Hacker News Reader

Comment by aselzer | Hacker News Reader

You are certain that trolls derailed the conversation?

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.

View on HN

Shills and astroturfers are the future witches of the internet. I think the people concerned about these people will do more to derail conversation than the actual people being paid. On reddit it's really bad, many of them believe you literally can't have certain opinions without being paid to have them. Because of that, they literally won't even entertain opinions different from their own as sincere.

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.

>Disinformation only works if you're too lazy to research the reality.

That's like 95% of the time for 95% of people though.

> Disinformation only works if you're too lazy to research the reality.

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.

> 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.

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.

For some reason (which I'm not sure isn't a reasonable amount of paranoia based on hard-won experience under the regime that Putin is running) some people believe that anyone who expresses the Western minority view that the conflict over Crimea isn't entirely Putin's fault, and that its population trying to cling to Russia isn't the worst, least understandable thing in the world is being paid by the Russian government. I've been accused myself.

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.

That position seems to omit the very obvious problems with Russia's actions, including invading and conquering territory and people, abusing its inhabitants, and forcing a dictatorship on them.

It's a little odd to even discuss the desires of the Crimean population; they have no say in the matter.

I disagree with whoever down voted you. I think that worthwhile discussion here on HN is impossible without a well-articulated adversarial view. Otherwise, we're falling into an echo chamber.

I disagree with your opinion, but I'm glad you provided it. I wouldn't mind some support behind your assertion though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com