6 ms·

Don’t get it, can one group of people not represent the same interest in two different states? How is this scandal? edit: tons of claims and downvotes, not on

Don’t get it, can one group of people not represent the same interest in two different states? How is this scandal? edit: tons of claims and downvotes, not one hard bit of evidence to show this is not an authentic organization. IDK, maybe it’s not, I don’t actually care, but I thought bullshit baseless claims weren’t supposed to be accepted here?

paulgb 6y ago
Have you looked at the sites? They go pretty far out of their way to seem like they are locals speaking independently. Astroturfing is generally scandal-worthy.
- SlowRobotAhead 6y ago
  Ok, so your claim is that one org representing two states could not poll and get local comments from actual people in those two states? Edit: can’t reply to claim below but have yet to see any evidence this isn’t an authentic org that represents two states. Why can leadership of this org not be people from these states?
  - untog 6y ago
    > As a true grassroots movement we are comprised of farmers, doctors, mechanics, teachers, hunters, military personnel, and retirees. These are the people that we report to—not a boss 1,000 miles away who doesn’t understand Minnesota and what Minnesotans want. That quote is a sample of what the entire page is like: Minnesota, by Minnesota, for Minnesota. It’s very clear that they’re trying to signal they are something other than what they really are. The article goes into detail on who actually owns the site.
  - Tagbert 6y ago
    The problem isn’t that it is one organization but it is going out of it’s way to hide that. That suggests that it’s motives are not quite what it professes. An honest organization can operate in multiple states but is open about that. What are they trying to hide?
PragmaticPulp 6y ago
> How is this scandal? When political organizations with ulterior motives try to disguise their work as a grassroots movement, it's called astroturfing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing Also, it should go without saying that an organization actively organizing people to defy critical Coronavirus-related quarantine procedures is a scandal, regardless of the source. The fact that a political organization is trying to obfuscate the source of the dissent is even more scandalous.
- SlowRobotAhead 6y ago
  Can you source this is not a grassroots organization? Because I see the claim, and the assumption, but again, I don’t know how it’s scandal that one org can’t represent their topic in two states. edit: apparently not. Everyone wants to believe it’s true, so it is
  - millstone 6y ago
    This is like the Tea Party: there really is an authentic grassroots movement, AND it is being organized and promoted by a range of elite conservative institutions, including Fox News and the White House.
    - SlowRobotAhead 6y ago
      Citation? I believe you of course. I just would like to see the evidence for all of this. Edit: no, apparently no citation is coming. Wild claims, no sources. Just blame Fox News the one mostly conservative outlet compared to the hundred counterparts like it’s still 2008
      - millstone 6y ago
        The article gives examples of the President's tweets supporting the movement, and Fox News routinely airs positive coverage of the rallies. This WaPo article gives many more examples of ties between Facebook organizing groups and national organizations: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/19/pro-gun-activists-using-facebook-groups-push-anti-quarantine-protests/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/19/pro-gun... The protestor opinions is clearly in the minority. That said, protestors aren't being bussed in. People are choosing to show up to these rallies. The movement is authentic, it will get people killed, and that's why it needs to be grappled with. Dismissing it as inauthentic will get even more people killed.
brlewis 6y ago
Yes, one group of people can represent the same interest in two different states. The objection is to "sites that seemed to be engaged in astroturfing, which involves masking the sponsors of a message or organization to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants"
- whiddershins 6y ago
  Yeah, I see that, but I’m not sure there is an assumption that the demonstrations are “grassroots” and also ... define grassroots?
  - benignslime 6y ago
    arf arf
  - KirinDave 6y ago
    I'm not sure many people believe they are grassroots, but they certainly present themselves as grassroots. Each site claims to be an independent association of local businesses rather than a centralized organization from one bankroller. Is it "grassroots?" Surely we can less authentic than if it was organized by genuine residents of that state's population, no?
jindango 6y ago
I don't think the point being made is that they can't share the same interest or the same organization but accusing the creators of astroturfing (Dorr brothers, Freedom Works, In Pursuit of LLc), being opportunists, and even foreign bad actors / agitators (Russian "Valentine Sons").
geofft 6y ago
> Don’t get it, can one group of people not represent the same interest in two different states? No, one group of people cannot represent a grassroots, self-organized group in two different states. Once so represented, it is no longer grassroots. If I have lunch with a bunch of coworkers and convince them that Ruby would be way better than Python and we should switch, and then three different teams in three different offices start advocating for it, and I wrote the team's wiki page on why they should switch, there may well be genuine interest in switching - but there is not grassroots interest. They can absolutely say "We were convinced by 'geofft and we agree with this page 'geofft wrote." They cannot legitimately say "We came to this conclusion on our own."
- berryjerry 6y ago
  I have to disagree with this for several reasons. First, defining grass roots as independent events is not the typically used definition. It simply means trying to get support at the local level to most people. For instance the Bernie Sanders campaign was considered "grass roots," but those people were usually all convinced by a national voice, Bernie Sanders, potentially use advertisement dollars collected by different states. Secondly, there are many situations where any organizer tries to make changes in different states and thus creates multiple websites. Thirdly, in literally 10 minutes I could buy the domains and create both of those websites with about $50 and in less time if I knew an activist who had a template for it. Perhaps a friend who just created a website for another state? This doesn't take a massive organization or entity to push an agenda. Lastly, it seems extremely likely to me that this agenda, affecting the entire country, is very likely to be sought by any of the over 20 million people who recently claimed unemployment benefits, or the many millions more who also lost their job and simply have not filed for unemployment yet, or the business owners who are getting their livelihoods destroyed. I'm not seeing the great leap here where astroturfing would even be necessary given the current situation and feeling of the populace for a couple of cheap websites.
  - ryandrake 6y ago
    Right. Astroturfing is characterized by the deception and obfuscation, not by whether it’s coordinated or not. This is clearly astroturfing because the organizers are trying to hide the fact that it is coordinated and presumably led by a small number of interests.
mturmon 6y ago
A lot of reasons and context have been given. I’ll add one. The common infrastructure indicates that someone centralized is directing this and paying for it. One naturally wonders, Who? Part of the power of grassroots protest is that it indicates that citizens are moved to act on their own. But if it’s paid for, that’s very different.
- vanniv 6y ago
  Yeah, I know. But seriously, we are talking about 50 domain names and cheap websites. Like, I'm not involved, but if I decided that I thought it was important, I could personally create a protest website for each of the 50 states. $8/year per .com domain name, and $10/month for enough shared hosting for all 50 sites for now (or be fancy and spend $50/month for virtual private hosting and know you'll have room to grow). A few hundred bucks will buy you the stock images and other assets you need to have each site be real. This doesn't require some big nefarious "elite evils" to fund. I mean, maybe some big right-wing group is sponsoring it, but at least so far we haven't seen more than literally a grand or so could buy you. Plenty of folks could afford to donate that to make a cause they believe in be real.
  - wideasleep1 6y ago
    Murphy says it cost him 4K, and he wants to recoup his costs. "“I realized all these fringe guys are gonna get a hold of these websites, So I went out and bought ‘em up that night,” he told me. The financial burden of thwarting fringe-right groups? “It cost me about four grand,” Murphy said. “I don’t have the money quite frankly. I was just trying to do something good. I’m in massive credit debt to do this.” https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/04/reopen-liberate-urls/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/04/reopen-liberate...
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
      That is an interesting development. I assume, despite his claims, that he saw an opportunity and took it with hopes of minor payoff down the line. Incidentally, don't most registrars offer basic privacy protection? I know my phone doesn't show up in basic search.

paulgb 6y ago

Have you looked at the sites? They go pretty far out of their way to seem like they are locals speaking independently. Astroturfing is generally scandal-worthy.

SlowRobotAhead 6y ago
Ok, so your claim is that one org representing two states could not poll and get local comments from actual people in those two states? Edit: can’t reply to claim below but have yet to see any evidence this isn’t an authentic org that represents two states. Why can leadership of this org not be people from these states?
- untog 6y ago
  > As a true grassroots movement we are comprised of farmers, doctors, mechanics, teachers, hunters, military personnel, and retirees. These are the people that we report to—not a boss 1,000 miles away who doesn’t understand Minnesota and what Minnesotans want. That quote is a sample of what the entire page is like: Minnesota, by Minnesota, for Minnesota. It’s very clear that they’re trying to signal they are something other than what they really are. The article goes into detail on who actually owns the site.
- Tagbert 6y ago
  The problem isn’t that it is one organization but it is going out of it’s way to hide that. That suggests that it’s motives are not quite what it professes. An honest organization can operate in multiple states but is open about that. What are they trying to hide?

PragmaticPulp 6y ago

> How is this scandal? When political organizations with ulterior motives try to disguise their work as a grassroots movement, it's called astroturfing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing Also, it should go without saying that an organization actively organizing people to defy critical Coronavirus-related quarantine procedures is a scandal, regardless of the source. The fact that a political organization is trying to obfuscate the source of the dissent is even more scandalous.

SlowRobotAhead 6y ago
Can you source this is not a grassroots organization? Because I see the claim, and the assumption, but again, I don’t know how it’s scandal that one org can’t represent their topic in two states. edit: apparently not. Everyone wants to believe it’s true, so it is
- millstone 6y ago
  This is like the Tea Party: there really is an authentic grassroots movement, AND it is being organized and promoted by a range of elite conservative institutions, including Fox News and the White House.
  - SlowRobotAhead 6y ago
    Citation? I believe you of course. I just would like to see the evidence for all of this. Edit: no, apparently no citation is coming. Wild claims, no sources. Just blame Fox News the one mostly conservative outlet compared to the hundred counterparts like it’s still 2008
    - millstone 6y ago
      The article gives examples of the President's tweets supporting the movement, and Fox News routinely airs positive coverage of the rallies. This WaPo article gives many more examples of ties between Facebook organizing groups and national organizations: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/19/pro-gun-activists-using-facebook-groups-push-anti-quarantine-protests/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/19/pro-gun... The protestor opinions is clearly in the minority. That said, protestors aren't being bussed in. People are choosing to show up to these rallies. The movement is authentic, it will get people killed, and that's why it needs to be grappled with. Dismissing it as inauthentic will get even more people killed.

brlewis 6y ago

Yes, one group of people can represent the same interest in two different states. The objection is to "sites that seemed to be engaged in astroturfing, which involves masking the sponsors of a message or organization to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants"

whiddershins 6y ago
Yeah, I see that, but I’m not sure there is an assumption that the demonstrations are “grassroots” and also ... define grassroots?
- benignslime 6y ago
  arf arf
- KirinDave 6y ago
  I'm not sure many people believe they are grassroots, but they certainly present themselves as grassroots. Each site claims to be an independent association of local businesses rather than a centralized organization from one bankroller. Is it "grassroots?" Surely we can less authentic than if it was organized by genuine residents of that state's population, no?

jindango 6y ago

I don't think the point being made is that they can't share the same interest or the same organization but accusing the creators of astroturfing (Dorr brothers, Freedom Works, In Pursuit of LLc), being opportunists, and even foreign bad actors / agitators (Russian "Valentine Sons").

geofft 6y ago

> Don’t get it, can one group of people not represent the same interest in two different states? No, one group of people cannot represent a grassroots, self-organized group in two different states. Once so represented, it is no longer grassroots. If I have lunch with a bunch of coworkers and convince them that Ruby would be way better than Python and we should switch, and then three different teams in three different offices start advocating for it, and I wrote the team's wiki page on why they should switch, there may well be genuine interest in switching - but there is not grassroots interest. They can absolutely say "We were convinced by 'geofft and we agree with this page 'geofft wrote." They cannot legitimately say "We came to this conclusion on our own."

berryjerry 6y ago
I have to disagree with this for several reasons. First, defining grass roots as independent events is not the typically used definition. It simply means trying to get support at the local level to most people. For instance the Bernie Sanders campaign was considered "grass roots," but those people were usually all convinced by a national voice, Bernie Sanders, potentially use advertisement dollars collected by different states. Secondly, there are many situations where any organizer tries to make changes in different states and thus creates multiple websites. Thirdly, in literally 10 minutes I could buy the domains and create both of those websites with about $50 and in less time if I knew an activist who had a template for it. Perhaps a friend who just created a website for another state? This doesn't take a massive organization or entity to push an agenda. Lastly, it seems extremely likely to me that this agenda, affecting the entire country, is very likely to be sought by any of the over 20 million people who recently claimed unemployment benefits, or the many millions more who also lost their job and simply have not filed for unemployment yet, or the business owners who are getting their livelihoods destroyed. I'm not seeing the great leap here where astroturfing would even be necessary given the current situation and feeling of the populace for a couple of cheap websites.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  Right. Astroturfing is characterized by the deception and obfuscation, not by whether it’s coordinated or not. This is clearly astroturfing because the organizers are trying to hide the fact that it is coordinated and presumably led by a small number of interests.

mturmon 6y ago

A lot of reasons and context have been given. I’ll add one. The common infrastructure indicates that someone centralized is directing this and paying for it. One naturally wonders, Who? Part of the power of grassroots protest is that it indicates that citizens are moved to act on their own. But if it’s paid for, that’s very different.

vanniv 6y ago
Yeah, I know. But seriously, we are talking about 50 domain names and cheap websites. Like, I'm not involved, but if I decided that I thought it was important, I could personally create a protest website for each of the 50 states. $8/year per .com domain name, and $10/month for enough shared hosting for all 50 sites for now (or be fancy and spend $50/month for virtual private hosting and know you'll have room to grow). A few hundred bucks will buy you the stock images and other assets you need to have each site be real. This doesn't require some big nefarious "elite evils" to fund. I mean, maybe some big right-wing group is sponsoring it, but at least so far we haven't seen more than literally a grand or so could buy you. Plenty of folks could afford to donate that to make a cause they believe in be real.
- wideasleep1 6y ago
  Murphy says it cost him 4K, and he wants to recoup his costs. "“I realized all these fringe guys are gonna get a hold of these websites, So I went out and bought ‘em up that night,” he told me. The financial burden of thwarting fringe-right groups? “It cost me about four grand,” Murphy said. “I don’t have the money quite frankly. I was just trying to do something good. I’m in massive credit debt to do this.” https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/04/reopen-liberate-urls/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/04/reopen-liberate...
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    That is an interesting development. I assume, despite his claims, that he saw an opportunity and took it with hopes of minor payoff down the line. Incidentally, don't most registrars offer basic privacy protection? I know my phone doesn't show up in basic search.