261–270 of 333 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pre-YouTube, fashion companies would employ companies to identify the cool kids in a group and give them free stuff to wear, in order to promote the brand.
Is this not still a thing for Instagram “influencers”?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't say it surprises me. But I think by now every government is using such farms. I find it difficult to believe otherwise based on recent FCC issues ( https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jsvine/net-neutrality-f... ). Yes, sadly, I am invoking everyone is doin' it.
I don't think it's just government, but also likely industries as well. I've seen what could only be trolling for support of nuclear power and the medical industry.
> “For them it was just work and that’s it.” Is it? If someone's job is spewing cleverly provocative, disruptive, toxic, and intentionally negative messages all day ... does that edgy skill and behaviour not leak into their home or personal life? I understand, these workers need jobs and I'm sure some get quite proficient at trolling. But my gut says there will be personal side effects from reinforcing and working yo…
With the risk of pulling a Godwin, the “It’s just a job, so any ethics, morals or generally doing the right thing don’t apply” defense is getting kinda stale. It’s one step away from “I was just following orders”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, it is not a new problem, but we have to solve it again, and perhaps with a different solution given the new medium.
how was it solved in 18th century Paris? was it solved? I think that culture just sort of "evolves" out of the problem?
I really don't like PR operations like this, but here's a thought experiment: Presumably it's OK to voice one's opinions on social media, but: 1. Is it acceptable for private interests to do the same? 2. At what point does something turn from personal opinion to propaganda? 3. Is it more problematic that a private entity (e.g. a PR firm) is _pretending_ to express an honest opinion? Would this be acceptable if this w…
Personal take: any government that can selectively silence speech is too powerful. Troll farms are a problem, but government is a horrible solution to that problem. What we need is a mechanism for digital proof-of-human. Ideally this would be decentralised, but there's no obvious way to do this well (I consider the web of trust model easily exploitable if used at scale). Estonia has a system for verifying humans that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, but maybe discussing it will bring some light to this subject? Maybe a system/method to determine who is a professional troll? ----- Pro-Troll Filter: (first draft) 1. Is the commenter able to rationally discuss the downsides of their position? NO? Possibly a pro-troll or an irrational comment. 2. Is the commenter willing to admit past errors in implementing of their ideal solution, and also consider th…
Your filter sucks. Pro trolls don’t become irrational. They just defuse or disappear. Only fanboys dig in and defend a subject with senseless arguments once they become emotional. If you’re trying to come up with a filter, decide: do you want to filter out trolls or just people that are fans of topics that hurt your feelings? Right now it just looks like a filter for any conversation with a human you disagree with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a party did that in a country where voters respond appropriately to this kind of thing, that political party would be wiped out for a generation. If a party manages to dupe people into thinking their populist cause is important enough to see past the use of troll factories for message control, then that I think says a lot about the health of a democracy. I can imagine this happening in Poland, Hungary or perhaps e…
In case of Poland the party increased social spending several times, paying people with 2 kids half the median salary every month and lowering retirement age. They could go on TV saying "we are corrupt and we are stealing from you" and they would still win these elections just because they paid for the votes. That's how populism works. Frankly I'm amazed they managed to lose the Senate and only won the Sejm (lower ho…
Interesting. Can you suggest additional reading on this?
Thanks!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In case of Poland the party increased social spending several times, paying people with 2 kids half the median salary every month and lowering retirement age. They could go on TV saying "we are corrupt and we are stealing from you" and they would still win these elections just because they paid for the votes. That's how populism works. Frankly I'm amazed they managed to lose the Senate and only won the Sejm (lower ho…
> It's like in 20s-30s last century - radio was invented and democracy wasn't ready for it - and when crisis came the result was totalitarianisms. Interesting. Can you suggest additional reading on this? Thanks!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a billionaire your interests are a bigger target for well funded or well organised opponents as well. And you probably have a lot of other ways at your disposal to exert influence. So I don't see a net benefit of disinformation specifically for billionaires.
Billionaires have plenty of ways to fight with other billionaires. Disinformation gives them an advantage over the very large number of non-billionaires.
I would be interested in an analysis of who funds those troll campaigns. I'd wager billionaires rank very far below governments, political parties and corporations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the over-a-decade I've spent witnessing internet conversations on various forums, I have constantly seen only marginally-relevant discussions get consistently derailed onto such topics as: Nazis, gun regulation, copyright law, atheism, feminism, Ron Paul, and Elon Musk. It doesn't take long to observe that obsessives and fanboys exist and are in fact extremely common, so why would you assume without evidence that…
I don't assume they all are, I just think there is a large portion of paid shills that stir things up and give people talking points. Is this an unreasonable assumption considering the topic here?