forum sceptics on governments payroll

Truthrevolution

The Canadian government has been caught paying a media group $75,000 to moniter (troll) internet forums and message boards and respond to what it considers "misinformation".So they now have their hacks-for-hire who will defend government scandals, wars, atrocities and conspiracies over the internet.Now we know that the US and Israeli government agencies have also done something similar in the past, so it got me thinking, how many other governments are paying private contractors to troll internet forums and spread their state-sponsored propoganda.

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/may2010/052410_troll_forums.htm

RGDATA!

Truthrevolution wrote: »

The Canadian government has been caught paying a media group $75,000 to moniter (troll) internet forums and message boards and respond to what it considers "misinformation".So they now have their hacks-for-hire who will defend government scandals, wars, atrocities and conspiracies over the internet.Now we know that the US and Israeli government agencies have also done something similar in the past, so it got me thinking, how many other governments are paying private contractors to troll internet forums and spread their state-sponsored propoganda.

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/may2010/052410_troll_forums.htm

quote says nothing about skeptics, be careful how you use that word, it's almost sounds like you're trying to change its meaning. hired hacks are not skeptics. defending "government scandals, wars, atrocities" is not skepticism

i don't disbelieve that the US and Israel agencies have "done something similar" in the past, but I haven't read about it so if you have a link I would be interested

as to the question - how many governments do this? I would say you're far more likely to see this stuff sponsored by private interests, same way these interests hire lobbyists etc. - just my hunch. however, i wouldn't doubt that you have some government officials on forums around the world in "unofficial capacities" defending the party line

Flaregon

how are they hackers, there just payed opinionless puppets.
It also sound quite easy, were can I get singed up .

and by that logic so far everyone on Job seekers is one .

Truthrevolution

RGDATA! wrote: »

quote says nothing about skeptics, be careful how you use that word, it's almost sounds like you're trying to change its meaning. hired hacks are not skeptics. defending "government scandals, wars, atrocities" is not skepticism

i don't disbelieve that the US and Israel agencies have "done something similar" in the past, but I haven't read about it so if you have a link I would be interested

as to the question - how many governments do this? I would say you're far more likely to see this stuff sponsored by private interests, same way these interests hire lobbyists etc. - just my hunch. however, i wouldn't doubt that you have some government officials on forums around the world in "unofficial capacities" defending the party line

Well its usually the sceptics who defend these type of things, just have a look through the threads on these boards about Iraq, Iran, Israel, al-queda, 9/11 etc and you will see what im talking about.I mean there are still people here who are defending the invasion of Iraq for gods sake!
I maybe could have changed the thread title but if i had of used a word like hack or troll instead of sceptic then i probably would have had the thread locked or received an infraction, unless you have any other words that you think may be more suitable?
With regards to Israeli and US agencies hiring these contract keyboard warriors there are links to that in the article i posted up.

namloc1980

Truthrevolution wrote: »

Well its usually the sceptics who defend these type of things, just have a look through the threads on these boards about Iraq, Iran, Israel, al-queda, 9/11 etc and you will see what im talking about.I mean there are still people here who are defending the invasion of Iraq for gods sake!
I maybe could have changed the thread title but if i had of used a word like hack or troll instead of sceptic then i probably would have had the thread locked or received an infraction, unless you have any other words that you think may be more suitable?
With regards to Israeli and US agencies hiring these contract keyboard warriors there are links to that in the article i posted up.

Are you suggesting there are hired hacks on boards.ie??

Brown Bomber

namloc1980 wrote: »

Are you suggesting there are hired hacks on boards.ie??

No he is suggesting in his experience the arguments of skeptics paralell with government shills.

Yitzhak Rabin

Why the fvck am I doing this for free?? I could be earning 75,000k a year!:D

I know that the military press officer monitors the military forum and corrects mistakes, or mistruths occasionally in an unofficial capacity. Also as RGDTA said, it is more than likely that private interests would monitor them.

For example, I was bitching here about how I had been treated by meteor customer service. Within a day, a rep contacted me on boards, and my problem, which had been dragging on for over a year was solved. Its just another way of communicating with customers.

The reason they would do it unofficially, is that you don't want newspapers quoting what you say to one individual on the internet as being official announcement.

studiorat

Truthrevolution wrote: »

Well its usually the sceptics who defend these type of things, just have a look through the threads on these boards about Iraq, Iran, Israel, al-queda, 9/11 etc and you will see what im talking about.I mean there are still people here who are defending the invasion of Iraq for gods sake!

Don't believe the hype. Skeptics aren't defending anything. All they are doing is telling you that you are posting nonsense most of the time. It smacks of arrogance, self-righteousness and possibly a little paranoia that any conspiracy theory that is not supported naturally means those who dont BELIEVE YOU are automatically supporting the other side.

And why shouldn't they have "professional skeptics" there's enough professional conspiracy theory mongers out there already. Why can you have professionals creating the Ct's and not defending the other argument?

The professional CT'ers are obviously worried because their jobs could be at risk, or some of their income anyway...

On a similar note, Libertas sock puppets were defending Declan Ganley all over the Irish forums at the last Lisbon outing, trying to correct some "mis-information".

In fact I'd imagine most political parties have their web teams whether they are in government or not...

Brown Bomber

studiorat wrote: »

Don't believe the hype. Skeptics aren't defending anything. All they are doing is telling you that you are posting nonsense most of the time. It smacks of arrogance, self-righteousness and possibly a little paranoia that any conspiracy theory that is not supported naturally means those who dont BELIEVE YOU are automatically supporting the other side. .

Nobody has said this. I think the point was not ant-skeptic but an explanation of why some would be pro-official story/party line on everything, even in the face of compelling evidence. The people with whom there is no actual debate.

studiorat wrote: »

And why shouldn't they have "professional skeptics" there's enough professional conspiracy theory mongers out there already.

Because it is deception, public servants trying to influence those who they are supposed to serve by stealth. Worse, the taxpayers are funding government efforts to perverse democracy themselves.

studiorat wrote: »

Why can you have professionals creating the Ct's and not defending the other argument?

The "other argument" should be as interested in corporate corruption, abuses of power, etc as any CT site. There should be no "other argument" it is not about taking sides it is about transparency, honesty and truth which should be the collective aim.

studiorat wrote: »

The professional CT'ers are obviously worried because their jobs could be at risk, or some of their income anyway...

By professional CT'ers I assume you mean the likes of Rense and Alex Jones. My opinion is that they are both professionals, but professional shills, but that is irrelevant. Otherwise, they are independent media organisations, the same as any other.

And you are ignoring the countless blogs maintained by concerned individuals trying to get their message out. These recieve no payment regardless of how popular they are.

RGDATA!

Truthrevolution wrote: »

Well its usually the sceptics who defend these type of things, just have a look through the threads on these boards about Iraq, Iran, Israel, al-queda, 9/11 etc and you will see what im talking about.I mean there are still people here who are defending the invasion of Iraq for gods sake!
I maybe could have changed the thread title but if i had of used a word like hack or troll instead of sceptic then i probably would have had the thread locked or received an infraction, unless you have any other words that you think may be more suitable?
With regards to Israeli and US agencies hiring these contract keyboard warriors there are links to that in the article i posted up.

fair enough, point taken. the article is interesting, especially the stuff about Israeli/US keyboard warriors.

i accept you are using the term for the sake of convenience.
but while i'd be a skeptic of a lot of stuff discussed on this forum, i'm just as skeptical about stuff like US foreign policy, the invasion of Iraq, war on terror, Israeli/Iranian domestic and foreign policy etc

nullzero

namloc1980

namloc1980 wrote: »

Are you suggesting there are hired hacks on boards.ie??

I have suspected this on several occasions..(and nearly accused a poster or two..)..of course this is going on elsewhere, so why not here?..i think higher of people than to think they can ignore everything you say to them and just spout a particular line..People cant possibly really be that idealogical/stupid..

Richard tea

Yes, I found it very strange when the whole Lisbon treaty debate was taking place. There was a crew of about 5 or 6 posters that would dive on a negative post about the treaty like a flash. They would spurt out figures and quote '' section 3.4 blah blah blah '' which I think just confused people & in turn the confused ones just played it safe and voted yes:(

This sort of thing is also very obvious in '' global warming, climate change, sunny day, cloudy day '' threads. Just have a look out for the same few posters that latch onto any post that says the whole climate change thing is bull****;)

Yitzhak Rabin

Richard tea wrote: »

This sort of thing is also very obvious in '' global warming, climate change, sunny day, cloudy day '' threads. Just have a look out for the same few posters that latch onto any post that says the whole climate change thing is bull****;)

Are you saying, people who believe or disbelieve climate change, are the ones most likely hired hacks?

namloc1980

Richard tea wrote: »

Yes, I found it very strange when the whole Lisbon treaty debate was taking place. There was a crew of about 5 or 6 posters that would dive on a negative post about the treaty like a flash. They would spurt out figures and quote '' section 3.4 blah blah blah '' which I think just confused people & in turn the confused ones just played it safe and voted yes:(

That's because most of the anti-Lisbon stuff was a load of crap....€1.84 minimum wage, army conscription, forced abortion/euthanasia etc. Anyway what's wrong with people pointing out clearly made up stuff and trying to show there is nothing in the treaty about €1.84 minimum wage for example

namloc1980

namloc1980 wrote: »

That's because most of the anti-Lisbon stuff was a load of crap....€1.84 minimum wage, army conscription, forced abortion/euthanasia etc. Anyway what's wrong with people pointing out clearly made up stuff and trying to show there is nothing in the treaty about €1.84 minimum wage for example

this is true..

Richard tea

yekahs wrote: »

Are you saying, people who believe or disbelieve climate change, are the ones most likely hired hacks?

Nope, I just find it hard to believe that a Plumber, baker & a candle stick maker can defend something like the great global swindle. Some of them post like their life depended on it.

Richard tea

namloc1980 wrote: »

That's because most of the anti-Lisbon stuff was a load of crap....€1.84 minimum wage, army conscription, forced abortion/euthanasia etc. Anyway what's wrong with people pointing out clearly made up stuff and trying to show there is nothing in the treaty about €1.84 minimum wage for example

Absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out that sort of thing. I wont pretend that I understand every thing. For example, there was an issue recently regarding Tax, It was on the frontline with P kenny I think. Pro lisbon said that we have complete control of our tax system and money matters, Now is it just me or does it look like Brussels will be dictating how we spend our tax, budget money

As for the 1.84 euro minimum wage thing, Its possible, its a slippery slope http://www.waterford-today.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9773&Itemid=1&ed=929

Yitzhak Rabin

I was just asking which side you meant. While its still ambiguous, I presume, since you said 'global warming swindle' you are on the 'its not real' side of the fence.

Richard tea wrote: »

Nope, I just find it hard to believe that a Plumber, baker & a candle stick maker can defend something like the great global swindle. Some of them post like their life depended on it.

Why do you find that hard to believe, but the same non-professionals types can post about how its all a scam like their life depended on it.

I normally defend against the bullsh1t claims of climate change deniers, for a couple of reasons. One of them being just a general dislike for lies and distortions.

The main reason though is, it a seriously important issue, and if someone reads all the rubbish claims about mars warming, or ice caps not melting, or that there is a sizeable debate against the theory, without seeing a rebuttal, they could fall for the bullsh1t.

Richard tea

yekahs wrote: »

I was just asking which side you meant. While its still ambiguous, I presume, since you said 'global warming swindle' you are on the 'its not real' side of the fence.



Why do you find that hard to believe, but the same non-professionals types can post about how its all a scam like their life depended on it.

I normally defend against the bullsh1t claims of climate change deniers, for a couple of reasons. One of them being just a general dislike for lies and distortions.

The main reason though is, it a seriously important issue, and if someone reads all the rubbish claims about mars warming, or ice caps not melting, or that there is a sizeable debate against the theory, without seeing a rebuttal, they could fall for the bullsh1t.

I agree that the worlds climate is changing. But im very Anti-taking money out of my pocket-:p It just seems like everytime a wanabe weather man makes a suggestion, its costs people more taxes & charges.
Anyway, this is getting off topic, I picked global warming & lisbon issues as an example, there are prob many more.

bonkey

Richard tea wrote: »

Yes, I found it very strange when the whole Lisbon treaty debate was taking place. There was a crew of about 5 or 6 posters that would dive on a negative post about the treaty like a flash. They would spurt out figures and quote '' section 3.4 blah blah blah '' which I think just confused people & in turn the confused ones just played it safe and voted yes:(

I guess its a matter of perspective.

Some would say that there were 5 or 6 posters who went above and beyond to show that they actually knew and understood the content of the treaty, were willing to share that information, particularly when the same claims they were countering were repeated time and time again.

Note that this would be true for both supporters and opposers of the treaty. There were cores on both sides, each professing to have some greater truth, and each trotting out the same arguments time and time again.

This sort of thing is also very obvious in '' global warming, climate change, sunny day, cloudy day '' threads. Just have a look out for the same few posters that latch onto any post that says the whole climate change thing is bull****;)

No more then the same few posters who will chime in on any given discussion of the whole climate change thing to say that its bull.

See also contentious topics around here like 9/11. If someone brings it up, you'll see familiar faces treading familiar ground, even if the discussion was started by someone new.

Why?

Well...here's how I see it...lets say a question is asked or a point made. It could be genuine...it could be a plant...its not important. Either which way, someone feels like they should respond, on one side or the other.

Once one side of the old argument is repeated....why should we expect any different from the other side? Unless we expect that no-one answer the question because they were involved in the debate previously, then it seems strange to expect that only one side or the other will....or that there is something strange about one side doing so, but not about the other.

nullzero

bonkey wrote: »

I guess its a matter of perspective.

Some would say that there were 5 or 6 posters who went above and beyond to show that they actually knew and understood the content of the treaty, were willing to share that information, particularly when the same claims they were countering were repeated time and time again.

Note that this would be true for both supporters and opposers of the treaty. There were cores on both sides, each professing to have some greater truth, and each trotting out the same arguments time and time again.


No more then the same few posters who will chime in on any given discussion of the whole climate change thing to say that its bull.

See also contentious topics around here like 9/11. If someone brings it up, you'll see familiar faces treading familiar ground, even if the discussion was started by someone new.

Why?

Well...here's how I see it...lets say a question is asked or a point made. It could be genuine...it could be a plant...its not important. Either which way, someone feels like they should respond, on one side or the other.

Once one side of the old argument is repeated....why should we expect any different from the other side? Unless we expect that no-one answer the question because they were involved in the debate previously, then it seems strange to expect that only one side or the other will....or that there is something strange about one side doing so, but not about the other.

Essentially, Boards.ie isn't a place for everyone's opinions to be respected.
It's a private company, if the staff of Boards.ie disagree with you, you're going to be banging your head against a wall trying to have your opinions taken seriously.
Those who agree with the Boards.ie staff are protected by the staff and those who disagree are in the firing line so to speak.

I'm not crying about this set up, I understand that this site is what it is. As it states in the rules we're all playing in Boards.ie's garden and have to play by Boards.ie's rules.
It doesn't mean that Boards.ie and it's staff are in any way morally superior to anyone else, nor their opinions or beliefs any more relevant merely based on the fact that they are taken as being the only possible truth in the confines of Boards.ie. It means that while we're on Boards.ie we just have to accept the way things are. It mightn't always seem "fair" but we are in Boards.ie's garden after all, we have to piss off somewhere else to play by our own rules.

It's a given that posters who's opinions are in line with those of Boards.ie will generally get away with being nasty and condescending to those who's opinions differ. It's the same on all web forums, Mod's and Admins are human too, it's not some sort of democracy in these places. You disagree with the prevailing logic, prepare to be shat on. Boo hoo, I'm so upset and outraged:pac:
When I see a thread going down the same old lines I just abandon it. There are plenty of people in the CT forum who like nothing better than to abuse the "Cter's" on subjects like 9-11 etc... because they know they'll get away with it. It's not something I can understand, wasting my time being nasty to someone just because I can.

We should just enjoy this place for what it is take it at face value, first we have to remember the true nature of website we're on. If we're looking for "justice" we can forget it.

K-9

nullzero wrote: »

It's a given that posters who's opinions are in line with those of Boards.ie will generally get away with being nasty and condescending to those who's opinions differ. It's the same on all web forums, Mod's and Admins are human too, it's not some sort of democracy in these places. You disagree with the prevailing logic, prepare to be shat on. Boo hoo, I'm so upset and outraged:pac:
When I see a thread going down the same old lines I just abandon it. There are plenty of people in the CT forum who like nothing better than to abuse the "Cter's" on subjects like 9-11 etc... because they know they'll get away with it. It's not something I can understand, wasting my time being nasty to someone just because I can.

We should just enjoy this place for what it is take it at face value, first we have to remember the true nature of website we're on. If we're looking for "justice" we can forget it.

Surely there must be examples of threads like this?

I find asking a genuine question of "CT'ers" often leads to condescension and derision.

nullzero

K-9 wrote: »

Surely there must be examples of threads like this?

I find asking a genuine question of "CT'ers" often leads to condescension and derision.

Maybe so, that's not the point I'm making.

Both "sides" are guitly of acting in a disrespectful manner towards one another.
The fact is that when you're on a web forum, if you're views are concurrent with those of the Mod's and Admin's, you are allowed a certain amount of leeway.

bonkey

nullzero wrote: »

Essentially, Boards.ie isn't a place for everyone's opinions to be respected.
It's a private company, if the staff of Boards.ie disagree with you, you're going to be banging your head against a wall trying to have your opinions taken seriously.
Those who agree with the Boards.ie staff are protected by the staff and those who disagree are in the firing line so to speak.

I was wondering how long it would take someone to raise the "moderators are biased" argument in this thread.

Not long, apparently.

Its an old theme.

On this forum, where many posters fall into two diametrically-opposed groups, members of both groups regularly complain that we are biased towards the other.

There is also an escalation process, whereby claims of moderators acting unfairly can be looked at by third parties.

There is additionally a Feedback (and newly a Feedforward) forum, for people to suggest improvements if they feel there's a way of improving things.

bonkey

nullzero wrote: »

The fact is that when you're on a web forum, if you're views are concurrent with those of the Mod's and Admin's, you are allowed a certain amount of leeway.

Given that I'm giving you leeway to effectively level an accusation of bias about moderators here, I wonder how that gels with your argument?

Our views are certainly not concurrent, particularly on this matter, but you're being given leeway to do something which you shouldn't be doing.

Put differently....we give everyone a certain amount of leeway, but people tend to notice some aspects of that more then others.

RGDATA!

K-9 wrote: »

Surely there must be examples of threads like this?

I find asking a genuine question of "CT'ers" often leads to condescension and derision.

there are plenty of examples of derision toward "CT'ers" alright, but you're right and let's not kid ourselves it doesn't work both ways because boards.ie have an agenda or something.
in general though, i think this site is way over-moderated for my liking- i'm not commenting on this forum in particular, just boards.ie in general. hope this isn't considered back-seat modding.

nullzero

bonkey wrote: »

Given that I'm giving you leeway to effectively level an accusation of bias about moderators here, I wonder how that gels with your argument?

Our views are certainly not concurrent, particularly on this matter, but you're being given leeway to do something which you shouldn't be doing.

Put differently....we give everyone a certain amount of leeway, but people tend to notice some aspects of that more then others.

I wasn't having a go at you.
Boards.ie isn't a democracy, I was just highlighting that.
I wasn't saying that all Mods and Admins are out to bully people who don't agree with them.
I was just stating the obvious, I wasn't being a smart arse or anything like that. We're all here playing by boards.ie's rules, that was my point, and when you play by someone elses rules you mightn't always like how the game goes.

bonkey

nullzero wrote: »

I wasn't having a go at you.
...
I was just stating the obvious,

It might be your opinion that mods are biased, but I would argue that its far from obvious...and that it is having a go at anyone who is a mod....which includes me.

We're all here playing by boards.ie's rules, that was my point, and when you play by someone elses rules you mightn't always like how the game goes.

The rules here don't say "mods can be biased, and you just have to live with that".

Indeed, I would go further and say that whenever the accusation or notion of mod bias raises head , it has always been made clear that it would not be considered acceptable by the Category Mods or Admins.

So unless you're also accusing them of lying, then your point about playing by the rules is at odds with your notion that there is favouritism and bias....given that they're against the rules.

Again, I'll readily accept that it might be your opinion that these are some sort of unwritten rules which fly in the face of stated and repeated policy, but that's a different kettle of fish.

You're expected to play by the rules. Everyone is. The rules do not say that favouritism in moderating is OK, or that people's opinions count less when they're at odds with those in positions of responsibility.

nullzero

bonkey wrote: »

It might be your opinion that mods are biased, but I would argue that its far from obvious...and that it is having a go at anyone who is a mod....which includes me.





The rules here don't say "mods can be biased, and you just have to live with that".

Indeed, I would go further and say that whenever the accusation or notion of mod bias raises head , it has always been made clear that it would not be considered acceptable by the Category Mods or Admins.

So unless you're also accusing them of lying, then your point about playing by the rules is at odds with your notion that there is favouritism and bias....given that they're against the rules.

Again, I'll readily accept that it might be your opinion that these are some sort of unwritten rules which fly in the face of stated and repeated policy, but that's a different kettle of fish.

You're expected to play by the rules. Everyone is. The rules do not say that favouritism in moderating is OK, or that people's opinions count less when they're at odds with those in positions of responsibility.

OK, I hit a nerve.
I'm leaving the thread now.
It's not an argument, and if it were it's not one I could win.
Sorry for casuing offence, it wasn't intended.

uprising2

Ok back on topic, how much do the paid lads here earn?, would it be financially rewarding for me to join your ranks, PM me the details of how to sign up and will I get the NEW iphone for spinning BS on the move?, does it pay by the post or hour?, does it pay more, the more ridiculous the post? and is there an extra bonus for bringing reptillians into the frame?, these times are financially difficult, I also have my granny for sale on adverts.ie if anybody needs one.