Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Monsanto accused by legal opponents of hiring internet trolls

baumhedlundlaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 50 posts

Re: Monsanto accused by legal opponents of hiring internet trolls

#41

Post by acct1771 »

tokai wrote: post #17
randomdata wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A Shill Defence Force® that lures them into never ending flamewars, so the rest of us can post in peace. I like it. Someone needs to start a fundraiser and get the mechanical turk going.

Don't underestimate the danger of falsehoods going unopposed in forums.

Re: Monsanto accused by legal opponents of hiring internet trolls

#42

Post by kstenerud »

cmroanirgo wrote: post #40

It 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.

You never could trust it. The only difference now is in the number of actors involved, and their motives for lying to and manipulating you.

Other than that, it's the same as it always was.

Re: Monsanto accused by legal opponents of hiring internet trolls

#43

Post by Farradfahren »

nxc18 wrote: post #4

This 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…

Blockchained to your real name reputation, and if you sink that reputation, those networked to you, as employer go down with you. If you sink your reputation for money, you should be able to redeem yourself by revealing the deal, and shift the bad kharma to the producer of the incident. Basically offer whistelblower incentives and have a nearly medieval reputation system.

Re: Monsanto accused by legal opponents of hiring internet trolls

#44

Post by Farradfahren »

kstenerud wrote: post #42
cmroanirgo wrote: post #40

It 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.

You never could trust it. The only difference now is in the number of actors involved, and their motives for lying to and manipulating you. Other than that, it's the same as it always was.

Well, the journalism abstraction layer was circumvented- you could argue, that attention got cheaper to get without the gatekeeper.

Re: Monsanto accused by legal opponents of hiring internet trolls

#45

Post by code_beers »

I had suspected this, just from the juvenile tone of the conversation. Those who raised legitimate questions about GMOs were dismissed as "afraid of science" from all sides pretty much immediately.

I find largely unregulated scientific experiments carried out on an entire population with literally zero long-term studies to support their safety a bad idea, but many (most?) on the Web appear easily misled by these trolls.

Re: Monsanto accused by legal opponents of hiring internet trolls

#47

Post by matis140 »

cmroanirgo wrote: post #40

It 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.

I do not think any of this is an internet age issue. Looking back the tobacco industry was able to suppress research about smoking for a couple decades back when journalism was more trusted and supposedly better vetted for grade a truth. They had lots of advertising targeting children, research about safety, propaganda about benefits of smoking and all presented through mainstream media.

Re: Monsanto accused by legal opponents of hiring internet trolls

#48

Post by [deleted] »

nxc18 wrote: post #4

This 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…

[deleted]

Re: Monsanto accused by legal opponents of hiring internet trolls

#49

Post by krageon »

tjr225 wrote: post #14
jhcl wrote: post #2

Send 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.

It really boggles my mind that a decade ago I would've been told not to believe what I read on wikipedia and now folks don't question anything they read on the internet. Is it because we've been fed this illusion of social networks?

Yes, a decade ago people said this about wikipedia, but instead told you to trust other encyclopedia's. Those ended up being wrong just as often as this thing everyone can edit, which made the whole point kind of moot.

If the core message had always been "use more than one source, and use sources that are not connected" that would have been a lot more sensible. But in my experience this has not been the message, and even in the instances that it was people tried to work around it because it was inconvenient.

Re: Monsanto accused by legal opponents of hiring internet trolls

#50

Post by burgerboy »

koolba wrote: post #6
jhcl wrote: post #2

Send 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?

Yes, you are
Post reply on HN