5 ms·

Ah yeah, when something doesn’t conform to your narrative, it surely is an astroturf. All coming from accounts that are many years old and have thousands of kar

Ah yeah, when something doesn’t conform to your narrative, it surely is an astroturf. All coming from accounts that are many years old and have thousands of karma points that leave meaningful posts on all types of topics. But the second they post about Waymo in a positive light, that instantly means astroturfing and not their true opinion based on their lived experiences.

BoorishBears 3y ago
Realistically, there are a lot of Googlers and Xooglers on Hacker News. One of the messages in this thread is literally stating they have special knowledge of the behinds the scene workings of Waymo. I work in the AV space and I honestly don't think there's much of a competitive mentality between the companies in the space, but at the same time there is a tendency of people to psudeo-astroturf these brands: where they know someone working at the company and take great personal pride because "I know so and so who works on self-driving cars!"
- austhrow743 3y ago
  People taking it upon themselves to talk up a brand is the opposite of astroturfing, not pseudo-astroturfing.
  - BoorishBears 3y ago
    When you're indirectly related to the brand and that's affecting your eagerness, it's something akin to astroturfing in why astroturfing is looked down on: ie. you're biased But it doesn't have the malice/intent of astroturfing.
    - joemi 3y ago
      Everyone is biased. There are no perfectly unbiased opinions. And "having a bias" is not the same thing as astroturfing.
- dataflow 3y ago
  Astroturfing isn't "I have worked here and am therefore biased when expressing support for the product", it's (to quote Wikipedia) "the practice of hiding the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious, or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from, and is supported by, grassroots participants." If they explicitly disclose their internal knowledge or affiliation, it's not astroturfing. If they used to work for the company but are now unaffiliated, it's not astroturfing. If the company isn't knowledgeable or supporting of the effort, it's not astroturfing. etc.
  - BoorishBears 3y ago
    Most of them did not mention any relationship: hence the "psuedo-astroturfing" They have partial relationships that they don't feel the need to disclose.
    - dataflow 3y ago
      > They have partial relationships that they don't feel the need to disclose. Well, that's your assumption. I would preface that with "probably", since we don't know this for a fact. > Most of them did not mention any relationship: hence the "psuedo-astroturfing" Side note: I think you mean "quasi-", not "pseudo-". [1] But, more to your intended point: the point I'm getting at is that that you're really stretching the definition of astroturfing here, even with the weasel wording added on it. Astroturfing is a central campaign coordinated by a vendor in a manner as to appear decentralized. It's really an accusation against the central entity rather than as the pawns they're using in the process. So quasi-astroturfing might be a situation where (say) the vendor doesn't actually organize the campaign, but pays an advertiser who internally organizes the campaign without the knowledge of the vendor. The vendor might overlook signs that this is happening, without directly supporting it. Or they might not realize it at all. That's something that would be close to astroturfing, but not exactly it. However, people advocating for a product due to their genuine personal opinions in a way that's clearly uncoordinated and unsupported by the vendor is not remotely "astroturfing" in any sense. It's a biased expression of opinions, with a potential conflict of interest (if they're still affiliated with that vendor). All of which I think matters not only because words matter, but also particularly because this site's rules treat astroturfing differently from "someone is biased on the internet", and the admins very much don't want accusations of astroturfing without evidence. [1] Pseudo- means fake, like how pseudoscience is fake science. Pseudo-astroturfing would be fake astroturfing, or the faking of fake grassroots support. Meaning you'd be accusing people of being real grassroots supporters who are pretending to be fake ones, which would make for a funny accusation.
- yterdy 3y ago
  Thank you. Contrary to other replies, you do not have to be employed directly by [Institution] expressly for the purposes of covertly pushing an agenda to be guilty of astroturfing. What's important is the existence or appearance of a conflict of interest, particularly if you're not disclosing your connection. Having a friend who works for Google who might be upset at criticism counts. Being a former employee with stock counts. Having any kind of monetary or professional interest in FSD companies succeeding counts. If someone is presenting their statements as that of a person who is not involved, and they actually are, their behavior is duplicitous, and justifiably characterized as astroturfing.
  - Bjartr 3y ago
    It's justifiably characterized as biased. We lose a useful term for distinguishing normal bias from marketing or PR instigated efforts. That's the point of the term astroturfing. It's useful in that regard. Or I suppose, if it's definition has truly shifted, was useful.
    - yterdy 3y ago
      Can a stand-alone complex be an astroturf? I think so, if the social conditions that create the behavior stem from a single entity that stands to benefit. The point of astroturfing (in comparison to the term it derives from, grassroots) is that it's not people coming together to support a policy, it's people with a vested interest in an entity taking cues from that entity to act in their interests in such a way that it appears as the former. The definition never shifted, the tactics just became less obvious. I would be less suspicious if more comments were complaining or giving measured thoughts, but they weren't.
      - Bjartr 3y ago
        If I may really stretch the metaphor, I'd say individuals with vested interests are more like sod. They really hold those opinions, and are motivated to express them, but do so "unnaturally". Vs commercial efforts that are entirely fake and are therefore astroturf :D
  - 3y ago
- mike_d 3y ago
  > One of the messages in this thread is literally stating they have special knowledge of the behinds the scene workings of Waymo. I may have hinted as such (being an ex-Googler), and I know this thread has gotten kinda buried but I wanted to address the implication anyway. When I left Google I sold all of my stock. My investment portfolio is independently managed and I do not advise any specific positions except for the exclusion of my current and former employers. I do not stand to gain financially from any company in the AV space.

BoorishBears 3y ago

Realistically, there are a lot of Googlers and Xooglers on Hacker News. One of the messages in this thread is literally stating they have special knowledge of the behinds the scene workings of Waymo. I work in the AV space and I honestly don't think there's much of a competitive mentality between the companies in the space, but at the same time there is a tendency of people to psudeo-astroturf these brands: where they know someone working at the company and take great personal pride because "I know so and so who works on self-driving cars!"

austhrow743 3y ago
People taking it upon themselves to talk up a brand is the opposite of astroturfing, not pseudo-astroturfing.
- BoorishBears 3y ago
  When you're indirectly related to the brand and that's affecting your eagerness, it's something akin to astroturfing in why astroturfing is looked down on: ie. you're biased But it doesn't have the malice/intent of astroturfing.
  - joemi 3y ago
    Everyone is biased. There are no perfectly unbiased opinions. And "having a bias" is not the same thing as astroturfing.
dataflow 3y ago
Astroturfing isn't "I have worked here and am therefore biased when expressing support for the product", it's (to quote Wikipedia) "the practice of hiding the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious, or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from, and is supported by, grassroots participants." If they explicitly disclose their internal knowledge or affiliation, it's not astroturfing. If they used to work for the company but are now unaffiliated, it's not astroturfing. If the company isn't knowledgeable or supporting of the effort, it's not astroturfing. etc.
- BoorishBears 3y ago
  Most of them did not mention any relationship: hence the "psuedo-astroturfing" They have partial relationships that they don't feel the need to disclose.
  - dataflow 3y ago
    > They have partial relationships that they don't feel the need to disclose. Well, that's your assumption. I would preface that with "probably", since we don't know this for a fact. > Most of them did not mention any relationship: hence the "psuedo-astroturfing" Side note: I think you mean "quasi-", not "pseudo-". [1] But, more to your intended point: the point I'm getting at is that that you're really stretching the definition of astroturfing here, even with the weasel wording added on it. Astroturfing is a central campaign coordinated by a vendor in a manner as to appear decentralized. It's really an accusation against the central entity rather than as the pawns they're using in the process. So quasi-astroturfing might be a situation where (say) the vendor doesn't actually organize the campaign, but pays an advertiser who internally organizes the campaign without the knowledge of the vendor. The vendor might overlook signs that this is happening, without directly supporting it. Or they might not realize it at all. That's something that would be close to astroturfing, but not exactly it. However, people advocating for a product due to their genuine personal opinions in a way that's clearly uncoordinated and unsupported by the vendor is not remotely "astroturfing" in any sense. It's a biased expression of opinions, with a potential conflict of interest (if they're still affiliated with that vendor). All of which I think matters not only because words matter, but also particularly because this site's rules treat astroturfing differently from "someone is biased on the internet", and the admins very much don't want accusations of astroturfing without evidence. [1] Pseudo- means fake, like how pseudoscience is fake science. Pseudo-astroturfing would be fake astroturfing, or the faking of fake grassroots support. Meaning you'd be accusing people of being real grassroots supporters who are pretending to be fake ones, which would make for a funny accusation.
yterdy 3y ago
Thank you. Contrary to other replies, you do not have to be employed directly by [Institution] expressly for the purposes of covertly pushing an agenda to be guilty of astroturfing. What's important is the existence or appearance of a conflict of interest, particularly if you're not disclosing your connection. Having a friend who works for Google who might be upset at criticism counts. Being a former employee with stock counts. Having any kind of monetary or professional interest in FSD companies succeeding counts. If someone is presenting their statements as that of a person who is not involved, and they actually are, their behavior is duplicitous, and justifiably characterized as astroturfing.
- Bjartr 3y ago
  It's justifiably characterized as biased. We lose a useful term for distinguishing normal bias from marketing or PR instigated efforts. That's the point of the term astroturfing. It's useful in that regard. Or I suppose, if it's definition has truly shifted, was useful.
  - yterdy 3y ago
    Can a stand-alone complex be an astroturf? I think so, if the social conditions that create the behavior stem from a single entity that stands to benefit. The point of astroturfing (in comparison to the term it derives from, grassroots) is that it's not people coming together to support a policy, it's people with a vested interest in an entity taking cues from that entity to act in their interests in such a way that it appears as the former. The definition never shifted, the tactics just became less obvious. I would be less suspicious if more comments were complaining or giving measured thoughts, but they weren't.
    - Bjartr 3y ago
      If I may really stretch the metaphor, I'd say individuals with vested interests are more like sod. They really hold those opinions, and are motivated to express them, but do so "unnaturally". Vs commercial efforts that are entirely fake and are therefore astroturf :D
- 3y ago
mike_d 3y ago
> One of the messages in this thread is literally stating they have special knowledge of the behinds the scene workings of Waymo. I may have hinted as such (being an ex-Googler), and I know this thread has gotten kinda buried but I wanted to address the implication anyway. When I left Google I sold all of my stock. My investment portfolio is independently managed and I do not advise any specific positions except for the exclusion of my current and former employers. I do not stand to gain financially from any company in the AV space.