Well their crap poison is on almost all the produce in every grocery store in the country so I guess they get the last laugh.
I had no idea about this. For anyone else that's curious:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/may/23/aids.suzannego... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_haemophilia_blood...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/04/monsanto-to...
I believe that some company monitors websites like reddit and twitter for talk about Monsanto or Big Oil (fracking) and that company pays shills to defend them.
I would expect any big multinational corp to have few permanent people / external agency on permanent contract just for this. And considering how these corps in discussion are almost cartoonishly evil, there is probably a lot of work being done constantly.
After all those years on the internet I think I can also feel the impact of systematic forum activity; controversial topics that get swift, well articulated replies with links and upvotes. Another comment, declaring the winner of the debate!
Is it individual experts who weigh in, organically? Groups who are passionate about the topic and organize via Discord? Or professional shitposters and memers? Who can tell. But a few internet-addicted Reddit aficionados could cover a lot of topics in a lot of communities for a small salary and huge impact.
"In April 2016, Correct the Record announced that it would be spending $1 million to find and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about Clinton in a "task force" called "Barrier Breakers 2016".[1][5] In addition to this, the task force aimed to encourage Sanders supporters to support Clinton and to thank both "prominent supporters and committed superdelegates".[6] The organization's president, Brad Woodhouse, said they had "about a dozen people engaged in [producing] nothing but positive content on Hillary Clinton" and had a team distributing information "particularly of interest to women".[7]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correct_the_Record
If you watched r/politics and political humor back that it went from organic looking to the consent manufacturing factories they are today.
I do have an opinion: Citizens United should be overturned, or we should have an Amendment clarifying that money isn't speech, so we can get rid of Super PACs. I also think the advertising industry should be regulated such that it's a shadow of what it is today.
In the meanwhile you apparently hold an opinion that is perfectly in line with the argument of the parent that you somehow assume is in support of Republican/regressive politics for no good reason. If you've got a better example of a SPAC that funded internet trolls you could just post a single Wikipedia link to that instead of making vague statements about slant.
There's one thing that the republicans are right about, and that's that Wikipedia, HN and most of reddit are biased against them, and that's because they're biased towards the truth and the whole republican platform is based around denying reality.
> If you've got a better example of a SPAC that funded internet trolls you could just post a single Wikipedia link to that instead of making vague statements about slant.
Sure, let me introduce you to the Willkies [0] and anti-abortion PACs [1]. Both examples of people pushing their issue opinions into the public square (with doctored content and a lot of money I might add) or directly into getting people elected to make policies they'd like.
> reality is biased against republicans
100% agree. My only thing here was taking HRC's campaign totally out of context. This is how US politics works since Citizens United (ironically also a case where a group of people wanted to release a super negative video about her in the political ad blackout period [3]).
0: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/06/fetal-photos-jac...
1: https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs...
https://www.g2.com/products/dataminr/competitors/alternative...
Not sure if any of them also include PR/shilling, though.
The man was ridiculed by his professional peers, whom later turned out to be bribed. The researcher was fully correct.
Especially so when they were a subsidiary of IG Farben.
>The company had ties in the 1920s to the liberal German People's Party and was accused by the Nazis of being an "international capitalist Jewish company".[8] A decade later, it was a Nazi Party donor and, after the Nazi takeover of Germany in 1933, a major government contractor, providing significant material for the German war effort. Throughout that decade it purged itself of its Jewish employees; the remainder left in 1938.[9] Described as "the most notorious German industrial concern during the Third Reich"[10] in the 1940s the company relied on slave labour from concentration camps, including 30,000 from Auschwitz,[11] and was involved in medical experiments on inmates at both Auschwitz and the Mauthausen concentration camp.[12][13] One of its subsidiaries supplied the poison gas, Zyklon B, that killed over one million people in gas chambers during the Holocaust.[b][15]
The Allies seized the company at the end of the war in 1945[a] and the US authorities put its directors on trial. Held from 1947 to 1948 as one of the subsequent Nuremberg trials, the IG Farben trial saw 23 IG Farben directors tried for war crimes and 13 convicted.[16]
Factor that by cost of defending the case and potential risk of payout in that and future cases as well.
A multimillion dollar settlement suggests some doubt on the part of the defendant to establish their case.
(Applies to this entire thread, not just parent comment.)
A surprisingly common form of conversational failure is when two (or more) parties are discussing some matter all with different ideas as to what is being discussed or the context of the discussion.
I'd run across a good description of that recently though I can't seem to recall where / find it presently.
It's not included in this discussion of Wiio's Laws, though there's enough other material there that's excellent guidance for communication that I'm linking it regardless:
1. Going through a lawsuit all the way to conclusion, even if you win, is a long, expensive process that potentially exposes you to a considerable amount of negative publicity and causes a degree of internal chaos.
2. Juries are unpredictable and even a small chance of a bad outcome may be worth paying to avoid.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/court-rejects-trump-era-...
Every living animal, including us, drinks water.
Every living animal dies.
Is there something in the water maybe?
I don't see how this line of reasoning can be helpful honestly.
---
There is no limit on how much damages this mentality can do.
Think about the recent stream of
people got COVID vaccine, then died
It has DHMO in it. It's pretty bad.
https://theecologist.org/2016/feb/03/glyphosate-most-heavily...
https://www.greens-efa.eu/legacy/fileadmin/dam/Documents/Stu...
(All members of the EU Parliament from 13 countries, excrete glyphophosphate in their urine).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-18110-0
(Quantifable urine glyphosate levels detected in 99% of the French population, with higher values in men, in younger people, and in farmers)
Glyphosate is the "penicillin of agriculture," a foundational discovery that has revolutionized the industry.
Glyphosate alone has not been found to be a strong carcinogen in scientific studies, but testing with the surfactants, adjuvents, and other additives with which it is normally used may increase the carcinogenicity.
Why if it does not cause cancer but is behind the obesity epidemic?, or related with the autism increase starting at exactly the same years?.
"Not causes cancer" does not mean "is harmless". This stuff shouldn't be there
You seem to be presenting this fact as some sort of that bayer is guilty, but it's not really convincing. For one, it's a 8 person jury in san francisco. I'd expect them to rule against bayer on ideological grounds (ie. little guy vs multi bililon dollar multinational corporation) alone. Second, if there's no scientific consensus on the effects of glysophate, I doubt a panel of laypersons would do better.
It's not to say that every juror walked in already decided on it, but I'd somewhat expect a panel of urban CA citizens to be at least 60/40 in favor of a person against a big corp, and so if the evidence is already somewhat in that direction, then that's how it goes.
Wow thanks for the thorough refutation! I have now realized my error and totally changed my mind!
>Also you’re literally quoting “Thank you for smoking” with your follow up defense.
So your idea of a refutation is to reference a fictional novel? I'm at a loss for words.