7 ms·

What do nuclear power trolls look like? I support nuclear power (instead of fossil fuels and in addition to renewables) and, sadly, I haven't got a cent from th

by Twixes 7y ago

What do nuclear power trolls look like? I support nuclear power (instead of fossil fuels and in addition to renewables) and, sadly, I haven't got a cent from the nuclear industry yet.

RobertRoberts 7y ago
You will see "we need nuclear power because it's the greenest/most renewable/etc... energy" type posts dispersed all through social media almost anywhere there's a discussion about climate change, renewable energy, etc... Even if the original topic was only tangentially related it will get changed. A post with puppy photos can turn into a climate change discussion because "nuclear power is so green". It's so common now that it's uncanny.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  It's also possible that the self selected bunch of people who discuss energy on HN happen to like nuclear more than the general public. It doesn't have to be trolls.
  - RobertRoberts 7y ago
    I don't tend to find comments on HN the same as other social media because discussion is often brought up because of comments. Drive-by comment bombing doesn't work here the same as other places.
    - philwelch 7y ago
      I could characterize this entire argument of yours as "drive-by comment bombing", thus backing my (facetious, rhetorical) claim that you are a shill for the photovoltaic industry.
      - RobertRoberts 7y ago
        Do you believe only government pays trolls to comment online? And no industry does this?
        philwelch 7y ago
        You’re asking me to prove a negative. That’s not how it works. You’re the one trying to advance a theory. My counter argument here is simple: 1. You have outlined a pattern of behavior that in your opinion indicates that someone is a paid shill. 2. However you yourself have engaged in the exact pattern of behavior you describe. 3. Therefore we are left with two options: A: Your theory is correct, and you are a paid shill for renewables. B: You are not a paid shill, and hence the pattern of behavior you describe is not actually strong evidence of shilling. Which one is it?
        RobertRoberts 7y ago
        I will restate my original post, which I agree with you could have been more ideally written: "I don't think it's just government, but also likely industries as well. I've seen what could only be trolling for support of multiple industries." Since this was my intent to state in the first place, do you disagree with this because you think it's impossible? Or because you think it's unlikely? Or some other reason? The original post demonstrated proof that governments pay trolls, do you believe the only customers for these businesses are governments?
        philwelch 7y ago
        If you're so eager to shrug off the burden of proof, you have no business making those kinds of claims in the first place.
        RobertRoberts 7y ago
        The burden of proof on this subject is incredibly low. Corporate espionage has been around for a long time, this is far less damaging/shocking/expensive than that. I'd say it's almost a forgone conclusion that it's happening. Edit: From 2015 https://curiousmatic.com/professional-trolls/ https://curiousmatic.com/professional-trolls/ Link in the article to Monsanto trolling: https://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-and-others-caught-paying-internet-trolls-to-attack-activists/ https://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-and-others-caught-paying...
- philwelch 7y ago
  Climate change is an issue that people talk about a lot, and nuclear power is a carbon-neutral form of energy, so it might just be a relevant and popular argument around the circles you frequent. If I had to guess at any motivation other than a lot of people actually liking nuclear power, it would probably be that nuclear power is one of the few controversies where a reasonably intelligent person can easily grasp a series of basic arguments and then virtue-signal about being more scientifically literate than the unwashed masses. It's basically the same social dynamic that used to motivate the type of people who argued with creationists and climate change deniers. It's also the Generically Dumbest Conspiracy Theory On The Internet to say "everybody who disagrees with me is a paid shill". People on the internet tend to hold and express opinions because it's an emotionally compelling thing to do, not because they're being paid off by Westinghouse or George Soros or whoever. It's literally an accusation you're making without evidence--I could just as easily suggest that maybe YOU'RE a shill for the photovoltaic industry? ;)
  - RobertRoberts 7y ago
    If a discussion is about halloween costumes and then another person asks a pointed question about [material/structure/use/etc...] and then devolves into nearly perfect corporate speak supporting [sponsored industry]. No big deal. But if this happens frequently on a wide range of topics, on a regular basis it gets to a point where a rational person has to question the validity of the information source. Edit: clarity
    - jdsully 7y ago
      Many people, myself included, see Nuclear as inseparable from climate change and green energy. We could dramatically cut our greenhouse emissions now, with technology we've had since the 1960s. It's really hard not to point out when people start talking about better solar and battery storage that we could be solving this problem right now with tech we already have. Instead our solution to climate change keeps being pushed out into the nebulous future because people refuse to look at the obvious solution.
      - 7y ago
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  I don't like taking offence, but I do find it quite offensive you've reduced mine and many others' opinions on nuclear energy to trolling. Most discussions online actually tend to have similar themes, topics and tropes. Even here on HN, there's occasionally jokes like "cool, how long before they shut it down" on Google's products as an example. There's nothing wrong with this comment but it has the patterns you also ascribed to trolls.
- ivanhoe 7y ago
  Frankly, pro-solar people started doing that first, but yes pro-nuclear internet warriors are catching up. I find it useful, how ever strange that might sound - it actually promotes the dialog. Unfortunately in todays highly populist politics the loudest group usually gets to shape the public policies, so fighting noise with noise equalizes the outcome, and thus increases chances that someone in the end will actually consult some experts too.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Teever 7y ago
  Let's run with your idea and let's say that there are clandestine efforts to promote the idea of nuclear power generation in the public -- cui bono? Who benefits? Are there any major initiatives in the nuclear industry? Are any new plants starting to be built? All I've seen is a bunch of plants that have horrible cost overruns and no fixed time line for being finished. That doesn't sound like something that you'd want to raise public awareness about if you were in the nuclear industry. So who does this kind of campaign benefit if not the nuclear industry? It doesn't seem to benefit the oil and gas industry who are without a doubt the masters and originators of propaganda in this market. It doesn't benefit solar and wind generators -- so who?
  - RobertRoberts 7y ago
    I don't know, but maybe discussing it will bring some light to this subject? Maybe a system/method to determine who is a professional troll? ----- Pro-Troll Filter: (first draft) 1. Is the commenter able to rationally discuss the downsides of their position? NO? Possibly a pro-troll or an irrational comment. 2. Is the commenter willing to admit past errors in implementing of their ideal solution, and also consider the same errors could occur again? (ie, no true Scotsman logical fallacy) NO? Possibly a pro-troll or an irrational comment. 3. Is the commenter willing to look at and/or discuss real data, even if it contradicts their position? NO? Possibly a pro-troll or an irrational comment. 4. Does the commenter devolve into ad hominem attacks? YES? Possibly a pro-troll or an irrational comment. ---- Irrationality note: People have bad days and can act irrationally at any time. But I have found that when someone is unable/unwilling to admit error tries to support an idea based on limited information will devolve into irrational comments when challenged with counter arguments/questions. Not sure how this will help with pro-troll filtering, but it's more data to consider.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
      Why would a paid troll degenerate to irrationally? If anyone is going to have a script and long list of references to draw from, wouldn’t it be the paid shill? Provided by their employer? It seems more likely to me that most people are just an emotional wreck and don’t perform well in debate.
- AngryData 7y ago
  I mean, some people like myself view nuclear power as the only currently known feasible way of satisfying all our power needs into the future, not just to produce clean electrical energy, but to also fuel carbon sequestration efforts and clean chemical and material synthesis. So anytime climate change, green technology, or anything related to such topics come up it is only natural for nuclear power to eventually pop up also.
  - RobertRoberts 7y ago
    My point was that it wasn't just governments using paid trolls. It's unfortunate that I mentioned "nuclear" without adding other industries to buffer that one. No one takes issue with me listing the "medical industry" as paying for trolls, not sure why so many care about nuclear over the medical industry here...
- stjohnswarts 7y ago
  Not it's not, imagine a world where we have steady, dependable power with nuclear power sources and supplemental power with solar and wind where it makes sense. I don't know a single nuclear power fan who doesn't also support other relatively clean power sources as well. All I ever hears is "but radiation!" and not much more to argue against it. We have perfectly sufficient ideas on containing the byproducts.
- hoseja 7y ago
  But it's also true and good.
thinkcontext 7y ago
Here's a documented example of Entergy paying people to pack a public hearing on building a power plant (not nuclear). https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nola.com/news/article_3344391c-2c85-51e7-945f-ce68491b6981.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nola.com/news/article_33443... Astroturfing is incredibly common, it's part of many public relations firms standard services. In person actors are obviously more expensive than their online equivalent but it's all just viewed as a tool for a campaign.
MisterTea 7y ago
> What do nuclear power trolls look like? A glow in the dark Shrek I suppose.
stjohnswarts 7y ago
Yeah I don't get that. Often online SJW and others accuse people of being a troll if they aren't being agreed with. That's why the universal principal of Free Speech should be observed if you want to keep it. I continue to support nuclear energy whenever I can. We need far more research into Fusion and new generations of fission reactors that -can't- go critical and the other side continues to use unfounded nimby-ism to prevent new reactors from being built.

by Twixes 7y ago

What do nuclear power trolls look like? I support nuclear power (instead of fossil fuels and in addition to renewables) and, sadly, I haven't got a cent from the nuclear industry yet.

RobertRoberts 7y ago

You will see "we need nuclear power because it's the greenest/most renewable/etc... energy" type posts dispersed all through social media almost anywhere there's a discussion about climate change, renewable energy, etc... Even if the original topic was only tangentially related it will get changed. A post with puppy photos can turn into a climate change discussion because "nuclear power is so green". It's so common now that it's uncanny.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
It's also possible that the self selected bunch of people who discuss energy on HN happen to like nuclear more than the general public. It doesn't have to be trolls.
- RobertRoberts 7y ago
  I don't tend to find comments on HN the same as other social media because discussion is often brought up because of comments. Drive-by comment bombing doesn't work here the same as other places.
  - philwelch 7y ago
    I could characterize this entire argument of yours as "drive-by comment bombing", thus backing my (facetious, rhetorical) claim that you are a shill for the photovoltaic industry.
    - RobertRoberts 7y ago
      Do you believe only government pays trolls to comment online? And no industry does this?
      - philwelch 7y ago
        You’re asking me to prove a negative. That’s not how it works. You’re the one trying to advance a theory. My counter argument here is simple: 1. You have outlined a pattern of behavior that in your opinion indicates that someone is a paid shill. 2. However you yourself have engaged in the exact pattern of behavior you describe. 3. Therefore we are left with two options: A: Your theory is correct, and you are a paid shill for renewables. B: You are not a paid shill, and hence the pattern of behavior you describe is not actually strong evidence of shilling. Which one is it?
        RobertRoberts 7y ago
        I will restate my original post, which I agree with you could have been more ideally written: "I don't think it's just government, but also likely industries as well. I've seen what could only be trolling for support of multiple industries." Since this was my intent to state in the first place, do you disagree with this because you think it's impossible? Or because you think it's unlikely? Or some other reason? The original post demonstrated proof that governments pay trolls, do you believe the only customers for these businesses are governments?
        philwelch 7y ago
        If you're so eager to shrug off the burden of proof, you have no business making those kinds of claims in the first place.
        RobertRoberts 7y ago
        The burden of proof on this subject is incredibly low. Corporate espionage has been around for a long time, this is far less damaging/shocking/expensive than that. I'd say it's almost a forgone conclusion that it's happening. Edit: From 2015 https://curiousmatic.com/professional-trolls/ https://curiousmatic.com/professional-trolls/ Link in the article to Monsanto trolling: https://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-and-others-caught-paying-internet-trolls-to-attack-activists/ https://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-and-others-caught-paying...
philwelch 7y ago
Climate change is an issue that people talk about a lot, and nuclear power is a carbon-neutral form of energy, so it might just be a relevant and popular argument around the circles you frequent. If I had to guess at any motivation other than a lot of people actually liking nuclear power, it would probably be that nuclear power is one of the few controversies where a reasonably intelligent person can easily grasp a series of basic arguments and then virtue-signal about being more scientifically literate than the unwashed masses. It's basically the same social dynamic that used to motivate the type of people who argued with creationists and climate change deniers. It's also the Generically Dumbest Conspiracy Theory On The Internet to say "everybody who disagrees with me is a paid shill". People on the internet tend to hold and express opinions because it's an emotionally compelling thing to do, not because they're being paid off by Westinghouse or George Soros or whoever. It's literally an accusation you're making without evidence--I could just as easily suggest that maybe YOU'RE a shill for the photovoltaic industry? ;)
- RobertRoberts 7y ago
  If a discussion is about halloween costumes and then another person asks a pointed question about [material/structure/use/etc...] and then devolves into nearly perfect corporate speak supporting [sponsored industry]. No big deal. But if this happens frequently on a wide range of topics, on a regular basis it gets to a point where a rational person has to question the validity of the information source. Edit: clarity
  - jdsully 7y ago
    Many people, myself included, see Nuclear as inseparable from climate change and green energy. We could dramatically cut our greenhouse emissions now, with technology we've had since the 1960s. It's really hard not to point out when people start talking about better solar and battery storage that we could be solving this problem right now with tech we already have. Instead our solution to climate change keeps being pushed out into the nebulous future because people refuse to look at the obvious solution.
    - 7y ago
cameronbrown 7y ago
I don't like taking offence, but I do find it quite offensive you've reduced mine and many others' opinions on nuclear energy to trolling. Most discussions online actually tend to have similar themes, topics and tropes. Even here on HN, there's occasionally jokes like "cool, how long before they shut it down" on Google's products as an example. There's nothing wrong with this comment but it has the patterns you also ascribed to trolls.
ivanhoe 7y ago
Frankly, pro-solar people started doing that first, but yes pro-nuclear internet warriors are catching up. I find it useful, how ever strange that might sound - it actually promotes the dialog. Unfortunately in todays highly populist politics the loudest group usually gets to shape the public policies, so fighting noise with noise equalizes the outcome, and thus increases chances that someone in the end will actually consult some experts too.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Teever 7y ago
Let's run with your idea and let's say that there are clandestine efforts to promote the idea of nuclear power generation in the public -- cui bono? Who benefits? Are there any major initiatives in the nuclear industry? Are any new plants starting to be built? All I've seen is a bunch of plants that have horrible cost overruns and no fixed time line for being finished. That doesn't sound like something that you'd want to raise public awareness about if you were in the nuclear industry. So who does this kind of campaign benefit if not the nuclear industry? It doesn't seem to benefit the oil and gas industry who are without a doubt the masters and originators of propaganda in this market. It doesn't benefit solar and wind generators -- so who?
- RobertRoberts 7y ago
  I don't know, but maybe discussing it will bring some light to this subject? Maybe a system/method to determine who is a professional troll? ----- Pro-Troll Filter: (first draft) 1. Is the commenter able to rationally discuss the downsides of their position? NO? Possibly a pro-troll or an irrational comment. 2. Is the commenter willing to admit past errors in implementing of their ideal solution, and also consider the same errors could occur again? (ie, no true Scotsman logical fallacy) NO? Possibly a pro-troll or an irrational comment. 3. Is the commenter willing to look at and/or discuss real data, even if it contradicts their position? NO? Possibly a pro-troll or an irrational comment. 4. Does the commenter devolve into ad hominem attacks? YES? Possibly a pro-troll or an irrational comment. ---- Irrationality note: People have bad days and can act irrationally at any time. But I have found that when someone is unable/unwilling to admit error tries to support an idea based on limited information will devolve into irrational comments when challenged with counter arguments/questions. Not sure how this will help with pro-troll filtering, but it's more data to consider.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
    Why would a paid troll degenerate to irrationally? If anyone is going to have a script and long list of references to draw from, wouldn’t it be the paid shill? Provided by their employer? It seems more likely to me that most people are just an emotional wreck and don’t perform well in debate.
AngryData 7y ago
I mean, some people like myself view nuclear power as the only currently known feasible way of satisfying all our power needs into the future, not just to produce clean electrical energy, but to also fuel carbon sequestration efforts and clean chemical and material synthesis. So anytime climate change, green technology, or anything related to such topics come up it is only natural for nuclear power to eventually pop up also.
- RobertRoberts 7y ago
  My point was that it wasn't just governments using paid trolls. It's unfortunate that I mentioned "nuclear" without adding other industries to buffer that one. No one takes issue with me listing the "medical industry" as paying for trolls, not sure why so many care about nuclear over the medical industry here...
stjohnswarts 7y ago
Not it's not, imagine a world where we have steady, dependable power with nuclear power sources and supplemental power with solar and wind where it makes sense. I don't know a single nuclear power fan who doesn't also support other relatively clean power sources as well. All I ever hears is "but radiation!" and not much more to argue against it. We have perfectly sufficient ideas on containing the byproducts.
hoseja 7y ago
But it's also true and good.

thinkcontext 7y ago

Here's a documented example of Entergy paying people to pack a public hearing on building a power plant (not nuclear). https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nola.com/news/article_3344391c-2c85-51e7-945f-ce68491b6981.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nola.com/news/article_33443... Astroturfing is incredibly common, it's part of many public relations firms standard services. In person actors are obviously more expensive than their online equivalent but it's all just viewed as a tool for a campaign.

MisterTea 7y ago

> What do nuclear power trolls look like? A glow in the dark Shrek I suppose.

stjohnswarts 7y ago

Yeah I don't get that. Often online SJW and others accuse people of being a troll if they aren't being agreed with. That's why the universal principal of Free Speech should be observed if you want to keep it. I continue to support nuclear energy whenever I can. We need far more research into Fusion and new generations of fission reactors that -can't- go critical and the other side continues to use unfounded nimby-ism to prevent new reactors from being built.