4 ms·

Bias exists. But by removing the financial incentive from the definition of astroturfing, you make it useless when it comes to distinguishing from bias. Otherwi

Bias exists. But by removing the financial incentive from the definition of astroturfing, you make it useless when it comes to distinguishing from bias. Otherwise you turn it into "how many degrees of separation can I find to Waymos" and it gets infinitely tenuous. I would agree that Waymo employees or shareholders shouldn't be commenting here without disclosing their affiliation. But that's a relatively small class: Googlers (and, increasingly tenuous, Xooglers) don't get paid by Waymo and don't get exposure to it through their GSUs. You can make the claim that Waymo's success adds to Google's brand prestige and has knock-on effects, and maybe that's true to some limited extent. But comparing that to being directly paid by the company to spread propaganda is quite the reach.

yterdy 3y ago
>But by removing the financial incentive from the definition of astroturfing I didn't. I pointed out the less obvious ways a financial incentive might exist. Excuse me for being skeptical of someone who uses a cutesy nickname for former Google employees.
- scarmig 3y ago
  > I didn't. I pointed out the less obvious ways a financial incentive might exist. You did no such thing, which is exactly the issue.
  - yterdy 3y ago
    >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.