Initially, my thoughts on that term “troll” were purely humorous and based in strategies of agitation. This is not to say that my thoughts regarding “trolling” have deviated that greatly, especially vis-a-vis strategic agitation. I think differently about “trolling” after Trump’s successful White House bid, and becoming more familiar with Steve Bannon’s Breitbart. “Humor” is only a stylistic choice. Similarly, content that lacks vetting or primary source researching is a stylistic choice. What ultimately defines this “trolling” as an effective means of communication strategy is pure numbers. There is a sensationalism that is generated by flooding a channel with your particular viewpoint.
There is a sense of physical presence that populated pieces of content creates. Granted, this occurs more frequently when viewing sites designed to imitate a sense of dynamic speed. Sites that are designed to make users feel “up to date” are more prone to give a sense of physicality and immense-ness when “trolled”. Now, couple that with a headline framed in a bold slab-serif font and a vividly colored avatar. This visual, while flat(two dimensional with no intentions of playing human perceptions of depth), has a tendency to recreate that sensation that occurs when a charismatic or sexually appealing person enters a room.
It is this phenomenon of media communications that I seek to regard as “trolling”.