Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Tuesday April 26 2016, @01:11AM   Printer-friendly
from the just-my-hundred-million-cents dept.

Current Affairs published an in-depth editorial on recent revelations about a $1 million astroturfng campaign by Correct the Record:

Astroturfing makes me angry. It should make you angry. It should make you fucking well see red. It's marketing evolved into something incredibly scary, sophisticated, and evil. It's essentially thought warfare, or psychological warfare, which takes away much of what was supposed to make the internet a new and beautiful frontier of communication. Worse yet, if you actually identify and approach these operatives, they'll gaslight you and deny that they are such an operative. These are people who are paid to psychologically abuse you. Do you get this? It's an ugly and evil thing, and not only does it take away our ability to take information and fact at face value, but it takes away our ability to take opinions, feelings, and personal stances at face value as sincere and legitimate.

takyon: For some additional context, "Hillary-supporting super PAC invests $1 million to hit back at online Clinton critics":

Correct the Record, a super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton's bid to become US president, has promised to invest more than $1 million to respond to users criticizing its candidate on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, and other social media services. The super PAC says its new "Barrier Breakers digital task force" will to respond "quickly and forcefully to negative attacks and false narratives found online," in addition to thanking major supporters and "committed superdelegates" directly.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday April 26 2016, @06:29AM

    by q.kontinuum (532) on Tuesday April 26 2016, @06:29AM (#337344) Journal

    That is why I always post under a real name,

    I prefer pseudonyms. I can build a reputation here of speaking my mind without providing an easy link back to e.g. potential future employers to investigate my mindset. Most people have practical considerations for their reputation, and using their real name gives an incentive to work on that reputation rather than openly discussing the issue at hand.

    Nevertheless, people can check my history here on soylentnews and figure out if I have an obvious bias or not.

    --
    Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2016, @10:34AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2016, @10:34AM (#337406)

    It cracks me up when people complain about having their posting history evaluated. They whine about how it isn't fair that an AC is judging them based on their own words.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday April 26 2016, @11:52AM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday April 26 2016, @11:52AM (#337423) Journal

    I generally take that approach, too. When a person has a history attached to a username, it accretes a reputation that helps him restrain his id. And that, I think, makes his contributions to a discussion carry a little more weight, because they're honest and perhaps bring a little less vitriol.

    jmorris, Runaway, and guys from that ideological neighborhood on SN I disagree with most days, but I appreciate that there's no duplicity in what they write. It's an honest disagreement. That's a rare quality in public discourse anymore.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.