4 ms·

You can find plenty of articles in serious sources which contain serious research on Russian astroturfing operations. Based on those, any forum is a target and

You can find plenty of articles in serious sources which contain serious research on Russian astroturfing operations. Based on those, any forum is a target and HN is more influential than most.

shitgoose 9y ago
I am afraid that burden of proof is still on you. The habit of throwing in an accusation and suggesting that your opponents go and look for proof, became too widespread.
- hackuser 9y ago
  > The habit of throwing in an accusation and suggesting that your opponents go and look for proof, became too widespread. Generally I agree, but in this case it's very easily found.
  - shitgoose 9y ago
    you can't be serious.
- pm24601 9y ago
  Not really, if you choose to silently disbelieve that is fine. Expecting anyone else to spend their time and energy on "proving" some thing to someone else, should only happen if there is a pay off. https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/
  - shitgoose 9y ago
    shitgoose to pm24601: you suck! pm24601 to shitgoose: why!? shitgoose to pm24601: go google it yourself! pm24601 to shitgoose: why should i google why i suck? shitgoose to pm24601: if you choose to silently disbelieve that is fine. Expecting anyone else to spend their time and energy on "proving" some thing to someone else, should only happen if there is a pay off.
matt_wulfeck 9y ago
I think Occam's razor is applicable with our discussion. Are the people who are disagreeing with you a paid shill from the government trying to advance a particular agenda, or is it just a person who disagrees with you?
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  The simplest explanation that fits the facts is that it's a mix of both, as both are solidly established to exist. Occam's razor doesn't really apply to determining an individual account, as there's no model difference in a particular account being either, given many accounts and each being some. You should respond based on considering it a superposition of both (and more exotic states, like a non-shill blindly repeating shill points), based on the distribution of likelihood given their speech patterns, background prevalence, etc. That's really the simplest model which lets you incorporate all the information you know in crafting a response -- not a false dichotomy of making assumptions you know will sometimes be erroneous. (...Which is not what Occam's Razor is about.)

You can find plenty of articles in serious sources which contain serious research on Russian astroturfing operations. Based on those, any forum is a target and HN is more influential than most.

shitgoose 9y ago

I am afraid that burden of proof is still on you. The habit of throwing in an accusation and suggesting that your opponents go and look for proof, became too widespread.

hackuser 9y ago
> The habit of throwing in an accusation and suggesting that your opponents go and look for proof, became too widespread. Generally I agree, but in this case it's very easily found.
- shitgoose 9y ago
  you can't be serious.
pm24601 9y ago
Not really, if you choose to silently disbelieve that is fine. Expecting anyone else to spend their time and energy on "proving" some thing to someone else, should only happen if there is a pay off. https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/
- shitgoose 9y ago
  shitgoose to pm24601: you suck! pm24601 to shitgoose: why!? shitgoose to pm24601: go google it yourself! pm24601 to shitgoose: why should i google why i suck? shitgoose to pm24601: if you choose to silently disbelieve that is fine. Expecting anyone else to spend their time and energy on "proving" some thing to someone else, should only happen if there is a pay off.

matt_wulfeck 9y ago

I think Occam's razor is applicable with our discussion. Are the people who are disagreeing with you a paid shill from the government trying to advance a particular agenda, or is it just a person who disagrees with you?

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
The simplest explanation that fits the facts is that it's a mix of both, as both are solidly established to exist. Occam's razor doesn't really apply to determining an individual account, as there's no model difference in a particular account being either, given many accounts and each being some. You should respond based on considering it a superposition of both (and more exotic states, like a non-shill blindly repeating shill points), based on the distribution of likelihood given their speech patterns, background prevalence, etc. That's really the simplest model which lets you incorporate all the information you know in crafting a response -- not a false dichotomy of making assumptions you know will sometimes be erroneous. (...Which is not what Occam's Razor is about.)