal message is received:

“You might be wrong.”
“You might not have thought this through enough.”
“You could be incomplete or flawed.”

These messages are unsettling for most people. We tend to associate being wrong with weakness, making mistakes with inadequacy, and falling short with failure. Society often presents “not making mistakes” almost as a virtue. This pushes people away from admitting they are wrong.

Therefore, criticism is often felt not just as an exchange of ideas but as a direct threat to the ego.

The moment the brain perceives this threat, defense mechanisms kick in before logic does. The goal is not to seek the truth; it is to protect the self. Before asking, “Could they be right?” the mind asks, “How can I avoid being harmed?”

It is precisely at this point that the label “troll” comes into play.

If the person in front of us is ill-intentioned, writes to provoke, wants to create tension, or is simply not worth taking seriously, we no longer need to evaluate what they say. The problem is no longer the idea; it is the person.

“That person is a troll anyway.”
“Their goal isn’t to discuss—it’s to irritate.”
“Not worth responding to.”

These statements are the mind’s way of reassuring itself.

This allows us to avoid facing a difficult possibility: “What if they are right?” “What if I haven’t thought this through?” “What if I’m wrong?”

Because facing these possibilities requires courage. A person must acknowledge the limits of their own thinking, which is not easy for most.

Instead, targeting the character of the other person is far more practical. Rather than debating the idea, the person is discredited. In this way, our own beliefs remain “correct” automatically.

Psychologically, this brings a great sense of relief. We feel safe. The ego is unharmed. No cracks appear in our inner world.

However, this comes at a cost.

This defensive reflex prevents long-term growth. By consistently avoiding the recognition of our own mistakes, we miss opportunities to learn. When every criticism is perceived as an attack, the door to improvement closes.

Over time, a person communicates only with those who think like them. Different ideas appear as threats. Criticism is equated with hostility. The label “troll” becomes the easiest tool in this process.

Ultimately, many conflicts on social media are fueled not by ideas but by wounded egos. Discussions don’t produce knowledge—they merely reinforce defensive reflexes.

And everyone retreats a little further into the comfort of their own “truths.”

---

The Digital Form of the Need to Be Right

Human nature drives us to want to be right. Being right is not just about winning an argument; it also feeds the feelings of “I think correctly,” “I am competent,” and “I don’t make mistakes.” These feelings are crucial in maintaining a person’s self-esteem.

Being wrong, on the other hand, is more than simply admitting a mistake. For most people, it means confronting a bruised pride, shaken confidence, and a sense of inadequacy. That is why people often prefer to act as if they were never wrong rather than admit it.

Social media makes this need far more visible and powerful. Discussions no longer occur just between two people. Every post, comment, and reply is a stage. There are spectators quietly judging, followers taking sides, and those who silently observe.

In short, a person isn’t speaking only to the one in front of them—they are speaking to an invisible crowd.

In this environment, “losing” an argument is not perceived merely as a refutation of an idea. It is also felt as a form of reputation loss. The fear of “humiliation,” “embarrassment,” or “looking weak” comes into play.

For this reason, for many people, the goal of a discussion is no longer to seek truth. The main objective becomes not losing. Being right or wrong becomes secondary. What matters is not backing down and having the last word.

This is where the label “troll” comes into play.

Calling someone a “troll” instantly shifts the debate to a different plane. It is no longer about ideas. The other person’s intent, character, and credibility become the focus. This allows a person to exit the conversation without having to defend their own position.

“I’m not continuing this discussion because this is a troll.”
“Not worth responding to.”
“They are just provoking.”

These statements serve as a powerful escape route in the digital space.

The “troll” label allows someone to retreat without appearing to have lost. They avoid discomfort, don’t have to admit they were wrong, and their ego remains intact.

At the same time, the other party is discredited. In the eyes of spectators, they are no longer a “valid interlocutor” but a “problematic person.” This gives the first person a sense of psychological superiority.

Thus, social media stops being a space for seeking truth. It becomes a kind of power struggle—a stage to see who will receive the most applause, who will appear the least harmed, and who will seem the strongest.

Ultimately, everyone defends their own “fortress of being right.” Walls go up, bridges are burned. Dialogue gives way to defense, curiosity is replaced by fear.

And the need to be right speaks louder than ever in the digital age.

---

The “Us vs. Them” Divide

Social media is a powerful environment that, often unintentionally, divides people into camps. Algorithms show us content based on our interests and interactions. Over time, we begin to see the same thoughts, the same perspectives, and the same reactions repeatedly. In this way, small digital communities form.

These communities can take shape around political views, ideologies, sports teams, lifestyles, artistic preferences, or even the shows people watch. What may initially seem harmless gradually produces an “us vs. them” mentality.

Belonging to a group is an extremely strong feeling for humans. It provides a sense of security. It creates the sense of “I am not alone,” “There are people who think like me,” “I belong somewhere.” In an era where loneliness is increasing, especially in the modern world, this feeling of belonging is highly valuable.

However, the stronger this sense of belonging becomes, the less tolerance there is for differing opinions.

At first, the other person may be simply “someone who thinks differently.” Over time, they are placed into another category. They are no longer just someone with a different perspective. They are seen as “not one of us,” “on the wrong side,” “misguided,” or even “harmful.”

The mind works like this:

“We are right.”
“We are aware.”
“We see the truth.”
“They, on the other hand, are either ignorant, malicious, or deceived.”

From this point onward, the other person ceases to be considered a thinker. They become a potential threat. They are not spoken to, debated with, or tried to be understood. They are perceived only as someone who must be neutralized.

This is precisely where the “troll” label comes into play.

Calling someone a “troll” pushes them outside the group. It removes them completely from the “us” category. They are no longer a person to be listened to—they are a figure to be silenced.

“They’re trolls anyway.”
“You don’t argue with them.”
“They’re provocateurs.”

These statements function to preserve the group’s internal cohesion. In a way, they form a digital defense line. When a different idea emerges, it is easier to label it than to take it seriously.

This ensures that harmony within the group is not disrupted. No one asks uncomfortable questions. No one steps outside the line. Everyone remains within the safe bubble of shared truths.

“If they’re not one of us, they must be bad.”

Over time, this way of thinking becomes normalized. Complex realities are simplified. People are divided into good and bad, right and wrong, us and them.

Yet real life is not that simple.

But social media loves simple stories. It rewards clear sides, sharp boundaries, and quick judgments. This deepens the “us vs. them” divide more and more each day.

Ultimately, people begin labeling each other rather than understanding each other. Dialogue is replaced by confrontation. And the word “troll” becomes one of the most practical weapons in this digital battle.

---

The Easiest Way to Avoid a Discussion

A healthy discussion is not as easy as it seems. Genuine exchange of ideas requires effort. It requires reading, research, and a sincere attempt to understand what the other person is really trying to say. It requires reviewing your own thoughts, correcting them if necessary, and sometimes even changing them.

In short, it is mentally exhausting.

Engaging seriously in a discussion pushes a person out of their comfort zone. It disrupts the ease of thinking, “I already know this.” It confronts you with new information, different perspectives, and sometimes even your own shortcomings. Not everyone enjoys this.

That is why most people choose easier paths rather than thinking deeply.

Calling someone a “troll” is one of the most practical and effortless of these shortcuts.

The moment you label someone a troll, the discussion effectively ends. You no longer need to research. You don’t need to find sources. You don’t need to construct counterarguments. You don’t need to empathize or try to understand.

With a single word, you close the topic.

This word acts like a mental shortcut. Instead of going through a long and demanding thinking process, you resolve the situation with a quick label. In this way, you save time and conserve mental energy.

For this reason, the “troll” label is extremely appealing to many people.

Especially in a busy, stressful, and tiring life, people do not want to invest effort in every discussion. They may not have the energy to research every claim. They may lack the patience to take every criticism seriously. In such situations, easy solutions come into play.

“Troll anyway, move on.”

This statement is the mind’s way of reassuring itself.

However, there is an important truth that is often overlooked: this behavior is not really avoiding the discussion—it is avoiding thinking.

Because discussion is what develops a person. Engaging with different perspectives sharpens thought. It helps one recognize their own limits. But this requires courage.

Calling someone a “troll” eliminates the need for that courage.

Over time, a person becomes accustomed to avoiding difficult questions. They start ignoring uncomfortable ideas. Every objection is thrown into the same bucket. This preserves mental comfort but halts personal growth.

The result is a digital environment that is full of talk but low on thought.

Everyone labels, but no one truly listens.

Everyone responds, but no one truly understands.

And discussions, instead of generating ideas, begin to produce only noise.

---

Why Algorithms Encourage This Behavior

On the surface, social media platforms seem to exist to connect people, make information sharing easier, and speed up communication. But behind the scenes, a much simpler truth lies at the core: the primary goal of these platforms is to keep users on the screen for as long as possible.

The longer a user stays, the more ads they see.
The more ads they see, the more the platform earns.

For this reason, algorithms are designed not to prioritize the “most helpful” or “most accurate” content, but the content that gets the most engagement.

So, which types of content get the most engagement?

Usually, it’s not calm, balanced, or measured discussions.

Instead, content that stirs anger, pits sides against each other, provokes emotions, and incites people spreads much faster. The human mind is naturally more sensitive to negative and threatening messages. When it encounters conflict, insults, or confrontation, it reacts more quickly.

This leads to:

• More comments

• More shares

• More screen time

For algorithms, this equals success.

When someone is called a “troll” in a discussion, the conversation often does not end. On the contrary, it intensifies. The other person responds. Supporters join in. Insults escalate. The discussion grows. More people get involved.

In short, the noise increases.

The algorithm interprets this noise as “engagement”.

And it starts showing that content to even more people.

Thus, a vicious cycle forms:

Harsh language → Increased engagement → Greater visibility → Behavior rewarded → Harsh language repeated

Over time, people notice: the calmer I speak, the less visible I am. The harsher I am, the more attention I get.

This changes behavior.

Someone who initially says “troll” just to defend themselves may eventually turn it into a conscious strategy. Because it works. They get more likes, more supportive messages, more followers.

In other words, the system inadvertently encourages this language.

After a while, this style becomes normalized.

Insults become ordinary.
Mockery becomes routine.
Discrediting becomes habitual.

Calm speakers are perceived as “boring,” while those who shout are seen as “effective.”

At this point, the problem is not just in individual behavior—it lies in the structure of the digital environment that guides them toward it. Platforms do not explicitly tell users, “Go fight.” But the system effectively encourages it by making those who fight more visible.

The result is this:

People speak not to understand more, but to win more.
They argue not to learn more, but to attract more attention.

And within this system, the “troll” label stops being just a defensive tool—it becomes a performance tool.

---

The Social Cost of the “Troll” Label

In an environment where people constantly label each other as “trolls,” “provocateurs,” or “malicious,” healthy communication becomes increasingly difficult. These labels are rarely used to advance a discussion; they are used to end it. And what often ends is not just a debate—it is the possibility of mutual understanding.

Over time, people begin to realize: if I express my opinion openly, I may be attacked, misunderstood, or even excluded by the community I belong to. This thought creates a sense of fear. As this fear takes root, individuals start to withdraw. People no longer freely share what they think. They overthink before speaking, avoid certain topics entirely, and suppress some of their ideas altogether.

This phenomenon is called self-censorship. People may not even notice they are silencing themselves. Silence gradually becomes normalized. From the outside, the environment may appear calm, but in reality, it is filled with suppressed thoughts. Problems that cannot be voiced are not solved—they are only postponed. Frustrations that accumulate internally eventually manifest in other ways.

In this environment, social media and digital discussion spaces begin to polarize. On one side are people who constantly shout, attack, and insult. On the other side are those who remain completely silent, avoiding debates altogether. Balanced, questioning, and constructive voices gradually disappear. They are the most vulnerable in this setting—they are neither part of a fanatical group nor do they use harsh language. As a result, they struggle to defend themselves and choose to retreat.

The widespread use of the “troll” label also deepens societal polarization. People begin evaluating each other not based on what is said, but on the group to which someone belongs. What you say loses importance; who you are becomes the determining factor. The question “Are they one of us or one of them?” takes precedence over everything else. If you are not “one of us,” your words are automatically devalued. If you are “one of them,” you are a troll by default.

This mindset builds invisible walls between people. Groups stop listening to each other. Everyone only communicates within their own circle. Instead of perceiving the other person as they really are, people see a simplified and distorted image. Mutual understanding gives way to prejudice.

Over time, trust weakens. People hesitate to be sincere. They assume every sentence could be misinterpreted. Every word could turn into an attack. Relationships become superficial. Everyone becomes more cautious, distant, and defensive.

Learning to silence rather than listen begins precisely at this point. Truly trying to understand someone takes effort. It requires patience, attention, and mental energy. Labeling them a “troll,” however, is much easier. The moment the word is uttered, what the other person says loses significance. You don’t have to listen. You don’t have to review your own thoughts. For you, the discussion is over.

Yet this convenience comes at a societal cost. Diversity of ideas diminishes. Creativity dulls. Critical thinking weakens. People lose the ability to think collectively and generate shared solutions. Everyone retreats into their own small world, interacting only with those who resemble them.

Healthy societies, on the other hand, thrive in environments where different opinions can coexist, where people can make mistakes, and where ideas can change. Progress occurs where discussion is seen as a learning process rather than a fight. In environments where labeling and silencing are constant, this growth is impossible.

Ultimately, in a digital world where the “troll” label is so easily applied, what is lost is not just debates. What is lost is the culture of thinking together, learning together, and progressing together. As this culture weakens, society slowly withdraws and becomes impoverished.

Is a Healthier Digital Language Possible?

The question of whether a healthier digital language is possible is directly tied to the future of social media. Looking at today’s discussion environment, it may seem difficult. But difficult does not mean impossible. It is possible to foster a more respectful, constructive, and conscious communication culture. The first step begins not with platforms, algorithms, or “others,” but with the individual.

Developing a habit of pausing and reflecting before every heated comment, harsh reply, or label can make a huge difference. Instead of reacting reflexively, a person should learn to ask themselves: Is the other person really trying to disrupt the space, or does it simply bother me because they disagree with me? Am I calling them a “troll” because of their behavior, or because of my own need for defense? Am I avoiding responding, or do I simply lack a solid counterargument? Could I be wrong too?

These questions may seem simple, but they are difficult to practice. They touch the ego directly. Accepting the possibility of being wrong is not easy for anyone. Questioning one’s own thoughts makes a person feel vulnerable. Saying, “Perhaps I haven’t thought this through” requires courage. That is why most people consciously or unconsciously avoid these questions.

Yet mental growth begins precisely here. People mature to the extent that they can question their own ideas. They grow stronger when they start seeing different perspectives as learning opportunities rather than threats. Being able to pause and ask, “Could there be another perspective here?” instead of always assuming you are right is the foundation of healthy thinking.

Another key point for a healthier digital language is accepting that we do not have to argue with everyone. Social media gives the illusion that we must respond to every comment, counter every idea, and enter every discussion. This is false. Not every debate is worth our time and energy. Not every comment deserves a serious response.

Sometimes the most mature approach is to remain silent and keep moving forward. Ignoring can be far stronger and healthier than retaliating with insults. Insulting shows a loss of control; silence demonstrates control. Choosing not to continue a discussion does not mean dismissing the other person—it means protecting your own mental boundaries.

Additionally, people do not have to be ready for discussions at all times. Debating while tired, stressed, or emotionally sensitive usually leads to unhealthy interactions. Reactions in such moments tend to be harsher, more hurtful, and defensive. Therefore, withdrawing, stepping away, and reflecting later is often the wisest choice.

A healthier digital culture is built on small individual choices. Not labeling someone immediately, trying to understand, remaining silent if needed, and being able to change one’s mind—these are not grand gestures, but over time, these small steps shape the tone of the digital space.

Ultimately, social media reflects the people who use it. The language there mirrors our inner world. As more respectful, conscious, and thoughtful individuals emerge, the digital environment transforms accordingly. Change does not start from the top; it begins within each person’s own mind.

---

Who Is a Troll, and Who Is Not?

Ultimately, one must clearly acknowledge this: there are indeed trolls on the internet. These are people who deliberately provoke, sabotage discussions, take pleasure in upsetting others, and have no constructive purpose—an undeniable reality of the digital world. Ignoring or romanticizing such behavior is neither accurate nor helpful.

The problem arises when every uncomfortable voice, every critical comment, and every differing opinion is easily silenced with the “troll” label.

Today, on social media, the word “troll” has often lost its original meaning. In many cases, it is no longer used to describe genuinely malicious individuals. Instead, it has become a tool to silence those who challenge us, make us think, expose our blind spots, or disrupt the patterns we are accustomed to. When we encounter someone who contradicts our views, instead of trying to understand them, we prefer to label them immediately.

Because understanding is demanding.

To truly understand requires questioning one’s own beliefs.

Understanding requires the courage to admit: “Perhaps I am missing something here.”

Yet calling someone a “troll” is much easier.

The moment we use this word, we are essentially sending the message: “I do not want to listen to you. What you say does not matter to me.” In doing so, we withdraw from the discussion while preserving our own mental comfort.

But this comfort comes at a cost.

When we speak only with like-minded people, our intellectual world narrows. The more we silence different voices, the weaker our own voice becomes. Over time, we become individuals intolerant of criticism, uncomfortable with questioning, and blindly attached to our own truths.

True maturity, however, is not only about engaging with ideas we like—it is about facing ideas that challenge us. Difficult questions are a vital part of growth. People only develop when they confront their own limits. Progress does not happen without discomfort, without challenge, without questioning.

Thought evolves only through collision.

When differing ideas meet, either mistakes are revealed, or truths become stronger. This process can be uncomfortable, exhausting, and ego-challenging—but in the long run, it is exactly what advances both the individual and society.

If we want a healthier social media environment, we must start with our words. We need to learn to listen rather than label, to understand rather than silence, and to question rather than belittle. We must stop seeing every objection as a threat and every critique as hostility.

This is not an instant change. But it begins when each individual reflects on their own behavior.

It starts by pausing for a moment before immediately saying, “This is a troll.”

It starts by asking, “Is there actually a genuine idea here?”

It starts by honestly answering ourselves: “Why does this bother me?”

After all, social media is a space where not just posts, but character, is on display. How we speak, how we debate, and how we act reflects who we are.

A more respectful, conscious, and mature digital culture is achieved not by trying to change others, but by transforming ourselves first.

And perhaps true “awareness” is not about silencing everyone—it is about being strong enough to listen to voices that differ from our own.

Ali Değişmiş

• KATEGORİLER:
• | Blog & Makaleler |