from the brought-to-you-by-Seseme-Street-and-CTW dept.
Security professionals and hackers attending the Hack In The Box Security Conference (HITBSecConf 2014) learned that online communities like Reddit, Twitter, Slashdot (and very likely SN) are being actively manipulated by teams of sockpuppets. At the HITB event, Haroon Meer and his team from South African-based Thinkst, an applied research company that focuses on information security, spoke about how certain parties – whether individuals with mischief in mind, organisations with vested interests, or certain nation-states – have been using false identities to control online conversations. More importantly, they also collected forensic evidence that such tampering has been going on.
“It’s the concept of rent-a-crowd, brought to the Internet age using sock puppets – essentially accounts that are created online that don’t really represent real people, and are used to sway people’s opinions in forums and other online get-togethers,” Meer said.
The full text of the talk is available at Weapons of Mass Distraction: Sock Puppetry for Fun and Profit , and you can read more at: http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/digital-economy/censorship-shadowy-forces-controlling-online-conversations/
(Score: 3, Funny) by Tork on Tuesday December 16 2014, @12:35AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday December 16 2014, @12:52AM
You win the internet for today...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @03:10AM
Now every time somebody has a different opinion the rebuttal will just be an accusation of shilldom.
It's possible.
From the conference paper: Techniques to avoid discussion of a topic you wish to keep out of the limelight-
1. Start distractor threads early in articles you wish not to get as much attention
2. Add light discussion to attract attention to your postings
3. Discredit opponents by doing a bad sock puppetry operation on their behalf
4. Use timeline crowding to push opponents lower in the page where they're less likely to be read.
5. Upmoderate and downmoderate to manage timelines and visibility.
6. Grow some visible personas for karma and;
7. manage others as stooges, to ask easy questions, and boost visible personas with comments like "You win the internet for today..."
8. ...
9. Profit
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday December 16 2014, @04:46AM
Actually I don't think we are big enough here on SN to have any shills. At least not full time ones anyway.
Which is cool because no matter what side of the issue (any issue) you wade in on over at Slashdot, there would be some twerp (invariably AC) that accuses you of being a shill for someone. I was once accused of being a shill for three different companies on the same thread.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Tuesday December 16 2014, @07:09AM
Except the FP, who clearly is a shill attempting to distract everyone from the group of shills he's with here on SN.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 16 2014, @06:47PM
Actually I don't think we are big enough here on SN to have any shills. At least not full time ones anyway.
Shilling for SN now, are we? :)
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday December 16 2014, @07:18PM
DOH!
Guilty.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:12PM
Great comment. They teach you that one at shill school?
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday December 16 2014, @07:58AM
Like that wasn't happening before? If I had a patch on my shirt for every corp I've been accused of being a shill for I'd look like a fricking NASCAR driver!
I've been accused of shilling for in the past few years, in no particular order...MSFT, Apple (I never got this one as I've never even owned an iAnything), AMD, Intel (funny as I've built AMD exclusively for years), Samsung, WD, Comodo/Avast/Avir/pretty much any free AV, Asrock, Asus, Gigabyte, and Sapphire...oh and Powercolor now that I think about it but that was just the once.. I've found that there is wolves and there is sheep and the fucking sheep HATE wolves. you are supposed to stay with the herd and bleat like a good little sheep, any opinion that isn't part of the groupthink? here come the names.
As far as organized shilling?...YES PLEASE because its sooooo fucking obvious and funny! You see no matter how hard they get smacked you just can't beat the Dilbert out of these clowns so it never fails that they'll tell the shills top "stay on message" so it ends up reading like a giant case of buzzword bingo. Want an example? Go look up on slash the articles on Windows 8 beta when it became obvious that Win 8 was a big old pile of DO NOT WANT and read the comments...its comedy gold guys! You had posts filled with phrases like "vertical integration" and "Dynamic synergy" and "consumer oriented user experience" that all read like a fricking hand out at an IT seminar, its hilarious!
You see THAT is how you can spot them, its the simple fact that their corporate middle manager masters can't STAND the thought of not getting their "opinion swayed for dollar spent ratio" high so they can't talk like a human for any length of time, that is not "being product focused" and "staying tightly message oriented" so they will make 'em put more and more marketing drone word salad in there, it never fails and is fricking hilarious to read!
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Tuesday December 16 2014, @12:35AM
Like I've said before, the Internet has become **the** major tool for propaganda.
'Nuff said. (probably not)
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday December 16 2014, @01:42AM
I don't think so. Watch the American mainstream media, where even the so-called "liberal" and "progressive" networks support all the NSA spying programs and remain conspicuously silent about things that Glenn Greenwald and others are reporting. Sure, teh internet might be a manipulated cesspool, but there is a much lower barrier to entry getting on the internet compared to television.
Also obligatory -- The Gentleman's Guide to Forum Spies [pastebin.com]
Additionally, the leaked manual [wikispooks.com] of Hasbara (which is often confused with but can be practically interchanged with the Jewish Internet Defense Force).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by pnkwarhall on Tuesday December 16 2014, @04:11AM
I don't doubt the power of the "mainstream media". But propaganda can be spread by anyone. The media channels you're referring to are a scant handful (albeit powerful) compared to the millions of Internet commenters who unthinkingly parrot the views they're fed by mainstream media, social media, forum commenters, you name it. The volume (in both meanings of the word) is simply more powerful than the influence of the messages being directly molded by the mainstream media.
The low barrier to entry **is** what makes the Internet such a powerful force for propaganda, whether it's direct or indirect from the source.
--
Also, thank you for responding seriously to my post. I was afraid my quick-trigger finger and relative lack of content to my post would draw ire. But I thought it needed to be said -- to anyone who regularly lurks or seriously participates in Internet forums, this is not "news".
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday December 16 2014, @12:38PM
American mainstream media
Something to think about is TV viewship is collapsing and online is growing... GG has 500K twitter followers (the intercept only has 100K) and only 10 times as many people watch the CBS evening news. However about 60% of TV news viewers are senior citizens. The A25-54 numbers for CBS evening news are ridiculous like only 2M or so out of the 5M total. If you assume the twitter demographic is A25-54 then comparing the twitter numbers to TV A25-54 numbers is fair, and the ratio drops to only about 4x.
Things get weirder with cable. On one hand CNBC (an almost dead financial "news" channel) is conformist corporation bootlickers so they qualify as agreeing with the current mainstream view. On the other hand only about 50K or so people watch CNBC nationwide, often much less. More people in my home town watch my favorite weatherman at 6, than watch Cramer's show. So GG is about 10x more mainstream than CNBC, and The Intercept (which BTW is perhaps the best and most important news organization at this time on the planet, and GG is one of their editors) is about 2x more mainstream than CNBC.
The crossover point is coming up quickly. You could make an argument based on viewer engagement and demographics that the crossover has already happened.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @12:43AM
Sure it happens. The question that really needs answering though is how effective is it? We've seen reports about Putin's sockpuppet campaign [eff.org] and I've seen posts that sure seem like the output of that, but it was so heavy-handed and oblivious to context, the engagement was nothing more comprehensive than talking points. How well does this stuff actually work?
It does seem like the most vocal and unyielding people on controversial topics are the ones who have bought in the most to a set of simplistic half-truths that fall apart under critical examination, so maybe sockpuppetry does work on a certain personality type. But how many of the silent majority fall into that category?
My suspicions are that the people most likely fooled by astroturf are the ones who probably already agree with the astroturfed point of view - preaching to the choir in other words. In which case, it doesn't seem like much of a problem because it doesn't change any outcomes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @12:46AM
Putin's Sockpuppet Campaign: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/10/russias-online-comment-propaganda-army/280432/ [theatlantic.com]
(goddamn X11 dual cut-n-paste protocols, I am so damn sick of highlight to copy and control-c to copy using 2 different buffers)
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Tuesday December 16 2014, @12:53AM
Medvedev's Girls? OK I surrender. Take me.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Tuesday December 16 2014, @03:18AM
Not a sockppuppet trying to derail things, but I love 2 paste buffers because you can copy two parts at once from one document to the other rather than switch back and forth between the documents twice as much.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @03:35AM
There are fancy multi-buffer cut-n-paste helper-apps for X11 that give you all kinds of functionality, I just wish the default was intuitive. I'm fiddling with kubuntu on another system and it looks like it comes with such a helper-app by default but I haven't explored it yet, just saw it do some notifications from the taskbar when I did a cut-n-paste.
(Score: 1) by dltaylor on Tuesday December 16 2014, @05:42AM
"goddamn X11 dual cut-n-paste protocols"
You're either doing it wrong or on a broken desktop. X11 copy-n-paste is a trivial highlight, then middle-click in the destination space. That's one of the things which has made me despise the commercial desktops, that I have to use the keyboard for such a common operation.
cut-n-paste is almost as easy: highlight, ^x, middle-click, but there you must either use the keyboard or find the "cut" menu item in your application (right-click will often bring up that menu, middle-click still works to paste).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @11:42AM
Thank you for the lesson in the obvious.
The problem is that middle-click and control-v are conceptually identical but use different buffers.
So it is easy to end up highlighting to copy and then pressing control-v to paste if you are already in the middle of typing text instead of reaching back for the mouse to paste.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Marand on Tuesday December 16 2014, @11:52PM
The problem is that middle-click and control-v are conceptually identical but use different buffers.
If you don't like that behaviour, use one of the many clipboard managers available. Most DEs come with one already, and they generally provide an option to sync selection and clipboard to the same data. For example, assuming you're the same AC that mentioned Kubuntu, rightclick the Klipper icon in the systray and choose "Configure Klipper", then check the "Synchronize contents of the clipboard and the selection" option. That will do what you want.
It's a good thing to have as an option but shouldn't be a default because it can cause unexpected behaviour for the unwary, such as accidentally highlighting some text and obliterating the clipboard by mistake. Having separate buffers adds extra functionality (middle-click paste) without affecting the commonly expected method (ctrl-c ctrl-v)
If you have problems with your DE's provided one you can try one of the ones listed here [archlinux.org], or check your package manager. Searching Debian's repo turns up many options as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @11:27AM
Using the same buffer would be a very bad idea. Consider the following common scenario: You mark some text and copy it (using ^C), and then you mark some other text you want to replace with the copied test, and paste (^V).
If ^C and simple marking used the same buffer, marking the text to be replaced would instantly replace in the buffer the text you just copied, and ^V would replace the deleted text by itself.
Basically, the rule is: If between copying the text and pasting it, you want to mark something else (e.g. for deleting it), use ^C/^V. Otherwise use mark/middle click.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Tuesday December 16 2014, @01:06AM
Putin hires sock puppets.
Cheney rammed a hose up your ass, and stuffed you with hummus.
Ah! To live in the FREE WORLD!
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday December 16 2014, @04:11AM
but... Does it work?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @07:47PM
Cheney rammed a hose up your ass, and stuffed you with hummus.
I think they called it "rectal rehydration" and he defended that "CIA interrogation practice" just last week!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @01:26AM
The fact that corporations and various special interests have people 'engaging' in various discussions to further their propaganda has been known for a long time. Heck, Mike at Techdirt has posted in the past that many of the shills have IP addresses that originate from various law firms and other special and corporate interest locations. It's no secret.
But, as you point out, how effective is it? I think it actually convinces people how indefensible their propaganda is because it shows that those responsible for the propaganda are given the opportunity to defend their propaganda and are simply unable to do so in the face of an open community of critics. and if they ever have a good point then, by all means, we should encourage them to participate in the discussion. Truth and good reasoning are very powerful tools that can easily overcome paid interests and their lies and, ultimately, the arena of open ideas is the best way for us to learn how to think critically, consider the opinions of those that disagree with us, and either alter our opinions accordingly if their opinions have merit or practice how to defend one's positions against dissenters if they don't. As the founding fathers believed (which is why free speech is important) an open discussion arena is the best way to arrive at truth (or at least to well reasoned arguments) and one reason why special interests have invested so much into controlling all media outlets in the past (ie: via broadcasting and cableco monopolies and even well before these new technologies) is so that they can control the discussion and prevent the truth and well reasoned counterarguments to their propaganda from having the opportunity to ever be exposed in the first place. The exposure of truth easily crushes even the most elaborate and expensive falsehoods and the Internet allows for such exposure to occur. Lies are very expensive to maintain and the truth is very cheap to expose.
(Score: 1) by lentilla on Tuesday December 16 2014, @10:49AM
Truth and good reasoning are very powerful tools that can easily overcome paid interests and their lies
I wish I could agree with you. I believe you are greatly over-estimating your fellows' ability to think for themselves. Truth and good reasoning are indeed powerful tools but their efficacy is predicated on rational actors. Which; much to my own constant surprise; humans prove themselves remarkably bad at time and time again.
Now, there are a variety of ways we can look at this. Firstly, that humans as a general lot are "stupid" (for want of a simple adjective). Well, many of them are. Another way is understanding that people operate on different levels of rationality. For example, we each have different appetites regarding time to payoff: sometimes $20 today is indeed better that the (ultimately rational) $100 tomorrow because we have to weigh up the possibility of non-payment of the $100 tomorrow against the immediate guarantee of the $20 now. In short, humans, all of us, are part of a much larger system. Rationality, at least our own personal brand, may not necessarily intersect with our neighbours'. So we either accept it and love each other for being individual (even if we think someone's decisions are suspect), or we go through life thinking everyone else are dammed fools. The former is always good for a facepalm moment and the latter good for developing stomach ulcers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @05:15PM
"I believe you are greatly over-estimating your fellows' ability to think for themselves."
This type of thinking is what those in favor of censorship use to justify their censorship. They feel they are enlightened and only they are worthy of portraying truth to the masses and no one else deserves a chance to express their opinion. Such is the basis of tyranny. Better to allow everyone the opportunity to express their opinion so that everyone has a chance to consider all sides of an argument before drawing a position. Otherwise you have what the mainstream media used to be before the Internet and what various societies used to be before the printing press.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @03:08AM
#IRideWithYou
(Score: 1) by fritsd on Tuesday December 16 2014, @09:59AM
"Sure it happens. The question that really needs answering though is how effective is it? "
IANASociologist, but after reading the book "the Authoritarians" (free download! and for God's sake download and read it over the Christmas holidays, please! I'm serious), I became convinced that it's done because it is in reality *VERY effective*.
Much more effective than highly educated, reasonable and sane people (I mean us Mandarins here on SN, of course) dare to think about their fellow human beings.
Remember: half of the people is even more stupid than the average. If you have no stupid people in your family or circle of friends, you miss out on this understanding.
If you don't have an aunt who votes for the prettiest politician, you lack understanding of voter behaviour.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 16 2014, @11:06AM
Second, he just completely blows a Godwin opportunity.
But ultimately, in a democracy, a wannabe tyrant is just a comical figure on a soapbox unless a huge wave of supporters lifts him to high office. That’s how Adolf Hitler destroyed the Wiemar Republic and became the Fuhrer. So we need to understand the people out there doing the wave. Ultimately the problem lay in the followers.
Any actual study of the Wiemar Republic prior to its dissolution would reveal that it was dying anyway. Hitler's numerous supporters served to insure that Hitler was the one on top when that dissolution happened, but he and his supporters didn't destroy the Wiemar Republic all by themselves. For example, a key part of the destruction, the elimination of the strongly democratic state government of Prussia (which was also the largest state of the Republic and would be a significant obstacle to any attempt to destroy the Wiemar Republic) via the "Preussenschlag" [wikipedia.org] in mid-1932 was carried through by a political rival. And then there's all that nasty stuff that the Germany military had been doing since the end of the First World War.
(Score: 1) by fritsd on Tuesday December 16 2014, @04:23PM
I suppose the label "left wing authoritarians" in the USA would apply to some of the followers of the "Occupy" movement. Here in Europe that movement was described in the mainstream media as not very powerful or influential.
And about the Preußenschlag (I didn't know about that): interesting, it sounds like a society that is already sick, such as the Weimar Republic, or the EU in 2014, is extra vulnerable to the political machinations of:
"Something must be done NOW!
This is something, therefore it must be done!"
People are renovating houses in my street, probably for the enormous influx of Syrian refugees. We'll see how it goes in 2015... may the most successful authoritarians NOT win or we're doomed.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 16 2014, @11:44PM
I suppose the label "left wing authoritarians" in the USA would apply to some of the followers of the "Occupy" movement. Here in Europe that movement was described in the mainstream media as not very powerful or influential.
I think it applies to a much larger group than that. Universities have long been notorious for breeding people who know best and tend to be left wing. The masochistic group of followers corresponds to the attitude of a lot of students. And very few welfare programs, no matter the country, are opt out.
And about the Preußenschlag (I didn't know about that): interesting, it sounds like a society that is already sick, such as the Weimar Republic, or the EU in 2014, is extra vulnerable to the political machinations of:
"Something must be done NOW!
This is something, therefore it must be done!"
I think the next rung is to manufacture the emergencies about which something must be done NOW.
The fall of the Wiemar Republic is interesting not just for the hubris of its last days or the dark allure of the Nazis, but also because the schemers got in a rush. I don't know why, but odds are good that they could have waited out Hitler, if they had so chosen. At the time of the anointment of Hitler as Chancellor of Germany, violations of the Treaty of Versailles were negligible and the would-be opponents were in disarray and unlikely to get any better. There was no strategic military necessity to strike when they did.
I've seen speculation that the German military was worried about loss of experience. There were plenty of very experienced NCO (non-commissioned officer) material, survivors of the First World War, who could form the core of a resurgent German military, but only if the military did so in the next decade or so. That seems weak to me, but at least it's a solid logistics reason. Also, President Hindenburg was very supportive of this scheme, I think, but in poor health. Maybe the schemers were afraid that a new president would scuttle their plans for good. That seems a stronger reason.
Finally, there might have been some untrammeled power grasping in there hurrying things up. It's worth noting that Hitler was actually the third choice over the span of about a year. Both previous Chancellors had played significant roles in destroying the Wiemar Republic and I think if either had shown anything resembling the sort of political charisma and competence that Hitler had, then Hitler would have become a minor note in history, probably as part of a body count of inconvenient people. The first, Franz von Papen was the one who dismantled the state of Prussia, starting the final plunge to tyranny. But he alienated much of his political base with his ruthless actions and ill-disguised lust for power. He was followed by Kurt von Schleicher, who was probably the organizer of the strategic plan that Nazi Germany used to build its military forces to surprising levels in a short period of time. He has a charming history of more than a decade of leading the German military to evade the Treaty of Versailles with a web of schemes and running an illegal version of the German general staff (outlawed by the same treaty). He also is alleged to be responsible for the necessary black ops supposedly including assassinations. But von Schleicher despite strong support by the German military, failed to get any political traction. That left Hitler as choice number three, despised by a dying Hindenburg, but with a powerful political base that didn't mind Hitler's antics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @10:52PM
The correlation with universities is basically because a good percentage of people aged about 15 to 25 have that combination of traits where not only are they the smartest person in the world (especially compared to people older than them - remember "Don't trust anyone over 30"?), but their sheltered upbringing devoid of most responsibilities gives them a very black-and-white view of the world. The moral and ethical lines are drawn very clear to them. The problems of the world are actually pretty easy to solve, it's just that there are too many old idiots running things. Remember, don't trust "the Man." The reason wisdom is said to come with age is that one learns that there are more than two sides to an issue, that often times there are no simple answers to complex problems (or even simple problems), and no, you're actually not the smartest person in the room and in fact, maybe you really don't understand or appreciate as much about an issue that you think you did.
Based on what I said above, I tend to think a place like this site skews towards the younger crowd.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:23PM
The major criticism over here of the Occupy movement has always been that it was disorganized and leaderless. It's pretty hard to have a leaderless authoritarian movement. That's practically the definition!
The Democratic party is the left-wing authoritarians over here. Although the "left-wing" part is debatable. Occupy was an attempt by the (mostly) left-wing libertarians to gain relevance -- an attempt which seems to have worked pretty well actually. My city's Occupy group still meets once a week and has been quite involved in organizing damn near every major protest since. Occupy was the first large, national protest this country has seen in a long, long time. It may not have accomplished much immediately, but it was far more influential than most mainstream media made it seem.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 16 2014, @08:08PM
ANASociologist, but after reading the book "the Authoritarians" (free download! and for God's sake download and read it over the Christmas holidays, please! I'm serious), I became convinced that it's done because it is in reality *VERY effective*.
Much more effective than highly educated, reasonable and sane people (I mean us Mandarins here on SN, of course) dare to think about their fellow human beings.
I tend to agree. The tools [decisionanalyst.com] of [wikipedia.org] market [google.com] research [camo.com], developed over the last forty or so years, especially multivariate statistical techniques have given advertisers and marketers the ability to sell you almost anything.
Now that these tools are in wide use for political and propaganda purposes, as has been documented [amazon.com] repeatedly [google.com], they are now used to modify our outlook and attitudes to suit the needs of the manipulators. And most people don't even realize it.
How does this apply to online propaganda and sock puppets? The goal is to modify the attitudes and belief structures held by various groups. Utilizing these techniques, the types and amounts of pressure (in the form of propaganda and information manipulation) which would be most efficient in promoting those attitudes and beliefs can be identified and quantified.
It's pretty scary, IMHO.
N.B. I am not a statistician or a propagandist, but I did spend a number of years working as a market researcher.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Tuesday December 16 2014, @11:42PM
I would mod you up if I could. Everyone here asking "How effective is it?" doesn't have enough respect for how effective meme repetition and communication volume are on people **as a group**, or to use the terminology you used, as a **market**. It's subtle and it's slow, but it works and it works great.
My favorite anecdote on this topic is about a family friend. She (and my wife, honestly :) didn't like to watch television with me because I would constantly analyze or otherwise critique the content of advertisements. I stated that I thought this type of active response was important, that we had to actively respond to the communication in order to weaken the messages' (subconscious) influence on us. She responded that commercial messages didn't affect her because she "ignored them".
To anyone with a background in psychology or marketing, this is an obviously ironic statement.
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Geezer on Tuesday December 16 2014, @11:10AM
There's not a shred of doubt that undiscerning, imperceptive dolts can be easily manipulated by obvious propaganda/astroturf. The form it takes, whether it's a Reddit thread, a government press release, or slick commercial advertising is unimportant. Lemmings will be lemmings, and all that. The impact of any disinformation or sales campaign is directly related to the gullibility of the audience and the skill of the shill. Marketers and politicians depend on this.
Going way back to Usenet boards, most of us developed an eye for obvious trolls and sock puppets based on patterns and practices. It's a prerequisite for good moderation of any BBS. Not to sound too elitist about it, but basically, fools gonna get fooled and the rest of us aren't. Since there's no way to stop it, the best we can do is call bullshit when necessary and hope the affected take heed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @11:49AM
> There's not a shred of doubt that undiscerning, imperceptive dolts can be easily manipulated by obvious propaganda/astroturf.
Your unstated premise is that some people can be manipulated into any position, that they are essentially tabula rasa. I disagree, I believe that you can only convince people of something they want to be convinced of. It is really, really easy to disbelieve ideas you disagree with, it is much harder to disbelieve something that confirms your preconceptions.
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Tuesday December 16 2014, @12:20PM
I manipulated an AC into an unsupported statement of optimism re: general human nature. QED.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday December 16 2014, @03:06PM
Don't feel too sure of our ability to perceive and avoid manipulation. There's so much of it, and often it's unavoidable. I think most people are not fully aware of how thoroughly we've been conditioned to buy solutions to fake problems.
For example, we've really been suckered by "choices". It's all our choice of plans, plans, plans. In health insurance, cell phone service, electricity service, and more we have been deluged with choices. It's not designed to offer us anything better as they claim, it's designed to give us a dozen bad choices for every good choice so that the odds of us picking the best one are very low. Further, when we don't choose the best plan, we are persuaded that it is our fault because it was our choice! As I put it to one representative of an energy utility, why don't they run the numbers on all their plans at the END of the service period, then charge according to whichever plan was best for the customers? Would take gratuitous guesswork out of our lives.
But here's the thing. Suppose we persuaded the utility to crunch the numbers with the benefit of hindsight so that we get lower bills. It's not much of a gain if the whole time that they're letting us win that battle, they take measures to insure that we continue to depend on them for energy. What if we could have high performance, inexpensive, long lasting solar cells and batteries, so good that we could disconnect from them? Think that's a total win? Not quite. If we're still using electricity for stupid stuff, and spending money on equipment for that, we're still not free. In particular, the clothes dryer is a huge waste. Clothes dry all by themselves with a little air, like on a clothes line. But people love clothes dryers, and rationalize about how nice they are. Dries and softens and perfumes the clothes. Ahh, but many fabric softeners contain toxic chemicals, things like phthalates. Another insane use of energy is lighting, especially in the daytime. Switching from incandescent to fluorescent to LED helps, but why not just have skylights? As for lighting at night, we've really gone overboard. Don't burn the midnight oil, go to sleep!
Another area of insanity is lawn care and gardening. No one seems to have the patience to use seeds anymore, store shelves are full of potted plants, and useless ornamental ones at that, not veggies. Why exactly does the lawn have to be mowed? We even have city ordinances against letting the grass get too tall. Instead of providing a natural lawn mowing service such as goats, cities take a punitive, profiteering approach. Punish and fine families. That grass is not a valuable resource, fodder for goat and cow, no, it's a nuisance. Might even have to pay more money to haul it off. The city makes money, providers of lawn care equipment and services make money, providers of trash removal services may make more money, and providers of animal feed have that much less competition to worry about. Oh, and grocers do better too, not having to compete against the family vegetable garden. It's total "broken window fallacy". Not only do the victims not see it, they cooperate. Maybe even bitch to the city about their neighbors' lawns.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Tuesday December 16 2014, @12:58AM
It's not technically "censorship" if the unpleasant arguments are still there to be found, even buried under mountains of noise.
We've just had a week of people trying to redefine well-known concepts to fit their propaganda (hope they don't believe in the afterlife), let's not think that putting "2.0" is a free pass to assault the dictionary.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @01:38AM
> even buried under mountains of noise.
The OED disagrees [oxforddictionaries.com] - "suppressing unacceptable parts" - not excising, just suppressing. Burying something under a mountain of noise certainly qualifies as suppression.
> let's not think that putting "2.0" is a free pass to assault the dictionary.
The first law of dictionary pedantry - always check the goddamn dictionary before spouting off.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday December 16 2014, @03:45AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @04:01AM
One post is far from a mountain of noise. Pedantry wins again.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday December 16 2014, @04:34AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday December 16 2014, @06:48AM
> Burying something under a mountain of noise certainly qualifies as suppression.
Wait, what was the post's title, again?
I'll spell it for you: It's not "buried" under a pile of dirt or in a closet in the basement with a sign "beware of the leopard".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @11:39AM
Are you now retracting the words of your own post?
Sounds like self-censorship to me.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday December 16 2014, @04:14PM
Am I ?
Ask Google if "buried under [internet] noise" is the same as "buried under a mountain of dirt"
One takes a massive amount of dirty work to dig out, the other takes two clicks.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Tuesday December 16 2014, @11:48AM
That's how we end up with Brave New World, a society too enamored of shallow pleasantries to worry about things that matter.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by gallondr00nk on Tuesday December 16 2014, @01:12AM
This was the sort of nonsense Hoover's FBI used to be so fond of - in the 1960's it would join "radical" political groups in order to discredit and fracture them.
If it's any consolation, they probably do it extremely poorly. Anyone else remember the Microsoft shill on Slashdot?
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Tuesday December 16 2014, @01:38AM
COINTELPRO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO [wikipedia.org]
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @10:16AM
There are other techniques as well. Do you remember that often when there was a really interesting technical discussion topic on Slashdot, say on the ODF format or the Halloween files or something else that put Microsoft in a bad light with actual factual proof and thorough investigation, that some weird page-long extreme porn stories started to show up in the discussion?
Just when you'd think "I wish politicians and judges would find this discussion when they research this topic", the well was poisoned with extreme GNA* stories.
In my head I equate the abbreviation SN for Soylent News with "high Signal / Noise ratio" ;-) (for now, anyway)
(Score: 2) by halcyon1234 on Tuesday December 16 2014, @01:34AM
Original Submission [thedailywtf.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Rich on Tuesday December 16 2014, @02:28AM
I think, as of today, a lot of the puppets don't pass the "turing test" and can be recognized . Their user name is something inoffensive and generic, possibly trying to imply something about discussion culture, especially on some German forums I read. Their posts are as inoffensive and spot-on on the agenda, possibly with the usual rhetoric cues visible. And if that doesn't help, their posting history will give it away. Many also work regular office hours and only post during that time.
I dread the day when "AlertCitizen" becomes "tentacle_otaku" and posts away at Saturday, 11pm, right after leaving a seminal post about the different versions of Urutsukidoji on a separate thread. I think in the mid-term, respectable forums will have to find ways to counter puppetry by having some more differentiated karma or activity rating that will help to identify proper grassroots postings; or even those of parties with interests, but with proper attribution.
By the way, sockpuppets are not to be confused with the common fanboi, whose ego is so attached to some new shiny gadget, that he'll defend the most inacceptable behaviour of the megacorp that made the gadget. They can be discerned by their obvious lack of anger control. :) There also seems to be a class in between the two, who, because of brainwashing or other issues act like fanbois on topics that are usually massaged with puppetry. Hmm. Are these "Fanpuppets" or "Sockbois"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @01:09PM
Systemd fans
(Score: 1) by anti-NAT on Tuesday December 16 2014, @03:18AM
It's really just a group of hired upstart sockpuppets.
(Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Tuesday December 16 2014, @04:19AM
....and that theory has been put forward in the threads themselves several times, with several different "villains". My favorite was the BSD crowd looking for converts. (Sounds feasible to me, too)
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @04:37AM
My favorite was the BSD crowd looking for converts. (Sounds feasible to me, too)
But, but, that is exactly what they want you to think!
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday December 16 2014, @02:39PM
I'd go with the pro-BSD crowd. Most threads seem multi-step:
1) Get people fired up about systemd.
2) Linux == systemd.
3) The only alternative is openBSD, switch now!
Step 2 is where they lose me. My distro (Gentoo) has several init options. Systemd != Linux.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday December 16 2014, @12:21PM
Where do I submit an invoice for my paycheck?
If you want a real conspiracy theory, FreeBSD gets a bazillion dollar donation, then suddenly a small handful of gnome devs mount a coup doing stuff thats technically idiotic. You're better off buying a handful of guys to create the problem, than buying thousands of protestors.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday December 16 2014, @01:20PM
I would believe you if Canonical hadn't surrendered to systemd. That move, by a distribution who had always previously tried to differentiate itself, plus the slew of resignations from Debian, plus the spotify's "give me systemd or i switch - LOL i switch anyway", plus systemd libraries sneaking into debian stable, makes me think that systemd is not the victim here.
Sure it could be MS trying to split Linux using systemd, but a split linux community is what we have already, and Linux conquered positions in that very same chaotic environment. So?
Systemd controversy is mainly in three directions:
- systemd sucks - this is not sockpuppetry, but personal opinions, picking the proper sample will equally yield: Linux sucks, win sucks, mac sucks, sysv sucks.... My personal opinion is that systemd is what was needed to make linux just like windows, and that for many powerful interests this is a welcome change. Your interest as a user or sysadmin does not coincide but marginally with theirs, so prepare vaseline while you wait.
- debian is dead because systemd - this is meant to destroy the image of debian, which is the fiercest competitor of redhat, which pays for systemd development. Embrace systemd= become a lagging behind RH clone, plus getting smashed by fake OS purist trolls. Real OS purists fork debian or hack it to remove systemd.
- systemd makes me go to freebsd - this is the curious one, maybe apple needs more stuff to copy into his OS.
While personal attacks on lennart and xlennart stunts are likely false flags aimed at diverting attention from what systemd does to irrelevant aspects like who wrote it.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday December 16 2014, @03:30AM
I thought it would just be an easy way to make some spending money, all I had to do was hang out on the assigned forums, post in such a fashion as to discredit anyone who wanted to discuss politically incorrect topics, like how men are oppressed, second amendment, taxes are too high, white-supremicism, conspiracy theories, you know, the usual. But in some many cases, I came to realize that the posters I was sockpuppeting with were not just morons, they were seriously fact deprived and uneducated! That is when I made the mistake. I began to care. Now I spend my time as a SJW, a Sockpuppet Justice Wannabe, trying my best to save my fellow posters from themselves. I'm not getting paid anymore, and I have to say, I wish I could quit you, SN!
(Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Tuesday December 16 2014, @04:22AM
then quit it, you snarky bastard. I have yet to see a discussion you've contributed (meaningfully) to. (albeit I've only been paying attention for a week or two)
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday December 16 2014, @08:18AM
But I just wanted to help you improve your dynamic vertical integration synergy for an improved consumer oriented user experience. And did you miss the part about what the purpose of sock-puppetry is? Pinknarwhal, hmm, that sounds like a sock-puppet name!
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @03:38AM
Was wondering why so many pro-man made global warming articles got published there and accepted as an accepted science which can be proven with physical observations. This kinda explains everything.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday December 16 2014, @04:08AM
Yeah... time to get some pro-woman made global warming articles in, too.
What shop would you suggest we should visit first?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by novak on Tuesday December 16 2014, @09:03AM
Several people have pointed out that shills are often comically easy to spot. However, this does not mean that the tactics outlined in the article do not work, especially on the general public.
In the article they cover at least a few successful attacks:
-> distracting people from viewing content with sock-puppetry, by creating more recent content / more content volume.
-> Influencing which articles appear on the front page of news sites that are ranked by pageviews (New York Times)
-> Gaining followers on social media due to fake credibility from sockpuppet accounts.
-> Manipulating perceived opinion on news stories. This one was pretty vague, and I didn't look into it much more.
I'm not claiming that the people doing these things are good at it, necessarily, but they only have to beat some people some of the time. It's part of what makes the signal-noise ratio on some sites unbearable. It is a form of censorship and it appears to be at least partially effective, though the data in the story is fairly limited- it's difficult to say how effective.
novak
(Score: 2) by TK on Tuesday December 16 2014, @03:40PM
These are the two that worry me. The first step is deciding what gets published, and most people don't want to seek out or create new content, that's why aggregator sites are so popular.
Take SN for example. Looking at the submissions queue, plus the front page right now, I see stories submitted by fourteen different people (assuming those three ACs are different people). Compare that to the nearly 5000 registered users here (not including lurking ACs). That's about one quarter of one percent of the user base submitting content for 2+ days. Say what you will and gewg and HP and their stories, but they are having an effect on the SN readership.
The second step is deciding what gets popular. If you've ever been to Reddit, every "new" section of a subreddit is even more of a cesspool than /r/funny and /r/adviceanimals (their new sections especially so). Nobody wants to relax at the end of the day (or waste time at work/in class) by wading through a cesspool, but if you are getting paid for it, that's a different story. Those first up/down votes on a submission are what decides its fate.
I guess the bottom line is that the majority of people using the internet want to consume information, and there aren't a lot of people out there to combat those who would put effort into steering certain information your way, and other information out of your way.
The fleas have smaller fleas, upon their backs to bite them, and those fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday December 16 2014, @02:11PM
Shills are rather easy to spot. The best thing to do is call them out. The procedures laid out in the manual that Snowden leaked shows that when an online community pegs you for a shill, you should abandon that screen name and come in with another that chimes in agreement with the original, discredited screen name. It's supposed to challenge the characterization of the original screen name as a shill and impart the impression that its opinion is in fact widely held. The manual also said that the best way for the supporting, secondary screen name to come in credibly is to disagree with the periphery of first screen name's argument, but say they think "there's something" to the core of the argument.
I can tell you that a while back I worked for a former President and had a big window into the heart of darkness that is the US government and its corporate controllers. At that time, about 5 years ago, every department and every corporation was on a massive hiring spree of PR firms, which were in turn on a massive hiring spree for people to do social media. I know for a fact that the Secretary of State at the time spent a great deal of time and energy on that sort of capacity within the Foreign Service. Why would that be unless they were engaged in the very thing this article is talking about?
Washington DC delenda est.