No, it's been a victory for those peddling the fear articles and soliciting victim bucks.
It's really simple. First you make outrageous claims, then you define everyone who disagrees as a harasser. Find the one tweet or comment that's a bit off color, and pretend that's representative. Or just false flag it.
It's the digital version of how to discredit an opposing view or protest, you just need one person smashing a bus stop or looting a store. Once you have enough fear, it becomes self justifying.
Deciding who's the victim and who the harassers seems quite subjective. Let's say that I hit the beach sidewalk wearing a leather-sack-style thong jockstrap, an 18" Bowie knife, and roller blades. Right out of Wild Boys. But totally legal. And let's say that I attracted a crowd of critics, who felt threatened, and who threatened me. And supporters.
Who would be the victim(s), and who would be the harasser(s)?
When I think of harassment, I think of it as an intentional action. If you did that with the intent to disturb people, I think it would then fall under you being the harasser and others being the victim. But then on the other hand if they intentionally threaten or make you feel threatened, they are harassing as well. My definition based on intent may be incorrect, but I feel as though it makes the argument slightly less subjective.
Well, some of the stuff that people do to make a point about discrimination and harassment is expressly done "with the intent to disturb people". I pulled my example from William Burroughs' Wild Boys. But some of the costumes in gay pride marches come pretty damn close. And hey, it's all good fun. But people need to play safe, avoiding needless risk.
Actual trolling is way less worrying. I don't like it and I certainly wouldn't partake in it, but you can actually ignore it. Harassment, not so.