
Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations - r721
http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/digital-economy/censorship-shadowy-forces-controlling-online-conversations
======
fidotron
Of course, this place isn't immune to it. That includes all the usual suspect
discussions (NSA, Palestine, China, Russia etc.) but more visibly with the
employees of certain companies.

One of the more curious things you can do on HN to distract from a story is to
start a tangential flamewar in the comments on it, but my single favourite way
I see to bury things around here is to ask for detailed citations to data for
something which really doesn't need it, as that results either in a flamewar
or if left the post loses any momentum completely.

~~~
selmnoo
The fascinating thing is, you can't stop the ads on HN from the big _big_
players, because it's effectively accounted as being real news. Zuckerberg
held the second public Q&A session the other day, that promised him some news.
Then there was that article about a woman engineer at Facebook, the story
appeals very appropriately to current events and the emotional zeitgeist of
the tech industry, and there was that whole campaign by Sheryl Sandberg in the
last few years (which she has dialed down now). So, astroturfing is an
amateur's game, the big boys actually launch massive campaigns that give them
a nice PR image, they do big actions that ensure coverage. All of this is done
very carefully to ensure that the news is framed in a way they want to
consumers. One of my favorite pg essays is about this, about the fact that a
lot of journalists are lazy and fishing for a marketable story. Make the work
easy for them, give them a marketable narrative (communicate it to them not by
giving them money/bribing them -- no, that's an amateur's game, you give them
the narrative in a socratic manner, you give them selected bits and pieces and
trust they'll fill in the blanks). But money/bribing/soft extortion helps too.
E.g., if you slam Apple, you don't get invited to their conferences and such.
And everyone wants Apple stories... and if you can't report Apple stories, you
lose viewers. So you just keep giving out nice Apple stories and you can
remain confident you'll continue to get a nice stream of goodies from Apple.
Etc. etc.

~~~
Htsthbjig
This was just the start:

[http://vimeo.com/85948693](http://vimeo.com/85948693)

Now companies and big governments are analyzing network graphs in real time
thanks to Facebook. They can test people's reaction on real time to anything.

I don't believe that Apple's success is just about Advertisement, I use their
products a lot because they are very good products.

When I was a kid I did not have money so I bought all computer gear myself
looking for the best deal, then I also used my own OS(gentoo with everything
super optimized). I used to joke with my friends about how Apple was all about
Advertisements and nothing about quality, and people was so stupid.

Then I grow up, I started working on my own and I suffered so much for my
conscienceless. First I had to change to a stable Debian because gentoo was
killing me, then I had to change to standardized hardware too as it was doing
my life miserable.

One day I bought a mac as a luxury because I had made some money with my
company. I started using it a lot, it was so simple and it did not made me
spent as much time as Linux. I made some numbers and it made sense to buy more
Apple gear. It worked great.

I made tons of money buying "expensive"() stuff.

What makes Apple great is that is is one of the only companies that get how
real people work, read this book:

[http://www.amazon.com/The-Inmates-Are-Running-
Asylum/dp/0672...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Inmates-Are-Running-
Asylum/dp/0672326140)

Now, I am not a fanatic of Apple, I would love other companies doing the
same(like doing my computers on metal) but it is not easy. In my experience
companies without engineers on place do not know how to create things. Those
that have engineers on place do not understand humans well enough.

()expensive is losing a customer because you could not fix something on time.
Expensive is paying an engineer to pay for something that should not be broken
in the fist time.

~~~
pmoriarty
I hate Apple.

I too used to use Gentoo, though it was far from my first Linux OS, and Linux
was not my first Unix-like OS. I'll spare you the recounting of my entire
computer-use history, except to say that I've used a wide variety of operating
system over a period of decades, both as a user, sysadmin, and a developer.

I've hated Windows since it was invented, and hated Microsoft before even
then, back in the DOS days, when it was a grabage OS that undeservedly
dominated the 8-bit market. In some ways it's gotten better (particularly on
the stability front), but in others its gotten worse (its dominance on the
desktop market is complete).

Apple is like Microsoft with a smile on its face. Everybody's switching to it
because it's cool, sleek, and trendy and even Linux is trying to emulate it.
But its walled gardens, dumbed down, crippled and bastardized OS'es and "fuck
you", "my way or the highway" attitude towards technical users, developers,
and sysadmins make me want to puke.

Most users don't know any better, but I really don't get all the technical
people who've switched to it from Linux and still sing its praises. They
should know better. The most common attitude I hear from them is that they'd
rather their OS "just work", and that they're too busy to spend a lot of time
tweaking or making it work.

To that I say that they're really not as technical as they think. Someone who
loves technology would pick the technically superior solution, the solution
that gave them more choice and power, even if it required more of them as
users, rather than picking the dumbed-down, technically crippled solution that
may be easier to use by non-technical users (or users who don't care about
technoogy, or are too busy to care). They would pick the three-button mouse
over the one-button mouse.

Some examples of crippled and dumbed-down aspects of OS X off the top of my
head (I should really keep a list, as I run in to something nearly every day):

    
    
      - massive and pervasive lack of choice
      - no focuse-follows mouse
      - no tiling window managers
      - X is not integrated with OS X's crappy windowing system,
        so you can't use X and still effectively interact with non-X gui apps
      - the Finder is a horrendous piece of shit
      - mouse-centric interface, forcing clicking through everything to
        configure the machine
      - no standard package manager (no, homebrew/macports, etc are not a
        good substitute until they can install everything and do it
        without conflict with the rest of the OS
      - no standard way to uninstall software
      - no more server-level hardware, forcing the use of Mac minis in
        racks because of:
      - license limits to running OSX only on Apple hardware, so you can't
        run it on standard server-level intel/amd hardware
      - tons of closed, proprietary, non-standard garbage like mDNSResponder, mds, etc
      - a feeble culture of open-source compared to Linux/BSD
      - default installs stuck with ancient versions of *nix utilities like bash
      - etc, etc, etc
      - and don't even get me started on the Apple Store or iDevices
      

I wish I never even knew any of the above, but I've been forced to find out
because I'm forced to use OS X at work. I've long suspected that OS X is
garbage, but now I know first-hand. It's like Windows all over again.

I guess I should be grateful that it's a *nix underneath, even if it is
crippled and bastardized. But the world would be far better off if Microsoft
and Apple never existed.

</rant>

~~~
sk5t
As a counter to the notion that "they're really not as technical as they
think," I'd argue that the professional user has to pick and choose his
battles. Spending half a day futzing with window manager and X server
configurations--whether due to new hardware, an incompatible patch, or
something else--really, really hurts when it stands in the way of programming.

~~~
pekk
Mainstream Linux distros have not required those things for many years.

------
notacoward
This is why I'm not particularly thrilled about programs passing the Turing
test. As soon as we have programs that can write credibly human-sounding
comments on sites like this, many conversations will be controlled by whoever
can afford the largest sockpuppet farm. Also, for every post on the actual
threads of interest, there will be dozens of comments on _every_ thread
designed to increase karma. Automated karma whoring might even be more
injurious than the direct intervention, because it will increase the
groupthink tendencies already present.

Some might say we're already half way there. I disagree. Yes, Google or Apple
employees might swamp an occasional thread here and there, either openly or
covertly, but what I'm talking about would be a whole order of magnitude worse
and _constant_.

~~~
r0s
It seems like any kind of mass-comment system would be easy to detect. Simply
limiting the post rate and comparing to other posts would work just like
current anti-span filters now.

~~~
notacoward
Limiting what post rate? If it's coming from a farm it could have the same
distribution as real people. If you read the article, you'll see that it's not
about spam. It's about astroturf, and not even the kind where you just get a
people to repeat your talking points. There are more subtle ways of diverting
attention toward a legitimate message you find favorable, or away from a
message you'd rather have people forget. That's all _much_ harder for an
automated system to detect, and the karma-whoring part harder still.

Look at some of the other comments _on this very thread_. Not the top vote-
getters, but the ones that must have gotten two or three upvotes apiece.
Several of those could easily have been generated by an AI designed to
rephrase an already-popular view, perhaps with a pop culture reference or two
thrown in to make it seem more authentic. Voila, instant karma, which can then
be used in the ways the original presentation suggested to influence who reads
what.

It only seems easy until you spend five minutes thinking about it.

~~~
sitkack
It is the same problem as credit card fraud detection on an ecommerce site.
Naive stuff is easy, as the fraud gets more sophisticated it is
indistinguishable from human traffic. It isn't just that bots will post
stories, but the bots are controlled by persona-amplification software, so a
single person could control 100+ bots, tweaking and modifying their behavior
while keeping a 2k view of the conversation.

------
penprog
The first thing this article reminded me of was ghost in the shell season 2.
In the show the Intelligence Agency of the government used this sort of info
manipulation to increase animosity towards refugees to the point where the
public was in support of basically slaughtering them.

In the show this agency also analyzed public opinion using info obtained from
discussion forums to gauge the public's acceptance of government policy and
they would use the information manipulation with sock puppets to change public
opinion in their favor.

~~~
mrottenkolber
One of the best shows ever. The whole Stand Alone Complex concept is kind of
unique to GitS, is it?

Edit: Oh and btw, ghost in the lisp:
[http://medias.ircam.fr/x03b42f](http://medias.ircam.fr/x03b42f)

RPG talking about his work on the mass media manipulation machine of DARPA.

~~~
cjslep
Yes and no[0]. For reference, the definition of a Stand Alone Complex from
wikipedia [1]:

 _Stand Alone Complex (スタンド・アローン・コンプレックス Sutando Arōn Konpurekkusu) eventually
came to represent a phenomenon where unrelated, yet very similar actions of
individuals create a seemingly concerted effort._

The ideology of radical Islam from the viewpoint of neoconservatives in the
USA in the 00 decade was of "shadowy underground terrorist cells all linked
together and we should all be afraid of it", when in reality it was much more
akin to the Stand Alone Complex: disparate radical groups all over the world
used a common idea to act on their own but without communicating to one
another. When viewed by the intelligence community, _of course_ they weren't
independent isolated events influenced by the same root idea; they were a
_centralized_ enemy. They projected thwir own _centralized_ nature to the
fragmented radical Islamic movement of the early 00's. Eventually, that
radical Islamic movement grew into the identity provided them by the
intelligence community as a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

[0]So yes in name, no in practice if you buy into the viewpoint above.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Ghost_in_the_Shel...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Ghost_in_the_Shell#Stand_Alone_Complex)

~~~
e12e
To take this a bit further, as far as I know, the question of what constitutes
a _mind_ is still an open question. Ie: where does the "mind" live in us? Is
emergent minds, like that displayed by a ant colony, really a mind, in the
same sense that we have minds?

One of the hard things about [ed: (military)] intelligence, [gathering] is
that it is very hard to ask the right questions. You can sometimes find the
"right" answers to the "wrong" questions -- and convince yourself you know
what's going on -- while in reality you're interacting with a shadow-reality
of partially your own creation.

For example: oppress and invade, deploy divide and conquer tactics across
unconnected populations that share some cultural values -- and you'd probably
be able to create a stand a alone complex in the form of the resistance that
forms. Then that might latter merge into a true complex, as the various
independent parts realize that they have a somewhat common agenda... Maybe
we'll see the new Star Wars films inadvertently expand on this theme, judging
by how they're setting up the story with then animated "Star Wars: Rebels"
series? :-)

Highly recommend the newest prequel installation of Ghost in the Shell, GitS:
Arise:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_Shell:_Arise](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_Shell:_Arise)

------
arca_vorago
This is more insidious than I think even most HN readers realize. In the
intelligence community, the big black sheep people don't really talk about is
psychological operations, or psyops, units. They are the same breed that used
research from MK ULTRA style programs to learn how to deprogram humans (some
claims on how to reprogram them), and part of that is a scientific analysis of
mass social community discourse. Previously, domestic propaganda was illegal,
though it was often engaged in _anyway_ now that the law against domestic
propaganda has been rescinded that means the remnants of older programs like
Operation Mockingbird, where the CIA inserted people into news outlets across
the board for intel gathering and disinfo pushing, have now evolved to a level
where they are actively manipulating public discourse on all kinds of
subjects.

A very good example of this is the post JFK assassination issue. It's pretty
clear to any intellectually honest person that there are some very large
issues that were never addressed regarding the assassination, because the CIA
purposeful put into action an operation to discredit any alternative theory's
as "conspiracy theory" and anyone who talked in that manner was labeled as a
crackpot "conspiracy theorist" and then a large campaign to undermine any
logical discussion of "conspiracy theory", essentially by putting it, as
Chomsky would say, "outside the accepted range of debate".

Wonder why the fourth estate, aka journalism is in such a sad state of
affairs? It's because the state has reached (quietly) so far into it that even
the handful of real journalist are having a hard time.

They have keep up technologically to keep sources safe, which proves almost
impossible these days. They have to deal with pushback from the editors bosses
of a glarily political nature, they have to deal with being cut off from
sources if they happen to piss off the wrong people with a too-strong story.

This is another reason the surveillance society is so insidious. I have said
it before and I will say it again, surveillance, censorship, subtle covert
influence of public discourse, are not about security.

It's about control.

A lot of people argue about 1984 vs Brave New World. What I say is that it's a
Brave New World, unless you attempt to resist, then it's 1984. This is the
state we live in, the real question is "Are the people going to let this
happen?"

I'm no longer so reliant on the "long arc of justice", and am getting pretty
pessimistic.

~~~
drcomputer
> This is the state we live in, the real question is "Are the people going to
> let this happen?"

I am terrified of mental manipulation. My only inclination and direction is to
train my mind to be an independent blank slate. There's also an odd web that
forms, the direction of information flows, word choice, word frequency, like
it ping pongs in between groups of people. The form of abstract ideas, the
direction of thought. These things can be studied.

~~~
arca_vorago
>The form of abstract ideas, the direction of thought. These things can be
studied.

Indeed you are on to something there. I have long called for a return to our
Enlightenment roots for just that reason. It encourages an independent and
able mindset, which is precisely why education has been deliberately
manipulated in to preventing any such thing.

Education of the populace is not in the interest of the international or
domestic oligarchs. Remember this.

~~~
drcomputer
I don't think anyone really does it on purpose. A truly independent mind can
be a terrifying thing. It can make you feel disconnected, isolated, insane, or
stupid.

I have observed the flow of information through people for a long time. I find
myself incredibly tired of studying this. It shows nothing of an individual's
depth, their character, their individual personality. It's the shadow on the
cave.

~~~
Umn55
>A truly independent mind can be a terrifying thing. It can make you feel
disconnected, isolated, insane, or stupid.

You get used to it because you remember the science:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F17JGDZDVUs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F17JGDZDVUs)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eURiWot_-
ng&list=UUW1ELHQMq-...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eURiWot_-
ng&list=UUW1ELHQMq-RFZhtOf6dVObg)

------
Animats
I've made this point before about search engine ranking. Most of the
popularity signals used by search engines can be, and are, faked. I have two
papers on this:

"Social is bad for search, and search is bad for social" (2012), or how
Google's use of social signals backfired, badly.
[http://www.sitetruth.com/doc/socialisbadforsearch09.pdf](http://www.sitetruth.com/doc/socialisbadforsearch09.pdf)

How Google's use of social signals backfired, badly.

"'Places' spam - the new front in the spam wars", or how Google's use of
"local" information backfired.
"[http://www.sitetruth.com/doc/placesspam10.pdf"](http://www.sitetruth.com/doc/placesspam10.pdf")
(2010)

Google's merge of data from Google Maps into the main search engine results
created a whole new branch of local SEO spam.

The fundamental problem is that the creation of fake online identities is
cheap and easy. This can be partially fixed by taking a tough line on
identity, but that's hard for services which are either big or have only a
casual connection with their users. Facebook ran into the gay agenda enforcing
a real names policy.

The mobile guys can at least make people buy a phone to fake an identity. (A
phone number is not enough; you can rent fake phone numbers. See
"[http://www.attlines.com](http://www.attlines.com)) An app that phones home
with too much user information, though, is hard to fake cheaply. Yelp can tell
if your phone has been to the place you're rating.

~~~
jordigh
> the gay agenda

I'm not sure if you know about this, but this is typically a term of derision
and a strawman by anti-gay and homophobic groups.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda)

~~~
seanp2k2
+1; there are also lots of other marginalized groups of people who stand to
lose something if aliases cannot be used.

Edit: for example:
[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/29/faceboo...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/29/facebooks-
real-names-policy-is-legal-but-its-also-problematic-for-free-speech)

~~~
teddyh
Larger and more concise list: _Who is harmed by a "Real Names" policy?_

[http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea...](http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_policy%3F)

~~~
birdsareweird
Yes but this comes from Geek Feminism wiki, so you have to read it as such:

Someone I like is forced to not be anonymous: oppression. Someone I dislike is
forced to not be anonymous: justice.

~~~
jordigh
No you don't. Evaluate the statement independently of who is making it. Just
because someone calls themselves "feminist" while making a claim doesn't mean
you should invalidate their claim.

------
fiatmoney
2013's "Most Reddit Addicted City" was Eglin Air Force Base.

[http://www.redditblog.com/2013/05/get-ready-for-global-
reddi...](http://www.redditblog.com/2013/05/get-ready-for-global-reddit-
meetup-day.html)

~~~
superuser2
Air Force Bases are also full of technologically inclined 18 to 25 year old
men, i.e the Reddit demographic.

------
InfiniteRand
I'm not sure how alarmed I am by this. I certainly have seen this in action on
Wikipedia at least, if not on the scale described, but I have little doubt it
occurs and I can think of a couple events whose online conversations show
evidence of this sort of manipulation.

To some degree I admit, when I see the overwhelming online conversation
swaying in one direction, it does influence. On the other hand, partially
because I know online conversation manipulation is out there, I become less
prone to read comments. I used to always read comments to Economist articles
for example, now I rarely do.

Ultimately, if there is online conversation manipulation but people barely pay
attention to it, it will be overwhelmed by all the other random sources of
influence in our lives. Whether, traffic, etc. all play some influence on our
opinions, if the impact of the online conversation manipulation is less than
that, I am not alarmed.

There are two other aspects of this worth thinking about:

1\. What is the problem we have with online conversation manipulation? Is it
the sock-puppets alone? If you replace sock-puppets with volunteers, is that
different enough? If you take volunteers who otherwise wouldn't participate in
that online conversation, is that different enough? What are the aspects of
this that are different from a legitimate campaign to change the opinions of
others about a position you think is profoundly wrong.

2\. One sad aspect of this is that it dilutes the impact of anonymous or semi-
anonymous voices on the web. This was a short-cut to influence for ordinary
web users. On the other hand, this is in a way natural, whenever the impact of
a medium becomes popularly recognized, more people will try to utilize that
medium, and its impact will be diluted. In the same way, just having a website
used to be a short-cut to influence, but now has little effect.

~~~
stemc43
US gov. actually admitted that it has a trolling network - it used to be
called "viral peace". They claim it operates on "terrorist websites". And of
course they give no definition of "terrorist websites" \- But I think it's
safe to assume reddit, twitter, facebook are terrorist websites.

~~~
schoen
They also have some openly governmental accounts called "Think Again Turn
Away", like

[https://twitter.com/ThinkAgain_DOS](https://twitter.com/ThinkAgain_DOS)
[https://www.facebook.com/ThinkAgainTurnAway](https://www.facebook.com/ThinkAgainTurnAway)

They used to directly engage in debate with people more, while now they seem
to have switched to a more posting-only style.

------
lizzard
I've been talking about this for years; we have to at the least be aware that
there is wide scale sockpuppetry and astroturfing for political as well as
corporate ends. Better tools for disinformation detection may help. One person
running many personas is much easier to detect than the more sophisticated
model we have now.

------
higherpurpose
That's a pretty scary concept when we have the rise of the unstoppable,
unaccountable and highly secretive spy agencies. Things will probably get even
worse when Strong AI exists.

~~~
jacquesm
When -> if.

And if strong AI comes in to play the world will change in ways that any kind
of speculation as to whether 'things will get worse or better' is totally
moot.

------
snarfy
Reminds me of megaphone:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaphone_desktop_tool](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaphone_desktop_tool)

------
r721
Presentation slides (pdf, 55mb):
[http://conference.hitb.org/hitbsecconf2014kul/materials/D2T1...](http://conference.hitb.org/hitbsecconf2014kul/materials/D2T1%20-%20Haroon%20Meer%20Azhar%20Desai%20and%20Marco%20Slaviero%20-%20Weapons%20of%20Mass%20Distraction.pdf)

PDFy mirror:
[https://pdf.yt/d/Rw7qpWWchX0cd05f](https://pdf.yt/d/Rw7qpWWchX0cd05f)

------
raggaeturf
If you doubt this, then just criticize Google on HN or Reddit...

Google has thousands of employees and sock puppets on all social media
discussions. It's especially blatant on Reddit.

Google is a charity and everything they do is perfect and for the good of
humanity. They've never been involved in massive spying and with monopolistic
practices concerning their spammy ads and search engine preference for ebay,
amazon, trip advisor and others.

~~~
sologoub
Negative comment, 2 karma and this is an only comment you made... You look
like a sock puppet to me :)

~~~
penprog
maybe you are the sockpuppet?

~~~
jerf
Behold the futility of the sock puppet accusation in practice.

(Preempting "jerf is a sock puppet". Let's skip that.)

------
wyck
This has been going on in one form of another throughout history. But if you
want to sway opinion on the internet, it's not that easy. There are a lot of
voices and noise in the mix, compared to how it was a mere 20 years ago.

This is certainly important, but in the context of history, how people consume
information is on a much better track, in my opinion things are actually
getting better if you look at the big picture.

------
pekk
Whenever someone says something you disagree with, just accuse them of being a
sockpuppet of a shadowy conspiracy.

Then you can censor their view very effectively.

------
patcon
Call me crazy, but it /has/ crossed my mind that #gamergate might have been a
large-scale test of the ability to create widespread conflict and some degree
of community crisis from thin air through sock-puppetry...

EDIT: I honestly don't totally understand what gamergate is, but am in awe of
the resurging energy of the whole thing, and hence the observation

------
lol123456
A social group implies at least 2 persons.

Even if two people are in a room, and they start having a conversation what
you find is that they will try to

* Censor / Re-Imagine themselves to present their POV in a better way

* Censor / Manipulate the other person to force their POV unto them.

The online is a complete extension of the offline, so its perfectly normal for
all this to happen, even all the time !

------
woah
Seems like it would be an important public service to game as much online
discussion as possible, persistently. Right now, the vulnerability of these
discussion media is not detrimental to those running them. Make gameability of
discussion media something that is actually visible, and the vulnerabilities
will be patched.

~~~
jevgeni
Kind of hard to follow, what you are trying to say. Synergy.

~~~
woah
Persistent, ridiculous gaming of discussion media would be good for society,
as it would force it to become gaming resistant.

~~~
lol123456
If you take away sock puppets you take away anonymity as well. Even if you
make everyone use their name and face and display pic and ip address and
location, there is no guarantee that a group of people will stop censoring
another group with or without sock puppets.

If you care to count there are at-least 5 controls on HN or any forum since
1990.

1\. What gets on homepage ( Stickies ) 2\. Admin control 3\. Firewall 4\.
Voting 5\. Moderators

If you take social groups into consideration then on HN you have at least

1\. Programmers 2\. Startup People 3\. Technical People 4\. Geeks 5\. Hackers
6\. Security Hackers 7\. College Students 8\. Academic People 9\. Trend
followers 10\. Trolls ( my people )

These 10 groups fight amongst each other with the help of 5 controls above.
Every forum is always like this, since its inception-middle-death.

No one really wins but the constant bickering about forces each group to outdo
each other. Whether it is progress or going about in circles only time will
tell.

Just because you can patch the fucking software doesn't mean people will
change. You will probably add one more control level to make into a total of 6
and then __nothing __. Some other egghead will write about censorship 3.0

It is best to accept internet as it is.

------
intended
All the discussion here pointing out possible shill armies aside - is there
some way to actually stop it.

How do we move conversations - Forward.

~~~
sitkack
We voice our thoughts and opinions verbally, with our neighbors, coworkers and
friends. Convincing people online in discussion forums is not the best use of
our rhetorical time, I would argue that most discussion forums are actually
honey pots, whether intended or not.

------
legutierr
Are the sock puppets that frequent HN simply much harder to detect? It often
surprises me that HN is not a target for these kinds of people; I like to
think that I have a good sense of when this kind of thing is going on, but
probably I'm less sophisticated than I think I am.

~~~
jacquesm
HN is definitely a target for these kind of people. It has gone so far as high
level contacts between the bosses of these kind of people and the stewards to
sort things out. That doesn't mean that it has stopped nor does it mean there
won't be repetitions. Astroturfing, burying, and derailing all happen. The
scariest aspect to me is not those that are paid to do this sort of thing,
because I can see their motivation but their little helpers in the form of the
gullible public. From the above you could probably conclude I'm a cynical old
bastard these days and you wouldn't be to far off.

I suspect that any forum with more than a few thousand participants has
elements that are trying to actively shape the conversation to serve their
goals on it.

~~~
legutierr
> The scariest aspect to me...are their little helpers in the form of the
> gullible public

Well, given my rather naive comment above, I have to assume that I fall into
this category to some extent. What would you suggest people do differently?

~~~
jacquesm
Be skeptical about _everything_ you read online and offline (but moreso
online), check up on sources rather than to use citations helpfully provided
to underpin some bit of information and in general read until the cows come
home to make sure you have a solid foundation from which to make your own
judgment, especially when it comes to history and any attempts to re-write it.

------
Udik
Hmmm. The only verified case of sophisticated, organized sockpuppetry in the
wild mentioned by the article seem to be related to the Israeli- Palestinian
conflict and anti-semitism, and in every case they seem to be orchestrated to
favour Israel. But all the comments here seem concentrated on the NSA, AIs,
and even abortion. Now downvote me :)

~~~
krapp
Then clearly either you, or the article, or both are just another reeking
layer in the American government's propaganda onion. Edward Snowden clearly
proved, scientifically, that the NSA/CIA/Military Industrial Complex controls
everything and everyone I don't personally agree with, especially on the
internet.

Now go tell your controllers your mission has failed, Udik. If that even is
your real name.

