Thanks for replying. I will make an effort to compile a list when I see it in the future. I’ve observed several cases where green names (and a few longstanding accounts) all made the same point, posted in the same time frame, with language matching what I would see on Reddit and X. It could just be organic but it was very suspicious.

I do think that HN does a better job than most at containing this (thanks for your hard work).

> What are some links to HN comments that you (or anyone else) feel is "coordinated astroturfing"?

I don't think that there is any definitive way to prevent or detect this anymore. The number of personnel dedicated to online manipulation has grown too much, and the technology has advanced too far.

These are now discussions that states and oligarchs have interests in, not Juicero or smart skillet astroturfing. And this remains a forum that people use to indicate elite support for their arguments.

That’s not cynicism, it’s reality.

Add to this that more and more sites and services are hostile to VPN connections and obfuscated email address for account registration. Worse still is that for existing accounts introducing ID req'ts, the next step in these changes is your prior anonymous activity could easily become a retro-liablit.y

I think Larry (not, not that Larry, the other one) spilled the beans in 2024:

"Citizens will be on their best behavior, because we’re constantly recording and reporting everything that is going on" - Larry Ellison

(I seem to recall from the context of the quote, he isn't saying this is the future he wants, but it's a future he's not particularly opposed to)

But the real threat is "accidental" database leaks from private websites. Let's say you live in a state where abortion isn't legal, and you sign up for a web forum where people discuss getting out-of-state abortions. As soon as that website is required to collect real names (which it will be), it becomes unusable, because nobody can risk getting doxxed.

This is not a cynical take, it is blindingly obvious. Right now, governments around the world are watching, salivating over what is effectively remote control over the literal thoughts of and total surveillance over their entire population. They are itching insatiably to get control over these systems.

It could be, and you’re right that I can’t prove anything beyond a doubt. But there is an entire industry built around professionally manipulating public opinion for money, and the groups most interested in deanonymizing the internet are well resourced. Simple inductive reasoning will tell you that a portion of the support is likely astroturfed.

If you drive out everyone with identity filters, those folks will naturally flock to sites run in nations without the same controls. I don't think you really solve anything except to push traffic elsewhere.

Instead it would be more appropriate to let sites pass headers, such as "we have adult content", thst you could filter on the network or client side. It's still voluntary, of course. Anyone will just visit sites that don't have the checks if necessary.

> Interesting. Are you saying all the concerns raised by the proponents of ID verification are invalid and meritless?

In the US, #1 and #2 are invalid and meritless. Wholly and without reservation. One of the huge reasons for the First Amendment is to ensure that people are able to counter lies uttered in the public sphere with truth.

#3 is handled by parental controls that have existed in mainstream OSs for quite some time now. [0][1][2] However, those preexisting parental controls don't justify additional expansion of the power and influence of authoritarians, so here we are.

[0] <https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/family-safety>

[1] <https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/set-up-content-and-...>

[2] <https://support.google.com/android/answer/16766047?hl=en-rw>

[dead]

Well the hard thing about astroturfing is that only the people running the platform have the hard data to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.

But I don't think we need 99.99% confidence -- isn't even acknowledged that 30% of twitter is bots or something? I think it's safe to conclude there's astroturfing on any significant political issue.

Also as far as documented cases, there were documented cases of astroturfing around fracking [1], or pesticides [2]

1. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2057047320969435 2. https://www.corywatson.com/blog/monsanto-downplay-roundup-ri...

> it doesn't seem that far fetched for me that people reach similar conclusions.

How do you suppose it is that millions of people, separated by vast geographic distances, somehow all reach similar conclusions all at once?

Related: How do you suppose it is that out of 350-700+ million people (depending on whose numbers you believe), there's always only two "choices" and both of them suck?

You don’t think the current admin uses influence campaigns? They are called “influence” campaigns for a reason; they are intended to shape both beliefs and behaviors.

Things that have broad support now may have that support primarily because of longstanding influence campaigns.

Both the widespread growth in smoking, and its later drop in popularity, are often credited to determined influence campaigns. You are not immune to propaganda!

>In the 90's no one could envision rounding up immigrants.

Both Clinton and Obama deported way more people than Trump.

[dead]