I've wondered about stuff like this when a post appears here that is critical of some well-known company.
As far as people paid to bash him, I doubt anyone has the same incentives.
On the other hand... I'd be more suspect of posts about random companies that pop out of no where and get a ton of random engagement. * of course, not implying start ups don't go viral, etc.
What happens is that probably bots/alts do all the work at first to bad-mouth specific companies often enough, until it gets a critical mass and all simple-minded NPCs end up parroting the same narrative.
I mean take google for example. Who is paying money to have bots come on here and claim "google starts 100 projects and never finishes them" ?
Everyone knows that, because everyone is/was a user of those projects, lol.
It's easy to meme on them for that.
But it feels like in every controversial discussion there are accusations of being a shill or astroturfer or whatever in the pay of the enemy. I've been occasionally accused of this myself. I think it's just a lazy substitute for debate rather than an accusation that's actually been thought out or is even believed in any way.
I have no insight into how psyops are run, but I find the idea of an agent springing into action because a HN article critical of or praising X has just come along. Who knows I guess...
The speed which high-levels appear means it’s being monitored for sure.
I'm convinced there are genuine people that believe Apple / Musk can do no wrong, but the veracity of flagging and downvoting is making me suspicious to something more going on.
I don't think you'll find many devout fans who will defend Apple's intransigence with the butterfly keyboard debacle. Or how they're marketing ProRes RAW video codecs on a smartphone that doesn't have a USB-C port.
As for Musk, he's just a person. I am impressed by what he has achieved and I greatly admire his work ethic. That doesn't mean I defend the entirety of his character. But his flaws aren't reason for me to avoid rebutting claims which are obviously false, such as claims that he's just a "cheerleader" with no particular skills.
You mention a "track record of over-promising and severely underdelivering" but I wonder if that's just a matter of which parts of his track record you place emphasis on. Far from over-promising or under-delivering, Falcon 9 is an astounding success. Dragon is an astounding success. Starlink is providing a level of service previously unheard of and is now the largest fleet of satellites by an enormous margin.
The Model S was described as vapourware before its release, then it won multiple car of the year awards. The Model 3 was described as vapourware before its release, then it won multiple car of the year awards. The Model Y is currently the top selling car in Germany. I don't recall any of them turning out to be flops or disappointments. The yoke steering wheel was described as dangerous and maybe illegal, and it won't make it to any production vehicles, then it was released and the howls of controversy vanished overnight.
Right now the criticism is focused on claims that Full Self Driving (FSD) Beta is vapourware. For a long time it was described as impossible. And also that it's scandalous how it is taking some years longer to complete than initially estimated. And also it doesn't work. And it is killing people. And it's unimpressive and Tesla's technology is dead last among competitors. Just don't look at YouTube.
Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
And the title article is all about astroturfing and foreign agents and the like, so it seems like if you don't want to read that discussion you shouldn't really be reading this comment section. It should be pretty obvious what the content is going to be like from the title. Flag the post if you don't like it and want it all gone.
Seriously, I found myself thinking that most of the criticism against Brave is done by... not an organized group, but a group that is predisposed to loudly criticize it regardless of any actual failing or problem. But that kind of thinking is unfair to the vast majority of posters, pro OR con, who are honestly expressing their opinions. It's probably best to assume good faith, as the good lord and HN guidelines dictate.
So that makes him a hero-by-default to a variety of conservatives - some who think his political views unfairly eclipsed his technical achievements, some who feel his free speech was curtailed, some who are just homophobes. Eich hasn't talked much about the issue since so it's hard to say how much of this support is rooted in people projecting their own feelings onto him. Brave also appeals to the crypto crowd because it has its own token with which you can earn and/or redistribute 'Brave Attention Tokens.'
I don't know that the behavior around Brave is any sort of astroturfing in the sense of being coordinated; it could just be organic behavior by people who happen to have similarly narrow reasons for preferring it.
Don't get me wrong, i am sure there exists people who are motivated by that, but except in the early days of brave, i have not really seen brave evangelists talk about that at all. The talking points mostly seem to be anti-google, anti-big advertisers, anti-chrome monoply and pro-privacy stuff. And i think the amount of people motivated by those talking points far eclipse the other drama, which at this point feels like a historical footnote. Especially because as far as i know Eich hasn't continued to publicly express these views.
Once people feel loyal to a brand (or anything really) the original reasons don't have to stay top of mind for very long, and the loyalty symbol becomes a sort of in-group signal in its own right. It's not very different from fashion signatures in music subcultures.