Imagine if every time a nerdy news site got popular and influential, a whole group of astroturfers descended on it. At first it would be companies with commerc

Imagine if every time a nerdy news site got popular and influential, a whole group of astroturfers descended on it. At first it would be companies with commercial interests (and sometimes the nerdy news site would even be formed by a company as a kind of place to express and maybe influence opinions). As the nerdy news site became more and more popular, the news stories would shift from highly technical issues, to more political ones. Over time, the comments section would start to become more polarised as people rallied to support their chosen points of view. Conversations and ideas would carefully be stoked or extinguished by people wishing to push the concensus view in one direction or the other. At some point it becomes really obvious what is happening. Anybody who lived through the rise and fall of Slashdot has already seen it. However, before it becomes really obvious, is it actually clear what's going on? Does one really understand one is being manipulated? When one jumps into a conversation and pushes an important point, is it obvious that the point originated at this very nerdy news site? Are we all clear on how we formed our ideas, who influenced us and where we got the supporting evidence to convince ourselves that we've got it right? Or do we rely on our gut feelings and participate in the echo chamber? I don't believe anybody really understands the extent to which they are manipulated. That's the nature of manipulation.