Strange, the original article's title doesn't have the ending question mark
We add question marks sometime as a way of de-baiting a controversial title.
Monsanto accused by legal opponents of hiring internet trolls
31–40 of 50 posts
Re: Monsanto accused by legal opponents of hiring internet trolls
#32Source headline is clickbait and HN headline just adds a question mark; an accurate headline reflecting th content of the story is “Monsanto accused by legal opponents of hiring internet trolls." (And not “to counter bad publicity” but “in bizarre scheme to manipulate decisions in ongoing legal cases via PR”; that is, the accusers specifically state that this is a tort defense strategy.)
Ok, we've put your suggested title above. If someone can suggest a better (i.e. more accurate and neutral) one, we can change it again.
Re: Monsanto accused by legal opponents of hiring internet trolls
#33It does not surprise me. They've been extremely active on reddit and HN for years. You cannot say anything bad about Monsanto without at least a dozen of people coming at you with bullshit studies defending Monsanto products/ techs. This is a confirmation that indeed, Monsanto paid shills to systematically answer comments on internet forums to counter any criticism of that company. This is obviously not the only comp…
On the flip side, Monsanto gets some incredibly ridiculous comments directed towards it. Things that even those who have the most hatred for Monsanto would realize doesn't add up. People on Reddit in particular love to point out when someone is wrong. For free. Discussions about Monsanto are low hanging fruit and easily searched out. The fact that you received 30-50 comments suggests to me that most were just regular…
What you're describing is a simple false flag attack. They wouldn't be the first to use it.
Re: Monsanto accused by legal opponents of hiring internet trolls
#34It does not surprise me. They've been extremely active on reddit and HN for years. You cannot say anything bad about Monsanto without at least a dozen of people coming at you with bullshit studies defending Monsanto products/ techs. This is a confirmation that indeed, Monsanto paid shills to systematically answer comments on internet forums to counter any criticism of that company. This is obviously not the only comp…
> It happened only on Monsanto threads.
Go to any thread about China and you will read similar accusations. Sometimes people disagree with you.
Re: Monsanto accused by legal opponents of hiring internet trolls
#35Send those responsible to court or slap a fine on it but that's not the problem. The problem is that everyone believes what Joe or Jane Doe posts on the internet, no matter who pays them. Have reporters query (non corporate) scientists skilled in the subject, let the mad blabbermouth era be over and live the life of information again.
> The problem is that everyone believes what Joe or Jane Doe posts on the internet, no matter who pays them. My default is to assume everything on the internet ( and print ) is at worst an outright lie and at best a slanted half truth. Am I the minority?
I have always assumed that everything on the internet is meant to be a joke. Be it accurate or inaccurate, I get to laugh either way.
Re: Monsanto accused by legal opponents of hiring internet trolls
#36this is a problem of capitalism - large companies have the resources and incentive to do evil shit and cover it up. it has happened in various forms for hundreds of years. any talk of online discourse or moderation that ignores this fundamental, overriding incentive and power structure misses the point. private profit and private property need to be abolished to fix it.
[dead]
Re: Monsanto accused by legal opponents of hiring internet trolls
#37Source headline is clickbait and HN headline just adds a question mark; an accurate headline reflecting th content of the story is “Monsanto accused by legal opponents of hiring internet trolls." (And not “to counter bad publicity” but “in bizarre scheme to manipulate decisions in ongoing legal cases via PR”; that is, the accusers specifically state that this is a tort defense strategy.)
Ok, we've put your suggested title above. If someone can suggest a better (i.e. more accurate and neutral) one, we can change it again.
[deleted]
Re: Monsanto accused by legal opponents of hiring internet trolls
#38This is disgusting. A younger version of myself fell for this nonsense - its embarrassing to admit, but I think its worthwhile to point out that there are ordinary people that get caught up in it. This kind of thing really breaks down trust in online communications, which I suppose in hindsight means I should have been less trusting in the first place. I'd like to think real name policies (like Facebook's) would deal…
I like that you're asking the right question. I have a number of ideas, but none are very clean or simple answers.
Re: Monsanto accused by legal opponents of hiring internet trolls
#39Source headline is clickbait and HN headline just adds a question mark; an accurate headline reflecting th content of the story is “Monsanto accused by legal opponents of hiring internet trolls." (And not “to counter bad publicity” but “in bizarre scheme to manipulate decisions in ongoing legal cases via PR”; that is, the accusers specifically state that this is a tort defense strategy.)
I think you may be misunderstanding when you call the title "clickbait."
They aren't merely accused of this, they also cite an exhibit as evidence in court. However what that evidence is appears to be sealed at this point in time.
Re: Monsanto accused by legal opponents of hiring internet trolls
#40It makes me wonder how many other markets and industries are out there using the same techniques to bend the public's heart and minds to continue to be a consumer of 'X'?
Are we at a point that we must be distrustful of everything we read and hear, because we can't trust it? I've seen quite a few articles here on HN on how even scientific reporting is not as rock-solid, A-grade 'truth' as we'd like it to be.