> there is a lot of coordinated astroturfing. It’s apparent if you watch the discussions across platforms, there are obvious shared talking points that come in waves.

Is that really evidence of astroturfing? If we're in the middle of an ongoing political debate, it doesn't seem that far fetched for me that people reach similar conclusions. What you're hearing then isn't "astro-turfing" but one coalition, of potentially many.

I often hear people terrified that the government will have a say on what they view online, while being just fine with google doing the same. You can agree or disagree with my assesment, but the point is that hearing that point a bunch doesn't mean it's google astroturfing. It just means there's an ideology out there that thinks it's different (and more opressive seemingly) when governments do it. It means all those people have a similar opinion, probably from reading the same blogs.

▲

zug_zug 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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...

▲

iamnothere 4 hours ago | parent [-]

An ex friend of mine was once involved in some thing where they got paid to astroturf for Monsanto. Despite living in the city, they suddenly developed deeply informed opinions about glyphosate and how important it is for agriculture, and they would share these opinions aggressively in online discussions along with pro-Monsanto articles. It was disturbing to watch because the behavior was completely uncharacteristic (and seemingly in conflict with their core beliefs). One day they quit doing it just as suddenly.

This was before the heyday of influencer culture, so I can only imagine how sophisticated things are nowadays. It’s not always bots.

I recommend the book Trust Me, I’m Lying for a deep but somewhat dated look at the online influence industry.

	▲	zug_zug 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's fascinating. I'd love to read an account from somebody who's been through that pipeline about how it worked.

▲

klsdjfdlkfjsd 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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?

▲

fyredge 6 hours ago | parent [-]

In the same way that they came up with the idea of divine being(s) in the image of man that rule nature.

In the same way that patriarchy rose amongst them all.

In the same way that a shared currency was deemed necessary.

Escpecially in matters of governance, there is something to be said about how humans like to organise themselves. No country has truly escaped capitalism so far.

	▲	klsdjfdlkfjsd 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You noticed the facts, but completely failed to understand how the facts came to be. > In the same way that they came up with the idea of divine being(s) in the image of man that rule nature. Thanks to the diligent efforts of the Priesthood, of course, who never cease in their 'education' of humanity as to the 'truth.' Before the world came under centralized control of the Priesthood, there were many tribes of 'Nephelim'--or no-faith-God-people. (ne-phe-el-im.) (Nope, it has nothing to do with aliens. Guess who is telling that lie also?) > In the same way that patriarchy rose amongst them all. Not among my ancestors the Cherokee. They were a matriarchy. They were wiped out (genocided) by foreigners who were controlled by a paternal Priesthood. In our own history, we were once ruled by such a priesthood. They were called the Nicotani, or Ani-Kutani. They grew insolent and arrogant and eventually crossed the line when one of them raped a man's wife. They were subsequently exterminated, to the last man. > In the same way that a shared currency was deemed necessary. By whom? Who made that decision for you? Is it you who is deciding to get rid of cash and make everything digital too, so that you can be even more easily tracked, controlled, monitored...enslaved? > Escpecially in matters of governance, there is something to be said about how humans like to organise themselves. That's just the thing. It's not you organizing yourself.