4 ms·
The parent poster didn't advise ignoring the pro-NSA opinions but gave his opinion that he felt there might be an astroturf campaign. And why follow a comment a
by srj 12y ago
The parent poster didn't advise ignoring the pro-NSA opinions but gave his opinion that he felt there might be an astroturf campaign. And why follow a comment agreeing that astroturf campaigns are employed with one slanting those pointing it out as 'spooks' and 'paranoid'?
I think it's worth reminding fellow readers that this sort of manipulation happens, and likely on HN.
- krapp 12y agoI have a problem with the 'likely' part, because that's where the 'paranoid' comes into play. What evidence is there that it's likely, other than paranoia?
- RottenHuman 12y agoIf you were to be assigned to astroturf certain demographics, what better target than HN would you chose to reach tech-professionals?
- krapp 12y agoThat's a fair point, but as evidence of likelihood, it's still kind of weak. The US government might post here. But then again, so do communists and anarchists and libertarian capitalists and what have you. It's not as if HN is awash in pro-US, pro security sentiment anyway. It seems to me as if the purpose of bringing it up is to warn people that any opinion they encounter of a certain kind can't be trusted, because it's probably part of a coordinated campaign of government manipulation. That's a couple of steps away from calling it thoughtcrime.
- dreamfactory2 12y agoI haven't seen a political comment thread on a major site which hasn't been polluted with astroturf in the last 2 years or so. Anything regarding Russia is particularly obvious but they are all at it. Then again, when enough regular commenters are just parroting talking points there's not much distinction.