3 ms·
In the case of this particular article, it looks like most of the denial posts are a single account (sameoldsameold, 2 hours old currently). Since all the posts
by rndmize 10y ago
In the case of this particular article, it looks like most of the denial posts are a single account (sameoldsameold, 2 hours old currently). Since all the posts by that account are now marked flagged/dead, and the account climatedenier is less than ten minutes old and is already posting along the same lines, I'd guess its the same person.
Unless this person is tremendously emotionally involved in the idea of climate change, I don't see why an average HN reader would spend this much time on a single thread or create new accounts to post.
It leaves me feeling like this is the efforts of a publicity firm or something similar - I remember reading some years back (well before the recent drama) about Russian government-run media control orgs that hired people to post comments to promote their view or damage opposing ones with bad arguments. Years before that, there was similar material from SF-based firms doing manipulation on reddit and digg. No reason to assume this no longer exists imo.
- abduhl 10y ago"Accusations of astroturfing or shilling without evidence are not allowed on HN. Rushing to that as an explanation is, invariably, evidence of sloppy thinking—or maybe non-thinking, of the kind that political passion leads us all to." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13345070 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13345070
- timthelion 10y agoI've long been thinking about creating an army of bots to promote my views on HN. Now I'll definitely do it!
- woodandsteel 10y agoBut in this case evidence was presented that the person is a shill, and in addition there were fact-based arguments against the position advocated by the alleged shill. Seems what you are saying is that we shouldn't be allowed to defend ourselves against shills by any means.