The evidence that glyphosate in fold causes cancer is currently really weak, albeit enough to convince a lay jury.
They're saying Monsanto and other multi billion dollar industrial players have permanent PR campaigns running that include posting on social media. I think that's obviously right and a big problem in terms of public discourse, at the very least, because it drowns out legitimate questions and concerns.
FWIW, people seem to vastly overestimate the amount of astroturfing that they are experiencing, perhaps because they find it difficult to believe many people have different views than they do.
They are pointing out that Monsanto does it, not accusing anyone here of being a shill.
I thought it was a good reminder that views can be, and are influenced by industry (it's the foundation of modern PR?). I believe it's helpful to make others aware of this.
At least that's how I read it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> Monsanto has had a huge astroturf campaign online for several years defending/promoting glyphosate (even on this website). ... I started noticing that there were the same users over and over with extremely well-researched defensive responses (the stuff that only someone with a PhD or JD could put together) and it's pretty obvious what's going on.
Seems pretty obviously an insinuation that HN is full of pro-Monsanto astroturfing and I don't think it is a stretch to say it is a commentary on the specific comments in this thread.
This is telling.
A rule forbidding vague insinuation would be too broad and open to abuse.
That said, Monsanto would certainly deploy a flock of shills to HN, reddit, twitter, facebook, etc. The existence of motive, means and opportunity is clear. Therefore they have definitely done that.
Are we going to ignore that fact?
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like.