Yes, sadly, I am invoking everyone is doin' it.
If a party manages to dupe people into thinking their populist cause is important enough to see past the use of troll factories for message control, then that I think says a lot about the health of a democracy. I can imagine this happening in Poland, Hungary or perhaps even Italy, but not in that many places in the EU apart from those.
Many of them will be doing it through a PR firm to maintain deniability in the event of disclosure. But each and every party is doing it.
Have you thought about the idea that you yourself are a victim of a marketing department if you believe every criticism is related to Russian campaigns?
That’s not the claim, and you hyperbolizing that way is a classic technique for muddying the waters.
> everything is shilled on you
That’s simply not true. There are many shills, but not everyone is a shill.
There is a difference between responsible marketing and lying. Every institution has to choose which they engage in.
They could go on TV saying "we are corrupt and we are stealing from you" and they would still win these elections just because they paid for the votes. That's how populism works.
Frankly I'm amazed they managed to lose the Senate and only won the Sejm (lower house - more important in Poland).
> I can imagine this happening in Poland, Hungary or perhaps even Italy, but not in that many places in the EU apart from those.
May I remind you Trump is the president of USA (and his lawyer is arguing he could murder someone on the street and would still be free to go) and UK voted for Brexit? Social networks and troll farms played a big role in both events.
This is how democracy works now... It's like in 20s-30s last century - radio was invented and democracy wasn't ready for it - and when crisis came the result was totalitarianisms.
Now democracy wasn't ready for internet and after crisis came the result is resurgence of populism.
I really do wonder what can be done about the misinformation problem. It doesn't seem like educating the populace is a very effective solution, because even educated people fall for it.
I mention this, as when I mentioned it to the locals, none of them understood what I was talking about.
You see, when your entire reality glows orange, that becomes normal to you. You cease to notice that everything is orange. You even vehemently disagree with anyone who’s just arrived and asks “why is everything around here orange?”.
This is how propaganda works. Degree by degree everything turns orange, and unless you get out of it once in a while, you never notice.
For example:
'Today Trump repeated a debunked hoax as though it were true'
is one thing, to say
'Today Trump said "The FBI didn’t take Hillary Clinton's email server. It was taken by somebody that, I guess, it’s CrowdStrike — that’s what I’ve heard.", which has been debunked long ago'.
Is another. The second may be more sexy and may draw more eyeballs and therefore ad impressions but it still gives Trump a platform for his BS and plenty of people will believe the president over some reporter saying that this was already debunked as an afterthought.
Arguably the downfall started with Sulla [0]:
> Sulla's military coup—ironically enabled by Marius' military reforms that bound the army's loyalty with the general rather than to the Republic—permanently destabilized the Roman power structure. Later leaders like Julius Caesar would follow his precedent in attaining political power through force.
A far cry from the traditional virtue embodied by Cincinnatus [1]:
> He came from his plow to assume complete control over the state but, upon achieving a swift victory, relinquished his power and its perquisites and returned to his farm. His success and immediate resignation of his near-absolute authority with the end of this crisis (traditionally dated to 458 BC) has often been cited as an example of outstanding leadership, service to the greater good, civic virtue, humility, and modesty.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulla
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus
That's how socialism works. You take some money from people, give half of it back to them and they cheer you for it.
Interesting. Can you suggest additional reading on this?
Thanks!
> It would not have been possible for us to take power or to use it in the ways we have without the radio....It is no exaggeration to say that the German revolution, at least in the form it took, would have been impossible without the airplane and the radio. ...[Radio] reached the entire nation, regardless of class, standing, or religion. That was primarily the result of the tight centralization, the strong reporting, and the up-to-date nature of the German radio....Above all it is necessary to clearly centralize all radio activities, to place spiritual tasks ahead of technical ones,...to provide a clear worldview,
> By the start of the Second World War, over 70% of German households had one of these radios, which were deliberately limited in range in order to prevent loyal citizens from considering other viewpoints in foreign broadcasts.[113] Radio broadcasts were also played over loudspeakers in public places and workplaces.[113]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_Nazi_Germany
> During the democratic period, when the Weimar government introduced progovernment political news, the growth of Nazi popularity slowed down in areas with access to radio. This effect was reversed during the campaign for the last competitive election as a result of the pro-Nazi radio broadcast following Hitler’s appointment as chancellor. During the consolidation of dictatorship, radio propaganda helped the Nazis enroll new party members. After the Nazis established their rule, radio propaganda incited anti-Semitic acts and denunciations of Jews to authorities by ordinary citizens. The effect of anti-Semitic propaganda varied depending on the listeners’ predispositions toward the message. Nazi radio was most effective in places where anti-Semitism was historically high and had a negative effect in places with historically low anti-Semitism
https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/130/4/1885/191...
Remember that before radio the best you could get was newspapers and leaflets, and both were mostly ignoring the lower strata of society. In religious regions you could also make a deal with the church I guess, it was the only information network that reached masses regularly.
People in countryside don't get leaflets. Poor people don't spend on newspapers. Radio was "free newspaper everyday", and Nazis gave the radios for free.
Also when you buy a newspaper you presumably already agree with its message at least a little, so it's hard to make people change their minds with newspapers. When you buy a radio you get all the stations, so you can be persuaded by them to change your mind over time.
Then, along comes the ability to move type, and re-use your castings. Luther prises the faultlines in religion wide open with handbills. The English and the French end up having revolutions, promulgated by samizdat handbills disseminated throughout society. The abolitionist movement promote their cause through the same, and American dissenters publish their ideas to a malleable audience with cheap ease, resulting in another revolution.
Arguably, the last gasp of newspapers as the primary medium of movement was the First World War - and then radio took the helm, then television, and now, the internet.
It’s not so much that we’re unready for these media so much as we never will be. We receive subjective realities willingly - it’s how we form social bonds. All that changes is the accessibility of broadcast through the medium, and radio and tv were machines for centralised messaging, whereas the printing press and internet have allowed dissenting voices to once more gain a foothold in the minds of many.
If we follow pattern, we are in for a rough ride, but perhaps a better state of affairs at the end of it.
I never for a second made that connection, thank you very much.
Now in addition to the above we have the currently ruling party that is correctly characterised as being way too religious even going as far as equating Catholicism with being Polish in some of their talks, being stupid in their attempts to reform the openly corrupt justice system causing correct accusations of breaking the law. At the same time they proven not to be corruptible by sorting out the tax system to the effect of increasing the budget almost by half (it turns out we had massive Vat fraud previous guys knew and did absolutely minimum about and half of small businesses were cheating at taxes). The currently ruling party implemented a system where if you "forget" about a vat invoice it'll text you about it making people much more honest about paying. Additionally, the ruling party is the only political force ever in Poland that actually implemented all of their campaign promises. Many people like myself don't like the religiousness, but value that those the only people that went into politics to actually implement their campaign promises. This is completely unheard of in Poland. As a result of the lack of open thievery the previous guys were engaging in and their social programs which increase the amount of money in hands of previously poor people the economy is much better. The unemployment is non existent in big cities etc.
The bottom line is, who would you vote for: A dishonest person)(a known thief and conman) who tells you what you want to hear, or honest people you disagree with on some principles? That's why the ruling party won its second election. Not because it is great, but because they are seen as the only force that is non-corrupt(or at least less corrupt) and fulfilling its promises.
The opposition are either dishonest, incompetent or a joke depending on who you look at. I really wish there is time we have honest opposition in Poland. Maybe the new left once they drop the ex-communists will become that for the next election. We'll see.
There is currently huge affair in Ministry of Finances because they were covering tax frauds and even doing them themselves :) https://www.money.pl/podatki/afera-w-resorcie-finansow-szefa...
There was also a corruption scandal with KNF chief Chrzanowski nominated by PIS. https://www.newsweek.pl/szef-knf-oskarzony-o-korupcje-rezygn...
And the tax fraud by chief of controlling agency (NIK) Banaś - also nominated recently by PIS. https://www.tvn24.pl/wiadomosci-z-kraju,3/afera-prezesa-nik-...
Of course nobody cares because social money flow :)
As for the "increase of budget" - mostly it comes from changes in the system already introduced by the previous government but with vacation legis (like electronic reporting for microcompanies - JPK). And of course PIS has the luck to rule during a worldwide economic boom.
As for the previous guys bringing up microreporting.... please, that is such a worn out excuse. They were in power for 8 years and they actually managed to start serious work on that particular solution half a year before they left office, becuase they knew they absolutely have to. How is that not doing absolute minimum they can get away with? Have you seen the answer the back then minister of finance gave when he was asked a question what did he do when he was informed there are likely billions of VAT refunds beign scammed out of the system? His answer was "I don't remember".
Also tell Germans, China and many other countries about that worldwide economic boom we've been experiencing for last 4 years :-)
I'm no fan of PiS. In fact I voted for their rivals 12 years ago because I did believe their promises of 3x15%, low taxes etc. I still remember many scandals that are forgotten today. For example billions spent on motorways built by the state and then given to companies owned by "friends" for 50 year lease so they could make profits by charging drivers whatever they want for using infrastructure funded by people's own taxes. But my biggest dissapointment with them was not even thievery as it can perhaps be explained that not everyone was a theif etc, but the fact they didn't implement a single one of their promises. They did nothing about rotten to the core bureaucracies of the tax offices, national insurance (ZUS) and tried to privatise the health service through the back door. It is no simple task to resolve this. Even though PiS has very little sucess in those areas, at least they are talking about this and are seen as trying with their "Constitution for Business" that is the only law (other than the actual constitution) that states tax man is supposed to use presumption of innocence not presumtion of guilt as it is done usually and actually treat people fairly in their dealings with the tax offices.
It is true that many people vote for PiS because of new social programs. However, there are many people that vote for them because there is no other viable choice. Sometimes the least bad is the only option.
Anyway, as George Bush famously said: "Full me once, shame on you, full me tw-you can't get fooled again!" :-)
Meanwhile Szyszko "forgot" to include land and a house in Mazury lake resort worth hundreds of thousands of PLN and nothing :)
> They were in power for 8 years and they actually managed to start serious work on that particular solution half a year before they left office, becuase they knew they absolutely have to.
That's one interpretation. Another is - when you don't have single majority and have to coordinate with your coallition partners stuff takes more time. When you actually ask people and do all the proper processes - legislation takes time.
On the other hand you can do it like PIS does - change law in 1 night without any review, and then it turns out it contains logical errors, duplicated articles, and have to be fixed 9 times (like the law about KRS was :) ).
I much prefer slow and steady to fast and chaotic. Law is in may respects like code, and PIS is doing spaghetti code.
It may be that I have become too cynical lately, but if some court cases taught us recently, it is that popular fora of all kinds are a battleground of sorts and everyone there is either an FBI agent, a shill or a dog.
For the record, the moment you used word populist makes me question whether you have an axe to grind yourself ( ie. UE establishment is not that happy about Poland and Hungary breaking ranks), but I digress..
This how bad it is. HN is pretty decent moderation-wise and I still keep my guard up.
Well the US has been openly doing it for nearly a decade. Care to reconsider your point of view?
with the internet comes a lot of freedom and this is part of the price of having it because you can bet there is a politician waiting in the wings who will ask you to let them muzzle someone to protect you all the while another politician may be selling your right to speak.
For example home owners that do not want a nuclear reactor in their backyard are not likely candidates for troll farms, but huge energy companies (or whomever) are.
As for nuclear NIMBYs, sure, individually they don't have the money (I'm a nuclear YIMBY, and I don't have it either). But there's plenty of organizations with money and influence, campaigning against nuclear - e.g. fossil fuel industry, Greenpeace. So I'm going to back the GP - everyone does that.
It's the vastness of comments that I find as evidence of something wrong, not specific posts.
This is crucial. I think it makes sense to recognize how, since the invention of speech, there have been those who accrue power by hiring professional trolls.
If you believe all pro-nuclear-energy people are extremist environmental nuts, or all anti-nuclear-energy are anti-science luddites, then you've got a lot of people who are going to be easy to manipulate, since they won't ever entertain any argument from the other side.
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.
My counter argument here is simple:
1. You have outlined a pattern of behavior that in your opinion indicates that someone is a paid shill.
2. However you yourself have engaged in the exact pattern of behavior you describe.
3. Therefore we are left with two options:
A: Your theory is correct, and you are a paid shill for renewables.
B: You are not a paid shill, and hence the pattern of behavior you describe is not actually strong evidence of shilling.
Which one is it?
"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 multiple industries."
Since this was my intent to state in the first place, do you disagree with this because you think it's impossible? Or because you think it's unlikely? Or some other reason?
The original post demonstrated proof that governments pay trolls, do you believe the only customers for these businesses are governments?
I'd say it's almost a forgone conclusion that it's happening.
Edit: From 2015
https://curiousmatic.com/professional-trolls/
Link in the article to Monsanto trolling:
https://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-and-others-caught-paying...
If I had to guess at any motivation other than a lot of people actually liking nuclear power, it would probably be that nuclear power is one of the few controversies where a reasonably intelligent person can easily grasp a series of basic arguments and then virtue-signal about being more scientifically literate than the unwashed masses. It's basically the same social dynamic that used to motivate the type of people who argued with creationists and climate change deniers.
It's also the Generically Dumbest Conspiracy Theory On The Internet to say "everybody who disagrees with me is a paid shill". People on the internet tend to hold and express opinions because it's an emotionally compelling thing to do, not because they're being paid off by Westinghouse or George Soros or whoever. It's literally an accusation you're making without evidence--I could just as easily suggest that maybe YOU'RE a shill for the photovoltaic industry? ;)
But if this happens frequently on a wide range of topics, on a regular basis it gets to a point where a rational person has to question the validity of the information source.
Edit: clarity
It's really hard not to point out when people start talking about better solar and battery storage that we could be solving this problem right now with tech we already have. Instead our solution to climate change keeps being pushed out into the nebulous future because people refuse to look at the obvious solution.
The IV generation plants people keep talking about didn't happen in time. With the current pace, we're at least ten years from commercial roll out, and at that point there's no market left for something that needs to run 24/7 to be competitive. Wind turbines and solar are falling in price YoY.
I'm afraid even your "We could dramatically cut ... now" is hyperbole. Nuclear power plants take many years to plan and build.
Not to mention that many of the delays and drawbacks of nuclear power are precisely due to the antinuclear movement itself, which imposes barriers and regulations instead of the subsidies that renewables have received.
Yes, there are new coal powered plants being build, but mostly to replace inefficient older ones. There might be an argument that a new NPP would have been a better solution, but it wouldn't have worked out economically. Maybe with taxes on carbon dioxides if that would have been implemented.
I think subsidies for renewables are a far better investment compared to NPP.
Meanwhile the renewables are being choked by increasing regulatory burdens (which the coal lobby lobbied for) and fake news (pushed by the coal lobby) to prevent even those who pass the burden from building anything. In Bavaria the area where wind turbines can still be built is less than a percent of the total area of the state, the coal lobby meanwhile is building a new coal plant (they got a permit to build one and politics is unwilling to revoke it).
Renewables could have easily replaced a large part of nuclear if not for the coal lobby.
Please stop spreading misinformation: While we've failed our planned reduction goals, we did in fact reduce fossil fuel usage.
https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-sources&p...
https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/38...
“People are stupid” is not a valid reason for not choosing a technology. It’s just something that needs to be overcome. Do you realize how complex and out of grasp a basic SCADA controller is to normal people? A modern turbofan? Yet people entrust their lives to these things every day wi the no issue.
> incredible strides PV and wind turbines have made in the past decades.
PV and wind absolutely do not matter. They cannot provide stable base load. Solar enthusiasts bury their heads in the sand when it comes to base load and hand wave about batteries, pumped storage, etc when in reality they are just signing civilization up for more gas turbine plants and coal while virtue signaling that they care about the environment.
Is this an unreasonable assumption considering the topic here?
This entire topic is based on proof of this.
Even here on HN, there's occasionally jokes like "cool, how long before they shut it down" on Google's products as an example. There's nothing wrong with this comment but it has the patterns you also ascribed to trolls.
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?
-----
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.
If anyone is going to have a script and long list of references to draw from, wouldn’t it be the paid shill? Provided by their employer?
It seems more likely to me that most people are just an emotional wreck and don’t perform well in debate.
This is why they use irrationality as a weapon.
An [x] shill making poor arguments the those on the fence is going to do less good for their employers than a shill making the strongest possible case for [x].
If anything, you'd assume the 'irrational' nuclear shills are actually being paid by natural gas and renewables interests, and vice-versa, to make the other side seem obnoxious and crazy.
Republicans: (fox news) Illegals are taking over America and stealing your jobs!
Democrats: (cnn) Conservatives are hate filled racists who hate equality!
The same thing is happening online because this works with the masses.
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.
Yes, they do. They want their followers to behave irrationally, so they lead with it. A group of well considered and thoughtful people can change their mind with new evidence and information.
A pro-troll doesn't want that, they want blind devoted followers that repeat a message blindly, loudly and often.
Couldn't it be fossil fuel groups who benefit. They know there are groups who fight for green energy who are very strongly against nuclear and that by pushing for nuclear, it creates internal conflict which reduces the pressure being put on existing fossil fuels. It is also an easier target to focus on with propaganda. Nuclear has a certain level of fear in our social psyche that doesn't exist with other green energy which makes for easier propaganda.
The best thing for fossil fuels in the current climate is to keep everyone against nuclear. A solar/wind future without the fantasy breakthrough in cheap storage is actually just a solar/wind + fossils base-load future. Anti-nuclear == pro-fossils in any solution that doesn’t involve significant blackouts.
It's unfortunate that I mentioned "nuclear" without adding other industries to buffer that one. No one takes issue with me listing the "medical industry" as paying for trolls, not sure why so many care about nuclear over the medical industry here...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nola.com/news/article_33443...
Astroturfing is incredibly common, it's part of many public relations firms standard services. In person actors are obviously more expensive than their online equivalent but it's all just viewed as a tool for a campaign.
A glow in the dark Shrek I suppose.
Ethics don't matter in that case.