4 ms·

Posting ones own content is not astroturfing unless they try to hide that it was them.

by SahAssar 3y ago

paulsutter 3y ago
Jacques’ point is spot-on. What word would be more precise? shilling? spam? The word astroturfing seems fine to me
- SahAssar 3y ago
  If the content is good and nobody is hiding their affiliation with it then the correct word is just "posting". Otherwise it might fit within one of the categories you mentioned. I agree that it would be better if they were up front with their affiliation, but hiding it (astroturfing) is not the same as not divulging.
jacquesm 3y ago
The submitter is a low karma anonymous account that just so happens to match the last name of the CEO of the company, so it isn't disclosed. Also this shot up on the 'new' page suggesting more than one company vote, this isn't the first time this happens with that particular domain either. Similar stuff is happening on Wikipedia, read the talk page there (and the LoRa page) to see what I'm getting at.
- cj 3y ago
  Are comments really the best place to hash this out? Why not just flag and move on. People don't need to disclose who they are when submitting things to HN. Hell, I used to have a pretty comprehensive bio, until I replaced it with an icloud relay email because random internet people would look me up outside HN and try to dig up stuff to use as ammo in response to comments I posted that they disagreed with. HN can be a nasty place. I don't fault anyone for hiding their identity.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    > People don't need to disclose who they are when submitting things to HN. Companies aren't people. That's one of those things I just don't subscribe to. If you are the CEO of a company and you are engaging in what can only be termed as marketing activities, effectively advertising your company I think you should be up front about that. Otherwise you can no longer see the difference between organic interest in a technology and marketing push, which are two entirely different things.
    - cj 3y ago
      Maybe I’m not appreciating your viewpoint because the article nor the comments seem overtly self-promoting to me. I would agree with you if it was a garbage press release with low quality fake comments. Maybe there’s some niche politics that I’m unaware of in the LoRa space that is triggering.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        > Maybe I’m not appreciating your viewpoint because the article nor the comments seem overtly self-promoting to me. And maybe I'm over protective of HN. > I would agree with you if it was a garbage press release with low quality fake comments. You mean like the one where the CEO (then still anonymously) tried to devalue a point made by a commenter here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37416457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37416457 > Maybe there’s some niche politics that I’m unaware of in the LoRa space that is triggering. Not that I'm aware of, but their WP talk page is pretty clear about them abusing WP for marketing purposes and that doesn't give them the benefit of the doubt with me when interacting with HN in this way, besides that the initial votes were so fast that I doubt that it was organic. But when dang wakes up I'm sure he'll be able to rule that out or confirm it. For all I know it is all legit but it certainly looked weird. Also note how the CTO nicely disclosed who he was but the CEO did not well after joining the thread until prompted to do so. Which makes me suspect this is a bit more organized than it may seem at first glance, but then again, that's not my call to make.
- whizzter 3y ago
  If he had used another "anonymous" name I might've agree that it could border astro-turfing but if your handled matches your last-name it's probably more of an over-eager CEO that thinks the world revolves around his ideas and interests (Being the company at the moment), so I'd rather put it in the spammy-behaviour box (But that seems accepted to a certain extent here still for obvious reasons).
pgeorgi 3y ago
It's the combination of company URL, posted by a company person, commented on by another company person pushing questions (i.e. generate engagement) that seemed weird, and feels orchestrated. It's well possible that this was really an innocent accident, but it would have looked better if something like this engagement post was posted by the same account as the original link.

Posting ones own content is not astroturfing unless they try to hide that it was them.

paulsutter 3y ago

Jacques’ point is spot-on. What word would be more precise? shilling? spam? The word astroturfing seems fine to me

SahAssar 3y ago
If the content is good and nobody is hiding their affiliation with it then the correct word is just "posting". Otherwise it might fit within one of the categories you mentioned. I agree that it would be better if they were up front with their affiliation, but hiding it (astroturfing) is not the same as not divulging.

jacquesm 3y ago

The submitter is a low karma anonymous account that just so happens to match the last name of the CEO of the company, so it isn't disclosed. Also this shot up on the 'new' page suggesting more than one company vote, this isn't the first time this happens with that particular domain either. Similar stuff is happening on Wikipedia, read the talk page there (and the LoRa page) to see what I'm getting at.

cj 3y ago
Are comments really the best place to hash this out? Why not just flag and move on. People don't need to disclose who they are when submitting things to HN. Hell, I used to have a pretty comprehensive bio, until I replaced it with an icloud relay email because random internet people would look me up outside HN and try to dig up stuff to use as ammo in response to comments I posted that they disagreed with. HN can be a nasty place. I don't fault anyone for hiding their identity.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  > People don't need to disclose who they are when submitting things to HN. Companies aren't people. That's one of those things I just don't subscribe to. If you are the CEO of a company and you are engaging in what can only be termed as marketing activities, effectively advertising your company I think you should be up front about that. Otherwise you can no longer see the difference between organic interest in a technology and marketing push, which are two entirely different things.
  - cj 3y ago
    Maybe I’m not appreciating your viewpoint because the article nor the comments seem overtly self-promoting to me. I would agree with you if it was a garbage press release with low quality fake comments. Maybe there’s some niche politics that I’m unaware of in the LoRa space that is triggering.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      > Maybe I’m not appreciating your viewpoint because the article nor the comments seem overtly self-promoting to me. And maybe I'm over protective of HN. > I would agree with you if it was a garbage press release with low quality fake comments. You mean like the one where the CEO (then still anonymously) tried to devalue a point made by a commenter here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37416457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37416457 > Maybe there’s some niche politics that I’m unaware of in the LoRa space that is triggering. Not that I'm aware of, but their WP talk page is pretty clear about them abusing WP for marketing purposes and that doesn't give them the benefit of the doubt with me when interacting with HN in this way, besides that the initial votes were so fast that I doubt that it was organic. But when dang wakes up I'm sure he'll be able to rule that out or confirm it. For all I know it is all legit but it certainly looked weird. Also note how the CTO nicely disclosed who he was but the CEO did not well after joining the thread until prompted to do so. Which makes me suspect this is a bit more organized than it may seem at first glance, but then again, that's not my call to make.
whizzter 3y ago
If he had used another "anonymous" name I might've agree that it could border astro-turfing but if your handled matches your last-name it's probably more of an over-eager CEO that thinks the world revolves around his ideas and interests (Being the company at the moment), so I'd rather put it in the spammy-behaviour box (But that seems accepted to a certain extent here still for obvious reasons).

pgeorgi 3y ago

It's the combination of company URL, posted by a company person, commented on by another company person pushing questions (i.e. generate engagement) that seemed weird, and feels orchestrated. It's well possible that this was really an innocent accident, but it would have looked better if something like this engagement post was posted by the same account as the original link.