4 ms·

Or maybe, juuuust maybe, people have different opinions about things. Imagine that.

realusername 9y ago
It looks too systematic for it to be real accounts, their comments are only on monsanto subjects or other pro-corporate PR, real users also show interests in other things.
- searine 9y ago
  That's exactly the kind of empty talking point BIG ORGANIC wants you to spew. All carefully calculated to get you to buy their overpriced luxury product! Look, people disagree about things. Get over it.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deadmetheny 9y ago
    Don't kid yourself. People can and do disagree, but they doesn't preclude the fact that astroturfing absolutely does happen as well, and it's absolutely a problem.
    - searine 9y ago
      >but they doesn't preclude the fact that astroturfing absolutely does happen as well, and it's absolutely a problem. Occam's razor. What is more likely : A. This normal person on the internet disagrees with me. B. There is a multinational conspiracy to control the narrative on topic X and in reality everyone universally agrees with me that topic X is a bad thing.
      - deadmetheny 9y ago
        You are hopeless.
        dang 9y ago
        This breaks the HN guidelines. Please post civilly and substantively or not at all, regardless of how wrong someone else is. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - kaybe 9y ago
        Your phrasing makes this quite unbalanced. How about B. Huge conglomerate with huge advertising budget uses some of that money on new innovative grass-roots advertising strategy (which is not illegal and can be very effective especially compared to online ads).
saalweachter 9y ago
Lies, anyone who has opinions different than mine is a corporate shill or a Russian troll or more likely both.
msla 9y ago
There's a way to test for that: People with actual opinions will engage in conversation, whereas shills can't, because, one, their scripts aren't that long, two, they aren't paid for that kind of thing, and, most importantly, they can't risk the conversation spinning out of control.
samdoidge 9y ago
Maybe, but we know astroturfing is real. Imagine that.
- searine 9y ago
  Astroturfing is real, but it is disingenuous to say that an entire side of a debate, particularly a scientific debate, is fake. It has a chilling effect and silences the discussion. An argument should be able to stand on its own regardless of whether an astroturf exists or not. Money doesn't change the facts, and astroturf is by definition finite. Facts, especially quantitative facts will win in the long term.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    >Money doesn't change the facts Money can make facts go unheard and/or unheeded. >astroturf is by definition finite. What definition says that? Astroturfing can be and is often automated >Facts, especially quantitative facts will win in the long term Many religions and mythologies seem to indicate otherwise
    - searine 9y ago
      >Money can make facts go unheard and/or unheeded. For a time. But people get bored, tired, and distracted. Facts are permanent. >What definition says that? Astroturfing can be and is often automated Servers cost money. Bandwidth costs money. Admins cost money. Businesses aren't going to fund astroturfing indefinitely. Even in the most extreme circumstances, like the climate change debate, the truth still dominates. >Many religions and mythologies seem to indicate otherwise You're right. Thats why modern science believes in creation, and the geocentric model. Clearly religion and mythology won out.
      - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
        -Astroturfing can be done for free via botnet using other peoples machines -If the truth dominates in the climate change debate, why is it still being debated while the problem continues to get worse? -It remains that the majority of people on the planet have a religious faith, and those beliefs continue to affect government/state policy (i.e. bans on stem cell research, birth control etc) as it has for thousands of years
7sigma 9y ago
I've been accused of being a Monsanto shill so many times online, its not even funny. I researched a lot of the claims against Monsanto or GM crops and I found many of them untrue, largely exaggerated, although I do agree most of the Dicamba debacle is mostly Monsanto's fault. Ironically, there is a lot of propaganda pushed by the likes of USRTK and the OCA, calling anyone including university scientists that contradict them as Monsanto shills. These groups are also anti vaccine, against water fluoridation [1] etc... I've largely stopped arguing online, because conversations become really super polarised and sometimes nasty. Its hard to have an intelligent discussion. A good place to find info on these issues is the Food and Farm Discussion Lab https://facebook.com/groups/FAFDL/ https://facebook.com/groups/FAFDL/ [0] https://www.organicconsumers.org/essays/how-mainstream-media-insults-public%E2%80%99s-intelligence-vaccines https://www.organicconsumers.org/essays/how-mainstream-media... [1] https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/water-fluoridation-chemicals-now-officially-linked-brain-harm-cognitive-deficits https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/water-fluoridation-che...
- specialist 9y ago
  What slays me about the GMO debate is the misportrayal of my anti-GMO position, lumping me in with the anti-vaxxors, creationists, and defenders of Freedom Markets™.
  - 7sigma 9y ago
    I see your point, but if you have someone that attacks vaccines or denies climate change, its really a sign that they put ideology before evidence
    - specialist 9y ago
      True. Carrying the flame long after the war has been lost is kinda pathetic. Then its more about identity (virtue signal, tribal affiliation) than anything else. I wish they'd just argue about sports teams.
  - sampo 9y ago
    > What slays me about the GMO debate is the misportrayal of my anti-GMO position, lumping me in with the anti-vaxxors The scientific consensus on GMOs being safe is stronger than consensus on climate change. If you go against the scientific consensus, you are rightly labeled as being anti-science. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_6572130.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_657213... https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark-lynas/gmo-safety-debate-over https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark-lynas/gmo-s... http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/once-again-us-expert-panel-says-genetically-engineered-crops-are-safe-eat http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/once-again-us-expert-...
specialist 9y ago
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” — Upton Sinclair

It looks too systematic for it to be real accounts, their comments are only on monsanto subjects or other pro-corporate PR, real users also show interests in other things.

searine 9y ago
That's exactly the kind of empty talking point BIG ORGANIC wants you to spew. All carefully calculated to get you to buy their overpriced luxury product! Look, people disagree about things. Get over it.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deadmetheny 9y ago
  Don't kid yourself. People can and do disagree, but they doesn't preclude the fact that astroturfing absolutely does happen as well, and it's absolutely a problem.
  - searine 9y ago
    >but they doesn't preclude the fact that astroturfing absolutely does happen as well, and it's absolutely a problem. Occam's razor. What is more likely : A. This normal person on the internet disagrees with me. B. There is a multinational conspiracy to control the narrative on topic X and in reality everyone universally agrees with me that topic X is a bad thing.
    - deadmetheny 9y ago
      You are hopeless.
      - dang 9y ago
        This breaks the HN guidelines. Please post civilly and substantively or not at all, regardless of how wrong someone else is. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - kaybe 9y ago
      Your phrasing makes this quite unbalanced. How about B. Huge conglomerate with huge advertising budget uses some of that money on new innovative grass-roots advertising strategy (which is not illegal and can be very effective especially compared to online ads).

saalweachter 9y ago

Lies, anyone who has opinions different than mine is a corporate shill or a Russian troll or more likely both.

msla 9y ago

There's a way to test for that: People with actual opinions will engage in conversation, whereas shills can't, because, one, their scripts aren't that long, two, they aren't paid for that kind of thing, and, most importantly, they can't risk the conversation spinning out of control.

samdoidge 9y ago

Maybe, but we know astroturfing is real. Imagine that.

searine 9y ago
Astroturfing is real, but it is disingenuous to say that an entire side of a debate, particularly a scientific debate, is fake. It has a chilling effect and silences the discussion. An argument should be able to stand on its own regardless of whether an astroturf exists or not. Money doesn't change the facts, and astroturf is by definition finite. Facts, especially quantitative facts will win in the long term.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  >Money doesn't change the facts Money can make facts go unheard and/or unheeded. >astroturf is by definition finite. What definition says that? Astroturfing can be and is often automated >Facts, especially quantitative facts will win in the long term Many religions and mythologies seem to indicate otherwise
  - searine 9y ago
    >Money can make facts go unheard and/or unheeded. For a time. But people get bored, tired, and distracted. Facts are permanent. >What definition says that? Astroturfing can be and is often automated Servers cost money. Bandwidth costs money. Admins cost money. Businesses aren't going to fund astroturfing indefinitely. Even in the most extreme circumstances, like the climate change debate, the truth still dominates. >Many religions and mythologies seem to indicate otherwise You're right. Thats why modern science believes in creation, and the geocentric model. Clearly religion and mythology won out.
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      -Astroturfing can be done for free via botnet using other peoples machines -If the truth dominates in the climate change debate, why is it still being debated while the problem continues to get worse? -It remains that the majority of people on the planet have a religious faith, and those beliefs continue to affect government/state policy (i.e. bans on stem cell research, birth control etc) as it has for thousands of years

7sigma 9y ago

I've been accused of being a Monsanto shill so many times online, its not even funny. I researched a lot of the claims against Monsanto or GM crops and I found many of them untrue, largely exaggerated, although I do agree most of the Dicamba debacle is mostly Monsanto's fault. Ironically, there is a lot of propaganda pushed by the likes of USRTK and the OCA, calling anyone including university scientists that contradict them as Monsanto shills. These groups are also anti vaccine, against water fluoridation [1] etc... I've largely stopped arguing online, because conversations become really super polarised and sometimes nasty. Its hard to have an intelligent discussion. A good place to find info on these issues is the Food and Farm Discussion Lab https://facebook.com/groups/FAFDL/ https://facebook.com/groups/FAFDL/ [0] https://www.organicconsumers.org/essays/how-mainstream-media-insults-public%E2%80%99s-intelligence-vaccines https://www.organicconsumers.org/essays/how-mainstream-media... [1] https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/water-fluoridation-chemicals-now-officially-linked-brain-harm-cognitive-deficits https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/water-fluoridation-che...

specialist 9y ago
What slays me about the GMO debate is the misportrayal of my anti-GMO position, lumping me in with the anti-vaxxors, creationists, and defenders of Freedom Markets™.
- 7sigma 9y ago
  I see your point, but if you have someone that attacks vaccines or denies climate change, its really a sign that they put ideology before evidence
  - specialist 9y ago
    True. Carrying the flame long after the war has been lost is kinda pathetic. Then its more about identity (virtue signal, tribal affiliation) than anything else. I wish they'd just argue about sports teams.
- sampo 9y ago
  > What slays me about the GMO debate is the misportrayal of my anti-GMO position, lumping me in with the anti-vaxxors The scientific consensus on GMOs being safe is stronger than consensus on climate change. If you go against the scientific consensus, you are rightly labeled as being anti-science. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_6572130.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_657213... https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark-lynas/gmo-safety-debate-over https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark-lynas/gmo-s... http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/once-again-us-expert-panel-says-genetically-engineered-crops-are-safe-eat http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/once-again-us-expert-...

specialist 9y ago

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” — Upton Sinclair