
Undercover reporter reveals life in a Polish troll farm - prostoalex
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/01/undercover-reporter-reveals-life-in-a-polish-troll-farm
======
rad_gruchalski
What this article fails to mention: there was recently a case discovered where
one of the clients of these troll farms was... Ministry of Justice. They used
to slander judges who were not in the political line of thought of the
previous / current leading party.

The knowledge of this was as high up as Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the man who
appears to be driving the whole country from the back seat.

One of many, many articles available in Polish press:
[https://www.rp.pl/Sedziowie-i-sady/309239933-Farma-
trolli-w-...](https://www.rp.pl/Sedziowie-i-sady/309239933-Farma-trolli-w-
Ministerstwie-Sprawiedliwosci-co-ustalil-UODO-ws-wycieku-danych-sedziow.html)

Edit: added „line of“ in „ They used to slander judges who were not in the
political line of thought of the previous / current leading party.“

~~~
A4ET8a8uTh0
I can't say it surprises me. But I think by now every government is using such
farms. I find it difficult to believe otherwise based on recent FCC issues (
[https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jsvine/net-
neutrality-f...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jsvine/net-neutrality-
fcc-fake-comments-impersonation)).

Yes, sadly, I am invoking everyone is doin' it.

~~~
RobertRoberts
I don't think it's just government, but also likely industries as well. I've
seen what could only be trolling for support of nuclear power and the medical
industry.

~~~
Twixes
What do nuclear power trolls look like? I support nuclear power (instead of
fossil fuels and in addition to renewables) and, sadly, I haven't got a cent
from the nuclear industry yet.

~~~
RobertRoberts
You will see "we need nuclear power because it's the greenest/most
renewable/etc... energy" type posts dispersed all through social media almost
anywhere there's a discussion about climate change, renewable energy, etc...

Even if the original topic was only tangentially related it will get changed.
A post with puppy photos can turn into a climate change discussion because
"nuclear power is so green".

It's so common now that it's uncanny.

~~~
Teever
Let's run with your idea and let's say that there are clandestine efforts to
promote the idea of nuclear power generation in the public -- cui bono?

Who benefits? Are there any major initiatives in the nuclear industry? Are any
new plants starting to be built?

All I've seen is a bunch of plants that have horrible cost overruns and no
fixed time line for being finished.

That doesn't sound like something that you'd want to raise public awareness
about if you were in the nuclear industry.

So who does this kind of campaign benefit if not the nuclear industry? It
doesn't seem to benefit the oil and gas industry who are without a doubt the
masters and originators of propaganda in this market. It doesn't benefit solar
and wind generators -- so who?

~~~
RobertRoberts
I don't know, but maybe discussing it will bring some light to this subject?
Maybe a system/method to determine who is a professional troll?

\-----

Pro-Troll Filter: (first draft)

1\. Is the commenter able to rationally discuss the downsides of their
position?

NO? Possibly a pro-troll or an irrational comment.

2\. Is the commenter willing to admit past errors in implementing of their
ideal solution, and also consider the same errors could occur again? (ie, no
true Scotsman logical fallacy)

NO? Possibly a pro-troll or an irrational comment.

3\. Is the commenter willing to look at and/or discuss real data, even if it
contradicts their position?

NO? Possibly a pro-troll or an irrational comment.

4\. Does the commenter devolve into ad hominem attacks?

YES? Possibly a pro-troll or an irrational comment.

\----

Irrationality note:

People have bad days and can act irrationally at any time. But I have found
that when someone is unable/unwilling to admit error tries to support an idea
based on limited information will devolve into irrational comments when
challenged with counter arguments/questions. Not sure how this will help with
pro-troll filtering, but it's more data to consider.

~~~
kortilla
Your filter sucks. Pro trolls don’t become irrational. They just defuse or
disappear.

Only fanboys dig in and defend a subject with senseless arguments once they
become emotional.

If you’re trying to come up with a filter, decide: do you want to filter out
trolls or just people that are fans of topics that hurt your feelings? Right
now it just looks like a filter for any conversation with a human you disagree
with.

~~~
dabbledash
To me it just reads as a filter for people who aren’t worth arguing with on
the internet.

~~~
RobertRoberts
Then it has multiple uses?

------
nkozyra
This really is a critical juncture for the internet; the moment wherein the
democratization of information has empowered those with the resources to
overwhelm the signal with noise.

I wish I saw a way out.

~~~
TheRealDunkirk
Google has largely solved the spam problem for end users. What I can't figure
out is why platforms like Facebook and Twitter couldn't mark these sort of
posts as, essentially, spam, by the same sort of rules and heuristics as email
spam. Why can't they look at the metadata of verified troll-farm-generated
clickbait/junk/spam/fake news, and make their own filters, and demote that
content?

Simple. Because they're making money on the garbage. It's a misalignment of
incentives. Until that is fixed, through reorganization or regulation, the
problem will persist. They will only do enough to fight this -- both in terms
of technology and public image -- so that it doesn't impact their bottom
line(s).

~~~
nomel
I think you’re trivializing the difficulty in categorizing the low quality,
and extremely brief, comments of social media.

Go look at a political subreddit, or some controversial tweet. There’s little
conversation or context. Most users could be bots.

Google often has the advantage of having hard (url) or soft (product/key word
mention) links that point to something extremely rare and “unimportant”.
Everyone is bitching about politicians and policy in a way that’s not far from
a Markov chain.

~~~
braindead_in
Thee larger problem is factual accuracy. With all the propaganda going around,
it is hard to find the truth. Any attempt to classify such opinions will
inevitably further a propaganda.

As someone said, we live in strange timeline where comedians are more
trustworthy than politicians.

~~~
stef25
FB does work with 3rd party fact checkers. We should be able to trust people
from places like Reuters to remain fairly neutral.

~~~
tmp20191105
3rd party fact checkers themselves are highly biased. If you think reuters is
neutral, then you really don't understand the "news" business. The "news"
business isn't in the business of news. It's in the influence business. The
founder of reuters started off peddling radical revolutionary propaganda.

Paul Julius Reuter worked at a book-publishing firm in Berlin and was involved
in distributing radical pamphlets at the beginning of the Revolutions in 1848.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters#History)

Besides, the problematic part with "news" involve "non-factual" news but
rather political "news". Whether globalism is good or bad. What, if anything,
to do about climate change. Nonsense like veganism, etc. There, by nature,
can't be fact-checked because it is a value/contextual judgment rather than a
factual one. Capitalism vs communism, nationalism vs globalism, immigration vs
nativism, alt-right vs alt-left, traditional media vs social media, etc.

~~~
stef25
Reuters having started off spreading radical pamphlets is about as relevant as
Hitler being involved in the development of Volkswagen.

Nobody in charge needs to (or even can) decide if something like globalism or
communism is good or bad, just that no obvious lies are spread while
discussing it.

------
emptybits
> “For them it was just work and that’s it.”

Is it? If someone's job is spewing cleverly provocative, disruptive, toxic,
and intentionally negative messages all day ... does that edgy skill and
behaviour not leak into their home or personal life?

I understand, these workers need jobs and I'm sure some get quite proficient
at trolling. But my gut says there will be personal side effects from
reinforcing and working your brain and interactions like this all day. :-(

~~~
tnolet
With the risk of pulling a Godwin, the “It’s just a job, so any ethics, morals
or generally doing the right thing don’t apply” defense is getting kinda
stale.

It’s one step away from “I was just following orders”

~~~
ahje
It sounds more like it's akin to wage slavery rather than blindly following
orders. Assuming there aren't other jobs for those workers then they most
likely have to chose between that job and a meagre existence based on
government subsidies and goodwill of others.

------
9HZZRfNlpR
Reminds me 18th century Paris where professional applauders and influencers
were paid to influence the crowd.

Or the retro seo trick where you ask a question on yahoo questions so you can
answer it with another account to backlink "relevant" website.

Literally nothing new, internet has of course changed the scale and took away
the monopoly from newspapers and tv.

~~~
growlist
Pre-YouTube, fashion companies would employ companies to identify the cool
kids in a group and give them free stuff to wear, in order to promote the
brand.

~~~
saagarjha
Is this not still a thing for Instagram “influencers”?

~~~
skocznymroczny
I guess nowadays you don't need companies to tell you who the cool kid is
because you can just look at followers count.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
It is not just foreign governments using paid trolls. Apparently Hilary
Clinton used paid trolls against Bernie Sanders in 2016.

[https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-
troll...](https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-
trolling-20160506-snap-htmlstory.html)

>Hillary Clinton's well-heeled backers have opened a new frontier in digital
campaigning, one that seems to have been inspired by some of the Internet's
worst instincts. Correct the Record, a super PAC coordinating with Clinton's
campaign, is spending some $1 million to find and confront social media users
who post unflattering messages about the Democratic front-runner.

> “It is meant to appear to be coming organically from people and their social
> media networks in a groundswell of activism, when in fact it is highly paid
> and highly tactical,” said Brian Donahue, chief executive of the consulting
> firm Craft Media/Digital.

~~~
ineedasername
US campaigns doing it is, while still bad, is vastly different. One is an
issue of sleazy election campaigns. The other is a matter of foreign
interference with a country's fundamental sovereignty.

~~~
lucideer
Not sure I see the effective difference between bad faith domestic
interference in democratic process and foreign interference in democratic
process. Both have the same end result.

~~~
darth_skywalker
On the other hand, politicians have been trying to manipulate voters for
centuries - it seems like a new danger that foreign governments are now trying
to manipulate voters.

~~~
wuliwong
I would argue the foreign govt angle also is not new. The US at least has
interfered with foreign elections before the internet era.

~~~
ineedasername
Sure but just because the US are hypocrites on the issue doesn't mean we
should tolerate it.

~~~
wuliwong
I certainly am not arguing against that. My point was that it isn't new not
that we should tolerate it.

------
Yuval_Halevi
The sentence 'There is no such thing as bad publicity' Talks exactly about
cases like this.

The polish PR firm is about to get a wave of leads from this 'negative PR'

~~~
SamBam
So? The only way things are going to change is by bringing it to light. What
does it matter if in the short term the bad guys get some free press?

------
lev272
Most telling part of their statement is the defense that the company operates
"like like any other agency of its kind"—as if that is a defense.

As disgusting as this is, there are so many layers to regulating, much of
which stems from the nature of social media platforms vs. traditional media
platforms. Are the platforms they're posting on subject to the same propaganda
regulations as news outlets? Are they as individuals liable for the spread of
misinformation, as a result?

------
michens
I highly recommend reading their statement, which is btw the only content on
their site -
[https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A...](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fcatatnet.pl%2Fo-
nas%2F)

~~~
NeedMoreTea
They object to being called a troll farm, but essentially admit to all the
activities, including making fake accounts, that makes them a troll farm.
Other than getting picky about terminology it appears to be an admission of
guilt.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
I once went to a meeting of an actual full-blown cult.

It was a very curious evening. The first thing they did was reassure everyone
- slightly nervously - that they weren't a cult.

"You'll see us called a cult online, but we're not a cult. Ha ha. Definitely
not a cult. Certainly not. Oh no."

This denial sounds rather similar.

~~~
vadansky
Reminds me of when my friend took me to a MLM get together (aka Sales Pitch)

~~~
closetohome
It's not a pyramid, it's an upward funnel!

------
wufufufu
> A majority of Cat@Net’s employees are understood to be disabled, allowing
> the company to derive substantial public subsidies from Poland’s National
> Disabled Rehabilitation Fund. According to the Reporters Foundation, the
> company has received about 1.5 million zloty (£300,000) from the fund since
> November 2015.

I thought this was the worst part.

------
dpc_pw
The solution is not regulate it. The solution is to stop pretending like
social media have anything to do with reality.

~~~
ezzzzz
Try explaining this to the types of people who rely on heavily politicized
news outlets for their news...in addition to Facebook. It seems you either
have critical thinking skills or you don't. These types are addicted to
becoming outraged whenever their pundit tells them to. Everything is taken at
face value, as long as it's coming from their ascribed source of truth. This
behavior carries over into their social media filter bubbles, rinse and
repeat.

~~~
mistermann
> It seems you either have critical thinking skills or you don't.

I strongly disagree. Substantial amounts of similar (if to a lesser degree)
behavior can be observed in any identity-related thread on HN. We may be
better than the average mouth breather, but we're far from immune from
delusional beliefs.

I wonder, downvoter, why do you disagree? Surely you can acknowledge that
technical folks on HN are capable of critical thinking....do you truly believe
this ability extends to all other domains, completely free of error? Or,
_might it be something else_? :)

------
d4mi3n
I really don't like PR operations like this, but here's a thought experiment:

Presumably it's OK to voice one's opinions on social media, but:

1\. Is it acceptable for private interests to do the same?

2\. At what point does something turn from personal opinion to propaganda?

3\. Is it more problematic that a private entity (e.g. a PR firm) is
_pretending_ to express an honest opinion? Would this be acceptable if this
were a group of up-front political activists instead?

Personally, I'd draw the line at private interests trying to influence public
opinion. Sadly, this is a process as old as the hills. Marketing and
propaganda have existed for a long time, it just seems like it's become much
harder to pin it for what it is in the era of social media.

~~~
gpm
Disclaimer: I'm not saying any of these except the first has happened

\- Tory Bruno (CEO of ULA) promoting ULA on reddit under his own name
providing useful information: Definitely ok (thanks Tory!
[https://old.reddit.com/user/torybruno](https://old.reddit.com/user/torybruno))

\- Tory Bruno promoting ULA on reddit under a pseudonym: Almost acceptable,
not the best since he has money involved and isn't disclosing it, but he
probably honestly thinks most of what he is saying.

\- A PR person hired to promote ULA promoting ULA on reddit under disclosing
that they are a PR person: Mostly acceptable, not the best since they probably
aren't at all genuine

\- A PR person hired to promote ULA promoting ULA on reddit under not
disclosing that they are a PR person or associated with the company: Mostly
unacceptable, this isn't personal opinion but paid propaganda, and it
shouldn't masquerade as personal opinion.

\- A PR person hired to promote ULA promoting ULA on reddit under 10 different
pseudonyms: Completely unacceptable, this should probably be made outright
illegal. The only purpose of using pseudonyms like this is to trick people
into thinking you have support that you do not.

The article is talking about the last case, shades of grey exist, but this one
is known as pitch black.

~~~
peterlk
I find it pretty interesting that this comment is on HN. A few years ago, I
think it was pretty widely accepted in SV that the last method you mention was
just part of the grind. Maybe not the most straight-shooting approach, but
still accepted. We even had a title for it: growth hacking. People hired
growth hackers! I'm going to refrain from asserting a value judgement; I just
thought it was interesting

~~~
dang
We ban accounts that do that. It has never been acceptable on HN, not since
the beginning, and not by a long shot. People have wildly varying ideas about
what is "widely accepted in SV", largely imaginary I think, but in any case
not in the section of the Venn diagram that HN overlaps with. (Btw, only about
10% of HN's community is in SV.)

One case where we might not instantly ban someone is if they had a long
history of using HN as intended. Then we might left them off with a strict
warning not to do it again. But that's rare. Real community members tend not
to do this kind of thing, and that makes it easier for the community to spot:
since such comments are made by people without much experience here, they tend
to stand out like a sore thumb—usually a bunch of green thumbs that turn red
when whacked by a ban hammer.

Many has been the email thread in which a sheepish startup founder or manager
wrote to apologize for what their "growth hacker" did and asking to be
unbanned. We usually let them off if they promise not to do it again and to
tell all their friends that what "growth hacking" got them on HN was a swift
ban.

Another case where we incline to mercy is when the underlying article is good
work and something the community would normally find interesting, and it's
clear that the "growth hacking" was happening out of naivete. Usually this is
because someone had the mistaken idea from afar that it was "widely accepted
in SV" that this is how you do startups. Ironically they usually turn out to
be classic technical types who are clumsy at marketing and influenced by the
wrong kind of blogs. I say ironically because if they would just be themselves
and present their work in a direct way, they'd more likely do well on HN. In
this case the cure is to educate and hopefully make real community members out
of them.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>We ban accounts that do that. It has never been acceptable on HN,

I think he meant that it was an acceptable methodology, not that the various
platforms condoned it. I don't think any platform has ever condoned that sort
of use, or at least none that I can recall.

~~~
dang
That's a fair point, but I'd still like to get the word out that doing it on
HN will get your accounts and sites banned.

A similar point here if anyone is curious:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21439027](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21439027)

------
brokenkebab
Making of "artificial opinions" is a big part of PR trade now, in use by
commercial companies, NGOs, and politicians, of course. If it's paid with tax
money that's a scandal, for sure. But otherwise think of any entity which
wants (for whatever reason) to influence public opinion - you may be sure they
do that sort of stuff with practically 100% certainty. Some prefer to use
volunteers for this work, seeing it as a more ethical approach, but it still
involves creation of orchestrated accounts, and posting in accordance with
guides, and schedules. It's probably worth accepting that unknown voices on
the net are unlikely to be trusted sources of information.

------
marcinmozejko
In my opinion this is actual problem in Poland nowadays, however: a. This
article was published by a newspaper which has proven track of publishing fake
polarizing news, b. Unfortunately - the so called democratic oposition has
also proven track of similar behavior. One may check #SilniRazem (together we
are strong) which is kind of meme on Polish Twitter. 3\. It is likely that the
intent of the original article was to polarize using one-sided reporting of
the issue.

To sum up - yet another polarizing click-bait with aim is to cause outrage.

------
lliamander
So, can _this_ particular problem be solved if social media accounts had to be
tied to a verifiable identity?

I don't think we should go that route - as just some non-celebrity figure I
would much rather post psuedo-anonymously because the social costs of
accidentally saying something "bad" on the internet is way too high. I'm just
trying to figure out where the boundaries are.

------
misiti3780
Facebook has said it disabled 2.2bn fake accounts in the first three months of
2019

Uh, no they didnt that is 90% of the network.

~~~
raxxorrax
That would be so helpful if it were true.

------
greesil
I can't wait until we can just automate this garbage generation and put them
out of business.

------
macov2
Be warned of doing business in Poland. You might spends years in prison
awaiting trial.

Google Mr. Osiecki's case, a founder of a public mutual fund, or a case of Mr.
Kluska, a founder of Optimus.

------
swebs
What makes this any different from any other social media PR firm?

------
kache_
The existence of paid trolls and shills has been a known fact for many years
on various imageboards and forums. It's become a bit of an inside joke. I even
suspect that some memes have been generated by private institutions. For
example, the 30 year old boomer and his association with Monster has been
great advertising for Monster Energy ([https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/30-year-
old-boomer](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/30-year-old-boomer))

------
bladelessninja2
So internet's got rid of nicknames and switched to real names to avoid
anonymounity... yeah... right...

------
Keltullis
> she was given access to the company’s internal communications channels

Did she publicize logs from these channels?

------
mrwwwx
Isn't it nationalism raising?

------
sqldba
This is CRAZY.

How the fuck do you explain this level of trolling to your parents! That this
is why they shouldn’t repeat neo-Nazi Facebook garbage.

~~~
kleer001
Walk them through the history of Propaganda.

------
rehasu
Looks like the US is now trying to increase the division between East and West
Europe, huh?

------
notadoc
How many troll farms exist in the USA? Perhaps they're simply an arm of PR and
reputation management nowadays.

Anyway, further evidence that social media is bad for society.

