5 ms·

> user: Pyxl101 > created: 1 hour ago

• MetaCosm 12y ago
  Invalidate the ideas, not the person (account, etc)... if they had a two year old hacker news account, how exactly would that change the content of their post? What they wrote would be exactly as valid or invalid as it is now. Account age (education, job title, etc) does not magically validate (or invalidate) ideas, they have to stand on their own.
  • softbuilder 12y ago
    Pointing out the freshness of the account is not ad hominem. It's highlighting the particular context of the comment. > if they had a two year old hacker news account, how exactly would that change the content of their post? The likelihood of astroturfing would be far reduced. (That would indeed be playing the long game!)
    • MetaCosm 12y ago
      The reason astroturfing is "bad" is because it is beyond rational debate, look up the laws... they are about personal testimonials primarily. "I went to this car shop and they did an awesome job." "This one silly trick made me cancer free". Compare that to this post, it isn't about the posters personal experience or testimonial, they claim none, it is objective points, not a personal testimonial about how "Uber saved my life 7 weeks ago..." http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-publishes-final-guides-governing-endorsements-testimonials/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-rel... ... so I stand by my initial point, when you CAN have a rational debate, DO have a rational debate. When you can't -- you are right to call astroturfing, no way to argue with how people feel or unsubstantiated personal claims.