This seems to be the most common. It's about damn silly and all it does is create even more noise. It's gotten to the point where I simply ignore social media.
Boycotts that aren’t driven by ordinary consumers but are organized by linked advocacy groups and nonprofits.
This seems to be the most common. It's about damn silly and all it does is create even more noise.
It's gotten to the point where I simply ignore social media.
Attaching politics to a topic they wish to squelch. That effectively “controversializes” the issue and divides public opinion so that no more than half of people will typically believe or pay...
Six Hallmarks of Astroturf
Attaching politics to a topic they wish to squelch. That effectively “controversializes” the issue and divides public opinion so that no more than half of people will typically believe or pay attention to the offending information.
I can see how this would be an effective tactic.
Edit: The fall out from these manipulations for the honest people will surely become an issue if left unaddressed. We need to 76 this nonsense, or is the phrase 86? Haven't worked in a restaurant for a while, I forget.
That hallmarks section is vague as hell and pretty much useless since every single "Hallmarks of Astroturf" they list isn't exclusive to astroturfing campaigns. The tactics section at least had...
That hallmarks section is vague as hell and pretty much useless since every single "Hallmarks of Astroturf" they list isn't exclusive to astroturfing campaigns. The tactics section at least had some useful information though.
Yeah, I mean part of the problem is it is easy to tow the line while still appearing genuine. The behavior that is being taken issue with is vague (by design) so the generalities are bound to be...
pretty much useless since every single "Hallmarks of Astroturf" they list isn't exclusive to astroturfing campaigns.
Yeah, I mean part of the problem is it is easy to tow the line while still appearing genuine. The behavior that is being taken issue with is vague (by design) so the generalities are bound to be as well.
Would the tactics associated with an abuser in a marriage be useless to list because they aren't exclusive to people in marriages?
If someone exhibits a few of these behaviors, it could simply be attributed another factor. If someone exhibits a pattern of multiple instances of the described behavior, it could indicate astroturfing.
For context:
Use of inflammatory language such as “crank,” “quack,” “nutty,” “liar,” “paranoid,” “pseudo,” “denier,” “myth,” “debunked,” “discredited” and “conspiracy.” This language tests as effective in influencing people to form the desired opinion.
Frequent use of phrases such as “everyone knows,” “everyone agrees” and “settled science” — even though “everyone,” in fact, does not “know” or “agree,” and the science may be far from “settled.”
Claiming damaging information to be a “myth” that has been “debunked” — even though the information may not be mythical at all. The strategy works well in changing minds: People hear something’s a “myth” and instantly declare themselves too smart to fall for it.
Labeling of facts that are detrimental to their paid interests as “old news” or agenda-driven.
Attaching politics to a topic they wish to squelch. That effectively “controversializes” the issue and divides public opinion so that no more than half of people will typically believe or pay attention to the offending information.
Attempts to convince people that there’s only one legitimate side of a controversy and that any contrary information should be censored entirely from the public because it’s harmful or discredited, and so people shouldn’t be allowed to consider it.
If your list is so vague that it results in a ton of false positives, then I would argue that yes, not only is it useless but also potentially harmful... which the first 2 "hallmarks" and #5 most...
Would the tactics associated with an abuser in a marriage be useless to list because they aren't exclusive to people in marriages?
If your list is so vague that it results in a ton of false positives, then I would argue that yes, not only is it useless but also potentially harmful... which the first 2 "hallmarks" and #5 most definitely qualify for IMO. And #6 I could definitely see an argument for supporting when it comes to the anti-vax, anti nuclear power, anti-GMO and flat earth bunkum that constantly gets circulated around despite being well and truly discredited.
I get your point on false positives but luckily Tildes has a lot of thoughtful people who aren't going to be swept up into a witch hunt just because someone uses the word "quack" once or twice. I...
I get your point on false positives but luckily Tildes has a lot of thoughtful people who aren't going to be swept up into a witch hunt just because someone uses the word "quack" once or twice.
I feel comfortable that Tildes users can apply the knowledge of common tactics of manipulation with the appropriate perspective.
I would definitely recommend reading over the list of common tactics for astro-turfing. Personally, I was surprised to find that so much of what is described is behavior that feels familiar to me....
I would definitely recommend reading over the list of common tactics for astro-turfing. Personally, I was surprised to find that so much of what is described is behavior that feels familiar to me.
It is easy to look past it if you aren't aware of what to look for.
This seems to be the most common. It's about damn silly and all it does is create even more noise.
It's gotten to the point where I simply ignore social media.
I can see how this would be an effective tactic.
Edit: The fall out from these manipulations for the honest people will surely become an issue if left unaddressed. We need to 76 this nonsense, or is the phrase 86? Haven't worked in a restaurant for a while, I forget.
That hallmarks section is vague as hell and pretty much useless since every single "Hallmarks of Astroturf" they list isn't exclusive to astroturfing campaigns. The tactics section at least had some useful information though.
Yeah, I mean part of the problem is it is easy to tow the line while still appearing genuine. The behavior that is being taken issue with is vague (by design) so the generalities are bound to be as well.
Would the tactics associated with an abuser in a marriage be useless to list because they aren't exclusive to people in marriages?
If someone exhibits a few of these behaviors, it could simply be attributed another factor. If someone exhibits a pattern of multiple instances of the described behavior, it could indicate astroturfing.
For context:
Use of inflammatory language such as “crank,” “quack,” “nutty,” “liar,” “paranoid,” “pseudo,” “denier,” “myth,” “debunked,” “discredited” and “conspiracy.” This language tests as effective in influencing people to form the desired opinion.
Frequent use of phrases such as “everyone knows,” “everyone agrees” and “settled science” — even though “everyone,” in fact, does not “know” or “agree,” and the science may be far from “settled.”
Claiming damaging information to be a “myth” that has been “debunked” — even though the information may not be mythical at all. The strategy works well in changing minds: People hear something’s a “myth” and instantly declare themselves too smart to fall for it.
Labeling of facts that are detrimental to their paid interests as “old news” or agenda-driven.
Attaching politics to a topic they wish to squelch. That effectively “controversializes” the issue and divides public opinion so that no more than half of people will typically believe or pay attention to the offending information.
Attempts to convince people that there’s only one legitimate side of a controversy and that any contrary information should be censored entirely from the public because it’s harmful or discredited, and so people shouldn’t be allowed to consider it.
If your list is so vague that it results in a ton of false positives, then I would argue that yes, not only is it useless but also potentially harmful... which the first 2 "hallmarks" and #5 most definitely qualify for IMO. And #6 I could definitely see an argument for supporting when it comes to the anti-vax, anti nuclear power, anti-GMO and flat earth bunkum that constantly gets circulated around despite being well and truly discredited.
I get your point on false positives but luckily Tildes has a lot of thoughtful people who aren't going to be swept up into a witch hunt just because someone uses the word "quack" once or twice.
I feel comfortable that Tildes users can apply the knowledge of common tactics of manipulation with the appropriate perspective.
I would definitely recommend reading over the list of common tactics for astro-turfing. Personally, I was surprised to find that so much of what is described is behavior that feels familiar to me.
It is easy to look past it if you aren't aware of what to look for.