https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9570202
What's the right way for a community to permit free and welcoming discourse and simultaneously blunt the ability of malicious actors intent on spreading disinformation? It's a hard problem.
If you feel like comments on a thread are coming from an organized trolling/shilling campaign, try to collect some evidence for it and then notify hn@ycombinator.com --- that's what they've asked you to do.
But don't start a conversation on the thread itself about how specific commenters, or even a particular style of comment, are being made in bad faith. It's the easiest criticism in the world for a troll to deflect: just start an argument that you're commenting in good faith and being persecuted for unpopular opinions. 100 comments later, the thread will seem to casual readers like nothing but litigation over who the commenters are. Mission accomplished.
Yep. See also: Sue Basko and the Rustle League. The more she claimed they were a FBI/CIA Psyop, the more they laughed and poked at her.
Totally agreed that even the prior belief that trolling campaigns might exist is toxic.
Thanks, everyone, for the comments. They're thoughtful.
We found no evidence of trolling (in the sense of subversive shilling) in that thread. As far as I can tell, one commenter was who he said he was—an individual who felt passionately—and other commenters accused him because they didn't like what he said. His passion didn't help his cause, but he didn't deserve that.
Groundless accusations of astroturfing and shillage are not allowed on Hacker News. If the only evidence one has is "these comments seem so wrong to me", that's groundless. Accusations based merely on the strength of one's own opinions cost this community considerable health points, and we're not going to let it become a thing. If it gets worse, we'll make a top post about this, explicitly ban it, and add a rule about it to the guidelines. In the meantime, please flag such comments.
HN has users with many divergent views. The community spreads across countries where perspectives and politics are different from one's own [1]. It's common for X to seem obvious to one user while ~X seems obvious to another. Occam has no trouble accounting for most of what people call trolling, astroturfing, and shilling in controversial threads.
When any of you have concerns about astroturfing, you're welcome to send them to hn@ycombinator.com. We'll take them seriously. We'll also be careful and stick to what we can find evidence for.
1. This cross-cultural aspect of HN is a big deal. We see it all the time; I think it's underappreciated.
It could just as well be one person stating his opinions. His opinions are controversal, and therefore they generate lots of responses (derailing) and he is downvoted because they go against what most people here believe. Doesn't quite seem like an army of professional "trolls" manipulating the discussion (If he is a troll, he would probably have presented his statements more effectively or subtly. The way he did almost guaranteed being downvoted).
Those "troll groups" are surely not a good thing, and you can never be certain this person wasn't one of them, but I also wouldn't label everyone I don't agree with a troll, just because they dare to write down their opinion, and my point of view is the one of the majority.
It really shouldn't matter if someone is paid to have an opinion -- if your own opinion is crappy enough that your only argument is that someone is being paid, then maybe they're doing you a favor by challenging your belief. Disinformation only works if you're too lazy to research the reality.
You'll never be able to confirm someone is a shill or whatever or not, so I don't understand why people obsess over it so much in comment sections. Just legitimately defend your view if it's that obvious.
That's like 95% of the time for 95% of people though.
The disinformation has an enormous advantage: It costs much less state a lie than to determine the statement's truth. I'm not lazy, I just don't have enough time to check the truth of all these statements. In the end, I have to trust someone.
On the contrary, an astroturfer might fail to persuade but still chalk their effort up as a success if they manage to derail a conversation. A bunch of people walking away from a stupid conversation failing to reach any conclusions is a win for something like, for example, Putin's govenrment.
I'm a black American from Chicago, and that's honestly a majority sentiment amongst friends and family, for what it's worth.
Putin is terrible for so many other reasons than this struggle between duelling right-wing nationalists.
It's a little odd to even discuss the desires of the Crimean population; they have no say in the matter.
I disagree with your opinion, but I'm glad you provided it. I wouldn't mind some support behind your assertion though.
I wouldn't worry too much - good moderation systems were built to handle these from the start. The places where paid trolls are likely to be most effective are also the places where you see the largest quantity of ridiculous posts from ordinary people. I'm thinking newspaper comment sections here, but Twitter might count too.
Whether someone is posting nonsense because they're paid or just because they can't sleep (https://xkcd.com/386/) the response to it is the same: robust forum software combined with people who point out their fallacies.
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=yeahyeah
At the time this was the top comment and completely derailed the conversation. Pretty sure that wasn't a Russian agency, take a guess which one it was.
EDIT: amazing, I provide the community a crystal clear example of astroturfing and get down voted.