5 ms·

Take a look at this thread. Note all of the downvoted comments (many without replies), that critique the article, weigh-in negatively against Trump, or otherwis

Take a look at this thread. Note all of the downvoted comments (many without replies), that critique the article, weigh-in negatively against Trump, or otherwise seem supportive of the idea that there is a Russia problem. Seems we have a bit of a troll/bot/propaganda problem right here on HN.

thatoneuser 8y ago
It's because you're literally pulling a conclusion out of thin air to claim there's something of a trump related "Russia problem". It's not a bot conspiracy - that's lazy propaganda that's been spoon fed to people who dislike trump. There are just a lot of people on HN who see through it, and it's telling that rather than discuss the possibility that trump is clean, you just call them trolls and bots.
- unclebucknasty 8y ago
  >There are just a lot of people on HN who see through it I have seen zero reputable people on HN expressing anything that supports this assertion. >it's telling that rather than discuss the possibility that trump is clean, you just call them trolls and bots. Discuss with whom? The "people" who just downvote anything perceived to be anti-Trump or anti-Russia? That's the point. This isn't the first time that pattern has emerged on HN. Obviously, an online community with HN's makeup is a prized target. Or are you one of those who doesn't believe there have been any bots or trolls or other propaganda aimed at Americans? U.S. intelligence just made it up? Facebook and Twitter just made it up? It's all the Deep State is it? That, and liberal bias in social media? Trump colluded out in the open and continues to do so. A foreign adversary plotted to help him and a byzantine maze of people around him and his campaign have been indicted, pled guilty, lied about contacts with Russia, etc. But, it's all a coincidence and has nothing to do with Trump, the ignorant beneficiary? Meanwhile, Trump also oddly and consistently checks off the Russian dictator's bucket list, denigrating his own country (intel community, McCain, etc.) whenever it speaks ill of that dictator. In order to have people overlook all of this, he invents a conspiracy theory that a secret cabal of Republicans and Democrats within the government is plotting against him. And, that neatly explains everything that is not pro-Trump. Talk about lazy propaganda. It'a absurd. But, in order to defend him as "clean", absurdity and inane conspiracy theories are required, right down to the complete denial of reality.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - thatoneuser 8y ago
    There can be Russian bots and they not be connected to trump. The fact that you don't understand that is exactly what I'm referring to. He's clean. There's literally no evidence he's not. Muellers report is done and after the Intel agencies working for nearly 3 years - they got nothing. It's probably hard for you to see, but you're literally doing the thing you're frantically and emphatically complaining is happening on the right.
s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago
People who disagree with you aren't always trolls or bots. There are people out there with differing views. Red states have internet too. And not like it justifies the Russians, but MediaMatters bots Reddit for the DNC. I don't think HackerNews is a big enough target for anyone tbh.
- unclebucknasty 8y ago
  >People who disagree with you aren't always trolls or bots >There are people out there with differing views Strawmen. >And not like it justifies the Russians, but MediaMatters bots Reddit for the DNC Citation? What's your point, anyway? This is just what-aboutism that has nothing to do with the question at-hand. Obviously. >I don't think HackerNews is a big enough target for anyone tbh The HN community is sizeable and traffic from articles posted on HN routinely knocks sites offline. Additionally, some of the sharpest technical minds online hang out here. Of course it's a rich target. Your comment is all deflection and strawmen. Not much unlike the standard propaganda of the day.
  - s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago
    Lol, you just yelled strawmen over and over and called my comment propaganda without furthering your point at all. You're the one who speculated there are bots here. Just because there are comments without replies and downvotes. Unless you're psychic or you know Putin you don't have any proof of that, so it's wild speculation. My point was those are more than likely real people with differing views. That's way more likely than some bot being farmed on a random topic on HN.
    - dang 8y ago
      Personal attacks will get you banned here. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting to HN from now on?
      - s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago
dang 8y ago
You've broken more than one of the site guidelines in this thread, particularly the ones that ask you not to insinuate astroturfing and not to go further into flamewar. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and abstain from doing these things here, hard though that can be. The internet reflex where people assume that only trolls, bots, or shills can explain something they dislike online, is off topic here. It has also become so self-parodically common that one can only hope it will jump the shark soon.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- unclebucknasty 8y ago
  >Please review... Sure. Will have a look at the guidelines and appreciate the pointer, as well as the job you have to do. >The internet reflex where people assume that only trolls, bots, or shills can explain something they dislike online, is off topic here. It has also become so self-parodically common that one can only hope it will jump the shark soon. But, I don't appreciate the additional editorializing and don't believe your attempt to ridicule me here stands up to your own guidelines. Add to that the fact that you are a moderator, and the standard to which you hold yourself should be even higher. And, that speaks only to the style you chose here. On the substance, of course we know that my pointing to what I noted as an observable pattern vs merely "something I dislike online" are two entirely different matters. We also know that such things as trolls and shills continue to exist, even if some too readily make the claim that they are present. As for me, you will very rarely find those claims in my history here and, where I have applied it, you might even be surprised at the patterns were you to look more closely. Or not. I could certainly be wrong. But, as it is, you've restated my position so as to trivialize it, then ridiculed it. In so doing, you've moved it from "hey, please don't do that here, as it's a violation" to "here's my opinion of your comment". If you want to be part of the discussion to make some additional point about what you think of people who, say, display an "internet reflex" you disdain, then perhaps use a throwaway. But, as it is, I would have difficulty seeing how your comment doesn't "further a flamewar", apart from your position as a moderator precluding members from engaging with you in such.

thatoneuser 8y ago

It's because you're literally pulling a conclusion out of thin air to claim there's something of a trump related "Russia problem". It's not a bot conspiracy - that's lazy propaganda that's been spoon fed to people who dislike trump. There are just a lot of people on HN who see through it, and it's telling that rather than discuss the possibility that trump is clean, you just call them trolls and bots.

unclebucknasty 8y ago
>There are just a lot of people on HN who see through it I have seen zero reputable people on HN expressing anything that supports this assertion. >it's telling that rather than discuss the possibility that trump is clean, you just call them trolls and bots. Discuss with whom? The "people" who just downvote anything perceived to be anti-Trump or anti-Russia? That's the point. This isn't the first time that pattern has emerged on HN. Obviously, an online community with HN's makeup is a prized target. Or are you one of those who doesn't believe there have been any bots or trolls or other propaganda aimed at Americans? U.S. intelligence just made it up? Facebook and Twitter just made it up? It's all the Deep State is it? That, and liberal bias in social media? Trump colluded out in the open and continues to do so. A foreign adversary plotted to help him and a byzantine maze of people around him and his campaign have been indicted, pled guilty, lied about contacts with Russia, etc. But, it's all a coincidence and has nothing to do with Trump, the ignorant beneficiary? Meanwhile, Trump also oddly and consistently checks off the Russian dictator's bucket list, denigrating his own country (intel community, McCain, etc.) whenever it speaks ill of that dictator. In order to have people overlook all of this, he invents a conspiracy theory that a secret cabal of Republicans and Democrats within the government is plotting against him. And, that neatly explains everything that is not pro-Trump. Talk about lazy propaganda. It'a absurd. But, in order to defend him as "clean", absurdity and inane conspiracy theories are required, right down to the complete denial of reality.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- thatoneuser 8y ago
  There can be Russian bots and they not be connected to trump. The fact that you don't understand that is exactly what I'm referring to. He's clean. There's literally no evidence he's not. Muellers report is done and after the Intel agencies working for nearly 3 years - they got nothing. It's probably hard for you to see, but you're literally doing the thing you're frantically and emphatically complaining is happening on the right.

s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago

People who disagree with you aren't always trolls or bots. There are people out there with differing views. Red states have internet too. And not like it justifies the Russians, but MediaMatters bots Reddit for the DNC. I don't think HackerNews is a big enough target for anyone tbh.

unclebucknasty 8y ago
>People who disagree with you aren't always trolls or bots >There are people out there with differing views Strawmen. >And not like it justifies the Russians, but MediaMatters bots Reddit for the DNC Citation? What's your point, anyway? This is just what-aboutism that has nothing to do with the question at-hand. Obviously. >I don't think HackerNews is a big enough target for anyone tbh The HN community is sizeable and traffic from articles posted on HN routinely knocks sites offline. Additionally, some of the sharpest technical minds online hang out here. Of course it's a rich target. Your comment is all deflection and strawmen. Not much unlike the standard propaganda of the day.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago
  Lol, you just yelled strawmen over and over and called my comment propaganda without furthering your point at all. You're the one who speculated there are bots here. Just because there are comments without replies and downvotes. Unless you're psychic or you know Putin you don't have any proof of that, so it's wild speculation. My point was those are more than likely real people with differing views. That's way more likely than some bot being farmed on a random topic on HN.
  - dang 8y ago
    Personal attacks will get you banned here. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting to HN from now on?
    - s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago

dang 8y ago

You've broken more than one of the site guidelines in this thread, particularly the ones that ask you not to insinuate astroturfing and not to go further into flamewar. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and abstain from doing these things here, hard though that can be. The internet reflex where people assume that only trolls, bots, or shills can explain something they dislike online, is off topic here. It has also become so self-parodically common that one can only hope it will jump the shark soon.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
unclebucknasty 8y ago
>Please review... Sure. Will have a look at the guidelines and appreciate the pointer, as well as the job you have to do. >The internet reflex where people assume that only trolls, bots, or shills can explain something they dislike online, is off topic here. It has also become so self-parodically common that one can only hope it will jump the shark soon. But, I don't appreciate the additional editorializing and don't believe your attempt to ridicule me here stands up to your own guidelines. Add to that the fact that you are a moderator, and the standard to which you hold yourself should be even higher. And, that speaks only to the style you chose here. On the substance, of course we know that my pointing to what I noted as an observable pattern vs merely "something I dislike online" are two entirely different matters. We also know that such things as trolls and shills continue to exist, even if some too readily make the claim that they are present. As for me, you will very rarely find those claims in my history here and, where I have applied it, you might even be surprised at the patterns were you to look more closely. Or not. I could certainly be wrong. But, as it is, you've restated my position so as to trivialize it, then ridiculed it. In so doing, you've moved it from "hey, please don't do that here, as it's a violation" to "here's my opinion of your comment". If you want to be part of the discussion to make some additional point about what you think of people who, say, display an "internet reflex" you disdain, then perhaps use a throwaway. But, as it is, I would have difficulty seeing how your comment doesn't "further a flamewar", apart from your position as a moderator precluding members from engaging with you in such.