7 ms·

I've noticed that Monsanto appears to be on an astroturfing campaign. Half of the ads appearing in my Reddit front page are promoted posts that are pro-glyphosa

I've noticed that Monsanto appears to be on an astroturfing campaign. Half of the ads appearing in my Reddit front page are promoted posts that are pro-glyphosate. They point to legitimate news articles, for example, that report on a study finding that glyphosate is not a carginogen. Of course, these studies contradict other studies that glyphosate is a carcinogen or otherwise a concern. In truth, I was ready to believe the pro-glypsophate studies until a contrary consensus formed. Because of this astroturfing campaign, I now have doubts.

exp1orer 8y ago
I recently read the great line: "Good ideas do not need lots of lies told about them in order to gain public acceptance." http://blog.danieldavies.com/2004/05/d-squared-digest-one-minute-mba.html http://blog.danieldavies.com/2004/05/d-squared-digest-one-mi...
- Gibbon1 8y ago
  I think this is the guy that gave me the gem. If a source is known to lie then the proper weight to place on information from that source is zero. AKA: You don't try and second guess anything that say, you ignore everything they say.
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    But it's tempting to assume the information is false, and if you do that, you could be making a big mistake. I assume by "zero weight" you mean you don't assume it's true or false, which is quite distinct. One way to look at it is that every statement is true, given sufficient context. The question is, how should it be interpreted, and what is it a true statement about? Generally, when a liar says something, it is intended to either make you believe it is true, or make you believe it is false, or confuse you. So there is true information being provided, it's just not the face value of the statement.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - Gibbon1 8y ago
      By weight I mean the multiplier used when summing it with all the other things you know. Meaning you don't use information from sources that lie to make decisions. Full Stop.
- gowld 8y ago
  Policy by aphorism is fraught: "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Howard_H._Aiken https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Howard_H._Aiken
tptacek 8y ago
There are no credible studies indicating that glyphosate is a carcinogen, and it would be a little bit surprising it if was, since it targets a metabolic pathway not present in animals. Meanwhile, many of the herbicides that glyphosate displace, plenty of which remain in use, are known human carcinogens. The most widely reported declaration of glyphosate's carcinogenicity, by IARC, was disavowed by the WHO, IARC's parent organization.
- dbasedweeb 8y ago
  My concern is best summed up by this comment from above: Every time the jury is out on a topic where one side has a vested interest and a billion dollar budget to protect it, you can be reasonably sure what the outcome will be. See: pesticides and bees, fossil fuels and climate change, food packaging plastics and cancer, pain treatment meds and addiction. The answer in all those cases is the harmful effects eventually became known, but the jury was out long enough for the vested interests to make a ton of profit and cause a ton of damage which they'll never pay for repairing. All made possible with a series of comparatively small investments to buy scientific research to keep the jury out. Even in non-borderline cases like tobacco, lots of money and power can really confuse the issue. This is definitely not as clear cut as tobacco, and I’d like the option to opt out of the lengthy, massive “trial period” in which the public gets to play guinea pig. The problem with this is that it’s very difficult to do that when the compound in question is unexpectedly ubiquitous.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    This isn't so much an argument as it is innuendo. If you get glyphosate carcinogenicity wrong, you increase carcinogenic agriculture, because that's what the market alternatives to it are: clearly known human carcinogens.
    - dbasedweeb 8y ago
      That isn’t so much an argument as a false dichotomy, predicated on a system of agriculture which allows a near 50% rate of wasteage in the West. The alternatives include less productive, yet still sufficiently productive methods which do not include carcinogenic compounds. Edit: Your state of being persuaded is immaterial, because what I said isn’t really controversial. One known alternative to herbacides is tilling, hardly a radical new invention and notably not carcinogenic. As I said up front, it would take more effort to produce crops, but simply by reducing waste you can more than make up for that. The use of ground cover, litter, and other established techniques all allow for large scale farming without herbacides. There are other alternatives, and adjunct techniques as well, for example: http://plen.ku.dk/english/news/2015/crops/ http://plen.ku.dk/english/news/2015/crops/ Stop wasting so much food because it isn’t pretty enough, and you can stop truffing carcinogens. That seems fair.
alexandercrohde 8y ago
You are correct. Court documents have shown Monsanto has paid online commenters to advocate on behalf of glyphosate in a program called "Let nothing go" (including facebook). These individuals, importantly, did NOT identify themselves as being paid advocates. [1 - actual court documents] https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MDLLetNothingGomotion.pdf https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MDLLetNothingGo... [2 - summary article ] https://www.organicconsumers.org/newsletter/organic-bytes-555-let-nothing-go-monsanto%E2%80%99s-attack-journalists-scientists/let-nothing-go https://www.organicconsumers.org/newsletter/organic-bytes-55...
PantaloonFlames 8y ago
> Because of this astroturfing campaign, I now have doubts. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the campaign were actually promoting the truth, and yet the effect it had on you was to persuade you of the opposite? Not trying to change the subject but I see a parallel in US politics. This is how Trumpers harden their beliefs. So much true reporting about Trump’s lies, results in people becoming more loyal to him. Confounding.
vertexFarm 8y ago
Reddit is a fantastic place for astroturf to sprout. It's almost designed explicitly for it. I don't know why people trust that place or mimic their awful system (such as this forum for instance)

exp1orer 8y ago

I recently read the great line: "Good ideas do not need lots of lies told about them in order to gain public acceptance." http://blog.danieldavies.com/2004/05/d-squared-digest-one-minute-mba.html http://blog.danieldavies.com/2004/05/d-squared-digest-one-mi...

Gibbon1 8y ago
I think this is the guy that gave me the gem. If a source is known to lie then the proper weight to place on information from that source is zero. AKA: You don't try and second guess anything that say, you ignore everything they say.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  But it's tempting to assume the information is false, and if you do that, you could be making a big mistake. I assume by "zero weight" you mean you don't assume it's true or false, which is quite distinct. One way to look at it is that every statement is true, given sufficient context. The question is, how should it be interpreted, and what is it a true statement about? Generally, when a liar says something, it is intended to either make you believe it is true, or make you believe it is false, or confuse you. So there is true information being provided, it's just not the face value of the statement.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Gibbon1 8y ago
    By weight I mean the multiplier used when summing it with all the other things you know. Meaning you don't use information from sources that lie to make decisions. Full Stop.
gowld 8y ago
Policy by aphorism is fraught: "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Howard_H._Aiken https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Howard_H._Aiken

tptacek 8y ago

There are no credible studies indicating that glyphosate is a carcinogen, and it would be a little bit surprising it if was, since it targets a metabolic pathway not present in animals. Meanwhile, many of the herbicides that glyphosate displace, plenty of which remain in use, are known human carcinogens. The most widely reported declaration of glyphosate's carcinogenicity, by IARC, was disavowed by the WHO, IARC's parent organization.

dbasedweeb 8y ago
My concern is best summed up by this comment from above: Every time the jury is out on a topic where one side has a vested interest and a billion dollar budget to protect it, you can be reasonably sure what the outcome will be. See: pesticides and bees, fossil fuels and climate change, food packaging plastics and cancer, pain treatment meds and addiction. The answer in all those cases is the harmful effects eventually became known, but the jury was out long enough for the vested interests to make a ton of profit and cause a ton of damage which they'll never pay for repairing. All made possible with a series of comparatively small investments to buy scientific research to keep the jury out. Even in non-borderline cases like tobacco, lots of money and power can really confuse the issue. This is definitely not as clear cut as tobacco, and I’d like the option to opt out of the lengthy, massive “trial period” in which the public gets to play guinea pig. The problem with this is that it’s very difficult to do that when the compound in question is unexpectedly ubiquitous.
- tptacek 8y ago
  This isn't so much an argument as it is innuendo. If you get glyphosate carcinogenicity wrong, you increase carcinogenic agriculture, because that's what the market alternatives to it are: clearly known human carcinogens.
  - dbasedweeb 8y ago
    That isn’t so much an argument as a false dichotomy, predicated on a system of agriculture which allows a near 50% rate of wasteage in the West. The alternatives include less productive, yet still sufficiently productive methods which do not include carcinogenic compounds. Edit: Your state of being persuaded is immaterial, because what I said isn’t really controversial. One known alternative to herbacides is tilling, hardly a radical new invention and notably not carcinogenic. As I said up front, it would take more effort to produce crops, but simply by reducing waste you can more than make up for that. The use of ground cover, litter, and other established techniques all allow for large scale farming without herbacides. There are other alternatives, and adjunct techniques as well, for example: http://plen.ku.dk/english/news/2015/crops/ http://plen.ku.dk/english/news/2015/crops/ Stop wasting so much food because it isn’t pretty enough, and you can stop truffing carcinogens. That seems fair.

alexandercrohde 8y ago

You are correct. Court documents have shown Monsanto has paid online commenters to advocate on behalf of glyphosate in a program called "Let nothing go" (including facebook). These individuals, importantly, did NOT identify themselves as being paid advocates. [1 - actual court documents] https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MDLLetNothingGomotion.pdf https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MDLLetNothingGo... [2 - summary article ] https://www.organicconsumers.org/newsletter/organic-bytes-555-let-nothing-go-monsanto%E2%80%99s-attack-journalists-scientists/let-nothing-go https://www.organicconsumers.org/newsletter/organic-bytes-55...

PantaloonFlames 8y ago

> Because of this astroturfing campaign, I now have doubts. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the campaign were actually promoting the truth, and yet the effect it had on you was to persuade you of the opposite? Not trying to change the subject but I see a parallel in US politics. This is how Trumpers harden their beliefs. So much true reporting about Trump’s lies, results in people becoming more loyal to him. Confounding.

vertexFarm 8y ago

Reddit is a fantastic place for astroturf to sprout. It's almost designed explicitly for it. I don't know why people trust that place or mimic their awful system (such as this forum for instance)