4 ms·

Your comment would be stronger if you omitted the final sentence. Fortifying your opinion by preemptively calling other people contributing to the discussion "

by arkem 12y ago

Your comment would be stronger if you omitted the final sentence. Fortifying your opinion by preemptively calling other people contributing to the discussion "astroturfers and apologists" is poor form.

cryoshon 12y ago
Shrug. Consider JTRIG: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Threat_Research_Intelligence_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Threat_Research_Intellig... They're very blatantly using astroturfing and shilling to silence people who go against their idea of the way things should be. I doubt HN is going to have an astroturf quotient as high as someplace like reddit, though.
- LLWM 12y ago
  Did you even read the article? If they cared to actually silence someone, they would, and you would never know. People (or even robots) disagreeing with you on an internet forum is so far from effective that it's almost insulting to accuse them of it.
  - arca_vorago 12y ago
    "People (or even robots) disagreeing with you on an internet forum is so far from effective that it's almost insulting to accuse them of it." The evidence and movement of the "cyber war department" says otherwise. Within the last 5 years or so there has been an explosion of government requests for bids for persona management and other sock puppetry accounts, and quite a few companies have been making quite a bit of money off it, very quietly of course. Now, lets not be hasty and call anyone who disagrees with a thing a "shill", but also lets not bury our head in the sand and pretend it's not happening and a very real threat to the normal evolution of discussion on the internet. Instead of dumping a ton of RFB links I'll just give you a guardian article. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-ope...
    - LLWM 12y ago
      When is the last time you saw an argument on an internet message board change anyone's mind? I am sure there are plenty of government and military bureaucrats who aren't bothered by futility of their efforts, but the leaks we've seen so far suggest that the NSA, at least, are competent at achieving their goals.
      - arca_vorago 12y ago
        Strange, for some reason I couldn't reply to your comment for a while. I have seen minds changed quite frequently on the internet, and I think the cynical attitude towards internet discussions isn't helpful. It largely depends on the forum and it's quality though. For example, HN is a great place for people to find factual correction from peers, and I see it daily here. On reddit, subs like /r/askhistorians or /r/engineering are also places where I see factual correction taken as it should be, that is to say as constructive criticism. Now, regarding the "effectiveness" you refer to, I think you need to broaden your idea of the definition. If you are thinking that sock puppets are there to change minds, you are severely mistaken. I would venture to say that most sock puppet tactics are based on some variance of distraction or pushing of topic or conversational tone. It's a complex topic with a myriad of techniques that can be applied by corporate PR just as easily as a government. If you want to know more, try the following: http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5 http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5
        krapp 12y ago
        Deep threads have an increasing delay attached to them to prevent flamewars, because HN assumes the quality of a comment is inversely proportional to its depth. Like a lot of Hacker News' attempts at social engineering, it doesn't really work but it is annoying. This is one of the details which should probably be considered when trying to spot the presence of shills or agents here, that HN is engineered with a bias to begin with. Although, according to that clearly authoritative pastebin, questioning a conspiracy is evidence of a conspiracy.
        LLWM 12y ago
        Factual correction is not the same as changing someone's mind. On a subject like what is an acceptable level of domestic espionage, the contention is about moral values and priorities within society. Disagreement about facts doesn't come into it. And if all government propaganda agents did was correct peoples' factual errors, I would welcome them wholeheartedly.
- arkem 12y ago
  It's not about whether there is any astroturfing going on, it's preemptively calling it out, implying that everyone who disagrees is astroturfing. It's similar to people who say things like "I know I'm going to get downvoted, but". Instead of making assumptions about the nature of a discussion in a comment people should wait for the discussion to develop before judging. If you know someone is astroturfing call it out. If a post isn't appropriate or isn't contributing to the discussion call that out. Just don't assume that people are participating in bad faith, especially before that participation has even occurred.
  - cryoshon 12y ago
    Fair enough, but I really do think there are some (admittedly non-NSA) situations where the astroturfing campaign can be easily predicted beforehand. In these easily predictable situations, it's better to warn people... Specifically, conversations regarding Israel's involvement with Palestine or Russians involvement in Ukraine tend to become very quickly polluted by vast swathes of low-quality comments which effectively shut down discussion.
    - krapp 12y ago
      Many of those low-quality sub-threads stem from accusations that other posters are shills and propagandists. Anyone sufficiently invested in a particular point of view can "easily" spot the enemy from a mile away, and Hacker News is packed with ideologues and zealots. Maybe the quality of discussion on HN would be better if there were fewer such 'warnings', and not more?
- pdkl95 12y ago
  "Astroturfing" is when a corporation shills for or otherwise defends its own products while acting like it is a regular person authoring the post. It is "fake grassroots" (hence the name). What JTRIG does is far worse, and should really be called the continuation of COINTELPRO. Astroturf-style posting is only one of the tools in their toolbox.
alecco 12y ago
Yeah? What about what obviously happened in this story a couple of months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8905643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8905643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8905321 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8905321
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- tedunangst 12y ago
  Your evidence of astroturfing is somebody saying "there's astroturfing"? And lawnchair_larry's top voted fake comment? Maybe I'm missing what obviously happened.

by arkem 12y ago

cryoshon 12y ago

Shrug. Consider JTRIG: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Threat_Research_Intelligence_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Threat_Research_Intellig... They're very blatantly using astroturfing and shilling to silence people who go against their idea of the way things should be. I doubt HN is going to have an astroturf quotient as high as someplace like reddit, though.

LLWM 12y ago
Did you even read the article? If they cared to actually silence someone, they would, and you would never know. People (or even robots) disagreeing with you on an internet forum is so far from effective that it's almost insulting to accuse them of it.
- arca_vorago 12y ago
  "People (or even robots) disagreeing with you on an internet forum is so far from effective that it's almost insulting to accuse them of it." The evidence and movement of the "cyber war department" says otherwise. Within the last 5 years or so there has been an explosion of government requests for bids for persona management and other sock puppetry accounts, and quite a few companies have been making quite a bit of money off it, very quietly of course. Now, lets not be hasty and call anyone who disagrees with a thing a "shill", but also lets not bury our head in the sand and pretend it's not happening and a very real threat to the normal evolution of discussion on the internet. Instead of dumping a ton of RFB links I'll just give you a guardian article. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-ope...
  - LLWM 12y ago
    When is the last time you saw an argument on an internet message board change anyone's mind? I am sure there are plenty of government and military bureaucrats who aren't bothered by futility of their efforts, but the leaks we've seen so far suggest that the NSA, at least, are competent at achieving their goals.
    - arca_vorago 12y ago
      Strange, for some reason I couldn't reply to your comment for a while. I have seen minds changed quite frequently on the internet, and I think the cynical attitude towards internet discussions isn't helpful. It largely depends on the forum and it's quality though. For example, HN is a great place for people to find factual correction from peers, and I see it daily here. On reddit, subs like /r/askhistorians or /r/engineering are also places where I see factual correction taken as it should be, that is to say as constructive criticism. Now, regarding the "effectiveness" you refer to, I think you need to broaden your idea of the definition. If you are thinking that sock puppets are there to change minds, you are severely mistaken. I would venture to say that most sock puppet tactics are based on some variance of distraction or pushing of topic or conversational tone. It's a complex topic with a myriad of techniques that can be applied by corporate PR just as easily as a government. If you want to know more, try the following: http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5 http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5
      - krapp 12y ago
        Deep threads have an increasing delay attached to them to prevent flamewars, because HN assumes the quality of a comment is inversely proportional to its depth. Like a lot of Hacker News' attempts at social engineering, it doesn't really work but it is annoying. This is one of the details which should probably be considered when trying to spot the presence of shills or agents here, that HN is engineered with a bias to begin with. Although, according to that clearly authoritative pastebin, questioning a conspiracy is evidence of a conspiracy.
      - LLWM 12y ago
        Factual correction is not the same as changing someone's mind. On a subject like what is an acceptable level of domestic espionage, the contention is about moral values and priorities within society. Disagreement about facts doesn't come into it. And if all government propaganda agents did was correct peoples' factual errors, I would welcome them wholeheartedly.
arkem 12y ago
It's not about whether there is any astroturfing going on, it's preemptively calling it out, implying that everyone who disagrees is astroturfing. It's similar to people who say things like "I know I'm going to get downvoted, but". Instead of making assumptions about the nature of a discussion in a comment people should wait for the discussion to develop before judging. If you know someone is astroturfing call it out. If a post isn't appropriate or isn't contributing to the discussion call that out. Just don't assume that people are participating in bad faith, especially before that participation has even occurred.
- cryoshon 12y ago
  Fair enough, but I really do think there are some (admittedly non-NSA) situations where the astroturfing campaign can be easily predicted beforehand. In these easily predictable situations, it's better to warn people... Specifically, conversations regarding Israel's involvement with Palestine or Russians involvement in Ukraine tend to become very quickly polluted by vast swathes of low-quality comments which effectively shut down discussion.
  - krapp 12y ago
    Many of those low-quality sub-threads stem from accusations that other posters are shills and propagandists. Anyone sufficiently invested in a particular point of view can "easily" spot the enemy from a mile away, and Hacker News is packed with ideologues and zealots. Maybe the quality of discussion on HN would be better if there were fewer such 'warnings', and not more?
pdkl95 12y ago
"Astroturfing" is when a corporation shills for or otherwise defends its own products while acting like it is a regular person authoring the post. It is "fake grassroots" (hence the name). What JTRIG does is far worse, and should really be called the continuation of COINTELPRO. Astroturf-style posting is only one of the tools in their toolbox.

alecco 12y ago

Yeah? What about what obviously happened in this story a couple of months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8905643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8905643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8905321 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8905321

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
tedunangst 12y ago
Your evidence of astroturfing is somebody saying "there's astroturfing"? And lawnchair_larry's top voted fake comment? Maybe I'm missing what obviously happened.