3 ms·
> If not, what leads you to believe that anybody involved in discussion in r/politics are "shills". Because Hillary had hired people to do exactly that: http:
by rdtsc 9y ago
> If not, what leads you to believe that anybody involved in discussion in r/politics are "shills".
Because Hillary had hired people to do exactly that:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-trolling-20160506-snap-htmlstory.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-trolli...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-pac-spends-dollar1-million-to-correct-commenters-on-reddit-and-facebook http://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-pac-spends-dollar1-mill...
Remember someone leaked a private Slack chat of Reddit admins where one was boasting of receiving their CTR check.
- 52-6F-62 9y agoI think you're reaching a little here. The parent comment stated that r/politics uses shill comments and down votes as a control measure to align with a narrative. If that is true, supported by the articles you referenced: -- r/politics has over 3 million subscribers, with an average of 30 - 40 active users during the daytime. -- if every one of those users was a "shill" commenter then every single one would have earned $0.30 for their efforts. That's not counting other forms of social media. I have to admit some skepticism toward the assertion that the entire subreddit is a controlled narrative. Instead, it seems that there will be those who adamantly support the people they're paid to support, and that those users are in the minimum. Instead I think it's just a general consensus what the popular ideals are in there vs. r/t_d. Besides, not sure if you've been around there much but I certainly don't see much love lost for HC.