Patterns of Influence on Boards—A Civic Observation

Daft Punk -

Over the years, I’ve noticed recurring patterns in how certain threads on Boards.ie—particularly those touching on civic, geopolitical, or cultural topics—are steered, silenced, or subtly reframed. While this could be chalked up to moderation policy or user bias, I believe it’s worth examining whether deeper structural or institutional influences are at play here. To be clear, considering this post is in the conspiracies section, I believe it deserves to be considered whether this allegation has any weight or if it is just a conspiracy.

I do think it’s fair to ask whether certain political or ideological currents—especially those aligned with legacy institutions—have an outsized presence here. For example, the tone and framing of discussions often mirror the rhetorical style of republican or isolationist: anti-EU sentiment, skepticism toward NATO, and a tendency to honour domestic populism while dismissing international law or civic restraint.

This isn’t about party politics per se. It’s about the emotional pull of the discourse. Threads that explore civic design, international alliances, or minority dignity often get derailed or drowned out—not by evidence-based rebuttal, but by emotionally loaded groupthink. That’s not healthy civic dialogue. It’s also notable how certain public figures or institutions are treated with blanket hostility or reverence, depending on their alignment with majoritarian comfort. Public broadcasters, for instance, are either lionized or vilified depending on whether they affirm the dominant narrative. Private ventures, even when well-run, are often dismissed as “right-wing” by default.

I’m not suggesting Boards is “run” by any one group but I do believe there are sections that engage in coordinated effort (whether paid or done voluntarily) to coerce dialogue regardless of whether they are connected to Boards contractually or not. But I do believe there’s a cultural gravitational pull—possibly shaped by legacy affiliations—that influences what gets amplified and what gets buried. Whether this stems from historical networks, institutional loyalties, or simply the demographics of long-time posters, it deserves scrutiny.

Civic discourse thrives on transparency, restraint, and pluralism. If Boards wants to be a true forum for national dialogue, it must be willing to interrogate its own symbolic architecture—not just its moderation rules. I welcome disagreement, but I ask that responses engage with the substance—not just the sentiment—of this post.

The Venus Project

On recollection I seem to remember posters who were moderators, ghost posters who come in with post counts of tens of thousands of posts and disappear like phantoms as though they were never there. When you view their historic posts only one page arises. Or usernames being resurrected after being discontinued or banned. I wonder is it possible for the site owners to create usernames with as many posts as they deem necessary to invoke credibility and then post as though they are authorities on subjects. Is criticism of them allowed on this site if it's in the conspiracy section?

Then there is what appears to be moderators switching in and out of usernames or paid posters populating foreign policy threads with their neanderthal grammar and inarticulate English. Or a moderator operating under numerous pseudonyms acting like a teenager in sports forums and pick on regular posters who don't support their players? Others sound like meatheads with little understanding of grammar and expressing their point without using repetitive words like “conflate” or “obfuscate”.

However, they have all disappeared for the past six months since they decided to upgrade their moderating software on Boards and Leinsterfans to Finnish and Dutch website moderating AI. Why? Maybe they were told they could be legally liable by coercing national debate. This isn’t counting the number of foreign actors posting here to destabilise the Irish public per Martin and the Defence Forces. Others by utilising good grammar and articulating their points in a friendly way they mislead and misguide younger readers who are easily tricked into trusting what they see and hear in front of their faces.

Then there is cyber criminals grooming and phishing for personal information to make data breaches on organisations and personal bank accounts. It appears since the the age of the internet - criminals have gained a significant competitive advantage over law enforcement and states. I will stop my thoughts there before they go off topic.

The Venus Project

In fact, I wasn’t going to do this for Michael Martin but on contemplation (no not by the mind control by meditating priests in this country - Smiley) but I think it deserves acknowledgement, as a possibility, and realistic threat right now to our national consciousness, that foreign interests might be trying to destabilise our country. But where does theory become conspiracy and how do we differentiate. Conspiracy tends to be blank assertions of un-backed up statements as facts.

I was tempted to ridicule Martin (as previous moderators have done to numerous posters over the years) and label it an attempt to ringfence Michael Martin's administration and create an outside enemy, but Martin has had deep coordination with the Defence Forces since the defence and neutrality review years ago and there has been a building up of defence around soft threats and modern warfare areas like, Tech in areas of Defence and Infrastructure. While I agree with Daft Punk that there used to be old boy networks, and Irish political interests constantly vying for top spot on here, it is a real risk and possibility there are also foreign interests doing that too.

I have formed this opinion by tracking political posters other posts across other areas of the site. It’s a pattern or perspective formed and I know I’m not a computer and have perception, unconscious biases, and prism, through which I view or perceive information, but I could see evidence of it, after only two or three days. All these are risk to our national defence right now, including malign posters on this site influencing readers.

This is where my perception might veer into conspiracy - journalists back up their statements with verified facts, i don't have conclusive evidence in this case, but it is worth pointing out what could be happening. I’ve upgraded from your view Daft Punk of it being from local disputes and old boys networks, to possibly being more malign forces from afar attempting to slight their way into our collective consciousness.

Of course we could ignore it like most people do and by doing so it goes away or doesn’t exist for us, but is ignorance bliss or stupidity and naïveté? On the other hand, openness is good, but blanket openness like we have on this site is very dangerous and we have what appears foreign interests, contributing in significant numbers. How many people read this site? Some threads say hundreds of thousands of views but if that means 500 pages of 1000 people, each, clicking through each page, to view a page that makes 500,000 views on a thread? So it’s only 1000 eyeballs viewing it which is quite small numbers? We're not changing perceptions of the masses by coming on here and posting in that case.

People are scared in this country at the moment. And they are right to with all the above concerns and raising children in this environment. I don't want to spread fear but what we are going through is new and outside our previous foreign policies of separation from foreign affairs and international wars and problems by following isolationist and neutrality policies.

Hoop66

Over the years, I’ve noticed recurring patterns in how certain threads on Boards.ie—particularly those touching on civic, geopolitical, or cultural topics—are steered, silenced, or subtly reframed

Says the poster with a join date of October 2025…

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124025586#Comment_124025586

I've read this a couple of times but am not sure what you're actually trying to say.

I think we can all agree that foreign interests are trying to influence our country, but I don't think that's a big thing to say in the current world climate. Russia for example has many different battle fronts ongoing outside of Ukraine, they're all just technological and / or political.

Does Russia have bot farms posting on boards? 100% it does, it would be crazy for them not to.

They also have bot farms posting on Facebook, Twitter any every other social media platform.

I don't think it's a conspiracy per se, it's just another battle front in modern warfare.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058426126/patterns-of-influence-on-boards-a-civic-observation

If all views are allowed on a forum - high chance it turns into open sewer.

Mods are just doing their jobs and often they have good intuition against bad faith posting. On some forums it's more relaxed, on other forums it's stricter.

Things have been back and forth here over the years but I don't perceive any "conspiracy" behind it. The only correlation I see are that people with fringe views, who express those views (even masked) often feel the victim of the consequences and rather than blame themselves will perceive some sort of crusade against them or their views.

Hotblack Desiato

People are scared in this country at the moment.

Of what?

silliussoddius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124039121#Comment_124039121

Whatever the bots in Nigeria tell them.

Daft Punk -

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124025583#Comment_124025583

In relation to your points above on the way posters intimidate or gaslight other posters, I believe what you have here, is various levels of people coming on and trying to expose other posters as frauds. All viewpoints are no less valid than the others in terms of parity of esteem, but to confuse parity of esteem with parity of evidence is the trap. Posters who chase exposure often pile on other posters with numerous posts, others with good intentions about the implications of posting on these sites legally, mistake the forum for the courtroom yourself included. Parity of esteem means you respect the right to speak; parity of evidence means you respect the right to be believed. The two are not the same. In practice, that means coordinated groups of posters (yes they exist) should guard against witch‑hunts, and individual posters (myself included) should also guard against self‑promotion masquerading as vigilance. The dignity of the forum lies in recognising that esteem is universal, but trust is conditional.

I also disagree with the point that only a few thousand people are actively reading this site and its posts. Those figures are likely just views from registered members who are online and clicking through threads. The actual readership figures are likely multiples of that. For example, one thousand registered users clicking through five hundred pages on a thread equals half a million views, and some threads go further. I would guess it could easily be more than five figures in terms of viewers, maybe hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions. That’s the scale of influence we’re dealing with. A single cultural gesture or reply can ripple far beyond its origin, shaping discourse in ways that traditional politics barely registers.

And then there are the legacy networks. Decades of online posting in Ireland have seen groups defrauding their workplaces while presenting angelic demeanour or accusatory language. Groups posting hundreds of times a day on rugby forums and here since the early 2000s. People often claim they work for themselves, are freelancers or contractors, or that they only contribute moderately on their lunchbreaks, but it was not always so. The ones claiming to be self‑employed were not always so, and many have taken advantage, defrauding their workplaces despite the image they project. And it is the ones who are fly‑by‑night now.

Daft Punk -

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124025586#Comment_124025586

In relation to what is happening in terms of forces influencing debate on this and other Irish social media sites, a various journals have advised that the use of VPNs by both state and non‑state actors makes them almost impossible to detect, even for defence industries tasked with protecting their own countries from attack. These actors don’t just rely on consumer VPNs. They deploy proxy chains, compromised servers in third countries, and coordinated cyber units. Attribution becomes almost impossible.

The implications of this confirmation for Boards are stark: moderators and site owners cannot reliably detect or identify users if they are operating behind VPNs. If this is the case, it creates mass paranoia and fear about who and what might be contributing here, what their intentions are, and how to effectively monitor, track, and defend against the spread of contagion, fear, delusion, or unverified information. This has implications for public mental health, markets, defence, and the law. The point is not that non‑state actors are easy to identify, but rather that state actors pose a higher‑level threat because they operate with stealth and coordination. Ireland’s current cyber defence posture, as has been repeatedly warned, is under‑resourced and underdeveloped.

If you are thinking about this in terms of forum moderation, it is worth considering how to build trust and transparency into any online community. The challenge is how to design systems that resist manipulation while still preserving anonymity for genuine users. That balance is critical. Without it, forums risk becoming either unsafe echo chambers or overly policed spaces that drive away authentic voices.

My following point veers into the conspiracy theory area and away from purely evidence‑based statements. My inclination is that, given this information and in light of Michael Martin’s and Cathal Berry's statements and repeated admissions that the National Cyber Security Centre is under‑resourced and incapable of dealing with incoming threats and daily attacks, this Board might already have been approached by either the government or the Defence Forces with intent to control the narrative, de‑escalate fear‑mongering, and repel attacks on our national consciousness.

There are obviously American influences on the Current Affairs forum, and they appear specifically to stabilise and reassure posters who express their fears and worries. While this cannot be verified, you will have to take my word for it that one poster in particular is most likely, American due to their knowledge and language, and has consistently stepped in to stabilise political debate around nuclear war, Putin, and related topics.

My inclination is that these influences may be American defence‑oriented, but they are positive influences here, helping our country. They don’t and won’t do our jobs for us, but they do point us in the right direction sometimes. That is the scale of influence we are dealing with: unseen actors, anonymous presences, and stabilising forces that shape discourse in ways traditional politics barely registers.

Daft Punk -

Michael McDowell is drafting defamation laws that would compel websites to reveal the identity of posters accused of defamation. It is worth noting that this is not yet possible in practice, but the very idea makes me double‑take everything I say here, to avoid damaging friendlies with my words. The November 30 Irish Times article makes clear that legislation is being considered to force forum providers to unmask posters. The question then becomes - is it possible to do so with the technology? : is it up to parents to keep abreast of the law and educate their children, or will we raise mutes for fear of the legal implications of posting and expressing their views?

However, when looking to legislate online websites like this experienced lawyers will say - you can’t legislate for feelings only actions like defamation. Feelings are subjective, fluid, and change depending on context. What offends one person may amuse another, and the law cannot measure emotions the way it measures actions. The proper role of law is to regulate behaviour that causes demonstrable harm, assault, fraud, defamation, not to adjudicate inner states. When law tries to legislate feelings, every perceived slight risks becoming a case. That weaponises offence, silences debate, and chills free speech. Feelings evolve with culture, so laws based on them quickly become incoherent. The healthier path is to regulate actions and consequences, while leaving feelings to be addressed through education, dialogue, and community standards. Respecting feelings is vital, but regulating them through law undermines both law and humanity.

Damages for the attacks people received on rugby websites over twenty years are not about legislating feelings, they are about addressing actions that could have caused measurable harm. The distinction matters. Feelings alone cannot be regulated, but repeated abuse, reputational damage, and psychological distress are consequences of actions that can be recognised in law. Damages could take the form of financial compensation, though difficult to quantify, or public apologies that restore dignity. Restorative justice measures, such as mediated dialogue, could also provide closure. Administration might be through tribunals or civil courts, with measurement based on expert testimony, evidence of reputational loss, or documented psychological harm. The principle is simple: was harm was done? and is redress is owed? Then I thought about the BBC and the victim complexes the English have and the expansion of legal cases by sensitive people. In that case we can't and won't legislate for feelings me personally as the stuff on forums is just sledging and I personally can take it, therefore in that case I will have to find some other way. On to my next post on Current Affairs once I get posting privileges over 50 posts.

Hotblack Desiato

snip

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124067511#Comment_124067511

Hate speech laws exist for a reason.

In my experience "free speech" fundamentalists abuse the fact to spread hatred/ignorance/division - whilst often becoming easily offended themselves. I've lost count of e.g. how many defamation cases Trump has launched. Even Musk has been involved in a few.

Social media has become cancerous, no issue with that being tackled within reason

silliussoddius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124067511#Comment_124067511

TLDR, making sh1t up is vital for Western Civilization etc.

Hotblack Desiato

Musk talks a lot of BS about free speech but bans lots of people critical of him on X. He's basically a big baby

the_immersion_1

OP the answer is staring right at you on the sidebar/topbar.

Sponsors like to be adjacent to certain content. They don't like to be seen beside content which displeases too many too much.

Women control a disproportionate amount of household spending. Large brands with wide advertising spreads spend in high frequency on sites which push female consumer/family friendly content.

So you get more money to your site if you keep the general atmosphere close to the female public consensus of 'nice'.

Women will tend to not be found on the 4chans or encyclopedia dramaticas of the internet. And they're the ones spending.

I would also guess that if your ad is spotted on a (real) far right site by certain media interests that this will ripple through the political-media world/hierarchy and lead to various bad press or cancellations/closed doors.

Tl;dr - if you want your forum to make money just pander to karen.

Ardillaun

Ireland’s defamation laws have protected corrupt members of the elite for generations. If the above is true these ‘reforms’ sound like they’re going to double down on that. Instead they should be allowing reasonable comment on public figures engaged in controversial practices. I don’t mind a politician or businessman suing for some deranged QAnon-style acccusation about, say, Satanic rituals - and the ‘platform’ publishing such nonsense should be obliged to take it down immediately - but they should be laughed out of court if it’s comment questioning the facts or motivation about something they were actually involved in. Nobody should have to choose their words carefully about the findings of a public tribunal either. There’s a happy medium in there. For the good of the country, let’s get a little more humble about our precious reputations.

con747

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124222263#Comment_124222263

Who the Fcuk is Karen?

the_immersion_1

Karen: The type of middle aged white mom to constantly as to speak to the manager - Urban Dictionary.

con747

Mod edit- Warning issued for attacking the poster not the post

Hotblack Desiato

Michael McDowell is drafting defamation laws that would compel websites to reveal the identity of posters accused of defamation.

Nothing new in that. If you or anyone else thinks that a court order can't already obtain the true identity behind anything posted online, you're fooling yourself