3 ms·

I read a story about in a Danish paper, maybe half a year back. I can’t find the link for it unfortunately, but the general consensus is that it hasn’t stopped

by jaabe 8y ago

I read a story about in a Danish paper, maybe half a year back. I can’t find the link for it unfortunately, but the general consensus is that it hasn’t stopped at all. It also outlined how it was affecting everyone. Basically those troll factories will post a bunch of stuff in various internet communities, and then they’ll use data analytics to see what worked and double down on the susceptible communities. The journalists and their scientific sources weren’t able to find a specific agenda outside of “Russia good, west bad”, because they’d target everything from debates on avocado toasts to making political sides hate each other. I personally think that is what is so dangerous about it. I mean, looking beyond governments there is a massive application possibility for this in hidden advertising, and how can you really tell if a person on HN is authentic or on some agenda?

thinkingemote 8y ago
Your last sentence reminds me of a common comment on the subreddit hailcorporate. If people talk about brands authentically they become ads. just because people submit things that look like ads doesn't mean they are paid to do so. If we invest a couple thousand each year in Apple devices and use them every day is our opinion about Apple authentic or are we a self driving autonomous advertisment for Apple?
- yesenadam 8y ago
  Yeah, I also don't like that word 'agenda'. Like "That person has an agenda".. it seems akin to 'bias' - they're mental diseases only other people have. "I'm passionate, he has an agenda." They're fallacies, I think. They do the magical job of lifting oneself up to a superior, more scientific, objective footing, just by saying the words, turning mere disagreement into victory. "You're biased" - (and I'm not - I win). "You have an agenda" - (and I don't - so I win). Also it assumes you have good reasons for your beliefs while the other person doesn't. Which really isn't assuming good faith, or good anything. It's surprising that tactic wasn't exploded and permanently run out of town long ago. Don't get me started on "authentic"! :-)

by jaabe 8y ago

thinkingemote 8y ago

Your last sentence reminds me of a common comment on the subreddit hailcorporate. If people talk about brands authentically they become ads. just because people submit things that look like ads doesn't mean they are paid to do so. If we invest a couple thousand each year in Apple devices and use them every day is our opinion about Apple authentic or are we a self driving autonomous advertisment for Apple?

yesenadam 8y ago
Yeah, I also don't like that word 'agenda'. Like "That person has an agenda".. it seems akin to 'bias' - they're mental diseases only other people have. "I'm passionate, he has an agenda." They're fallacies, I think. They do the magical job of lifting oneself up to a superior, more scientific, objective footing, just by saying the words, turning mere disagreement into victory. "You're biased" - (and I'm not - I win). "You have an agenda" - (and I don't - so I win). Also it assumes you have good reasons for your beliefs while the other person doesn't. Which really isn't assuming good faith, or good anything. It's surprising that tactic wasn't exploded and permanently run out of town long ago. Don't get me started on "authentic"! :-)