Can you point to a few comments that you consider examples?

I've never noticed occurrences of such stuff, so I'm curious what I'm failing to key in on.

Edit: and would someone mind explaining the downvotes? If they're meant to communicate something to me, I'm genuinely not understanding.

▲

rpdillon 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I like to study rhetoric, and appreciate folks asking for specifics. There's a lot of generalities thrown around on this forum that are highly questionable, and the only antidote I have is to request details. It's surprising how often folks resist.

A sibling comment replying to you is using a familiar tactic, which is to try to shame you for asking for specifics, while simultaneously providing none and telling you that it's obvious.

Occasionally people do provide details and I learn something, but that's not the common case, sadly.

▲

wiseowise 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Can you point to a few comments that you consider examples?

Just search for “Russia” on HN and follow threads. You’ll find lots of “what about West/Jews”, “Russia is fighting against NATO”, etc. Then open any western news outlet on YouTube and follow comments too.

▲

BlackRabbit1 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Post a controversial political statement and grab a beer.

▲

p-e-w 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Obviously. Because anyone who disagrees with the Western online consensus must be a bot, essentially by definition.

▲

wiseowise 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Would it please you if “useful idiot” would be used over bot when someone regurgitates Russian metodichkas?

	▲	p-e-w 20 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		No matter what ideology you follow, you are someone’s useful idiot, so this term is meaningless. Russia is no more (and no less) my enemy than the US and the EU are. And as far as spreading propaganda goes, Russia is downright mediocre compared to the latter two.

▲

braiamp 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ehh, there are enough humans that would do that. Don't delude yourself thinking that there are no people that hold such views.

▲

rokkamokka 3 hours ago | parent [-]

That's half the point of the bots though, to spread the propaganda to other people so they spread it as well

	▲	p-e-w 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Having multiple genuinely different viewpoints in a discussion isn’t evidence of “bots”, it’s the default in any community that isn’t heavily censored to silence dissent. And individuals voicing their different viewpoints isn’t “propaganda”, it’s the definition of discourse.

▲

asanineassasin 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The russian bots are better.. usually its conspiracy fog, attached to a valid russia opposing point that reveals them. Chinese bots are just this months CCP talking points, so can be quite easily visible if they cram some topic only china cares about into every reply.

▲

MomsAVoxell 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nobody wants honesty, everyone just wants to fit in with the collective. The downvotes are the collective, reactive mindset, showing itself.

▲

gilrain 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The downvotes are because you're resisting easily-observed reality with the seemingly-rational response "Where is this 'air'? If I'm breathing it, it should be easy to point to, no?"

No. If you can't see it, and don't understand it's there, you cannot be explained to. You're someone with no palate asking how anyone else can know if a wine tastes good.

▲

CoastalCoder 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I appreciate that response. I don't know if/how to convince you that I'm asking the question in good faith, but (FWIW) I am.

Regardless, wouldn't it be easy to point me to even one example if it's as prevalent as (I think) you're saying?

Or am I missing your main point, i.e. that what's being described can't be demonstrated via example?

▲

gilrain 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> wouldn't it be easy to point me to even one example

Read and think about my wine analogy, if you care.

	▲	CoastalCoder 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think you're saying that it's hard to articulate why some particular comment should be judged as having come from a bot. I.e., similar to the SCOTUS opinion regarding pornography: "I know it if I see it". Is that correct? If so, wouldn't that still admit someone providing a specific example? The whole point of my original comment was that I knew I wasn't judging these things the same as others were.

▲

MomsAVoxell 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Nonsense. They’re trying to breathe and the downvotes won’t allow it.

	▲	gilrain 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Point out any wine that doesn't taste the same as any other, to me who has said he cannot taste wine. Only then, I'll believe you that wine can taste good or bad. Is my mind open? Is this not a waste of your time?