Internet Trolls: Online Nuisances Or Corporate Shills?

DaveFoster

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
5,027
Location
Portland, Oregon
Unfortunately No. Personally, I think most trolls are paid by third party subcontractors to hide any direct paper trail.

I think paid trolling is widespread, but I have no proof yet. I am hoping to find proof.
Paid trolling seems wasteful. Paid protesting on the other hand: very effective.

Private interests finance social movements in the U.S. Celebrities and media figures could be thought of as political representatives, and any controlled media apparatus can center the public eye on preferred loci, such as, internationally as false flags in rival nations, or domestically with speeches and selected samples of a movement, such as, respectively the most well-versed on the side of the establishment, and the most inarticulate from the opposing base.

Enforce your credibility through formal accreditation and promote, advance and publicly adorn those with expertise sympathetic to your narrative. Soft power attracts less criticism, where institutions and methods of inquiry become immortalized, and where any dissent equates to heresy. However, whereas actual heretics appealed to human faculties as separate entities from Church doctrine, "quacks, conspiracy theorists, and other disreputable sources" must overcome a directed counter to empiricism: an academic system that healthfully should simplify one's pursuit of truth but has, in concert with a concomitant manipulation of the public sphere, been co-opted to cauterize both a library and seat of knowledge supportive of parasitical interests.
 
Last edited:

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
Paid trolling seems wasteful. Paid protesting on the other hand: very effective.

I don't know if paid trolling is "wasteful." I agree that paid protesting can be very effective, much more so than online trolling, but it's going to cost quite a bit more, too.
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
550
"This person is making me angry/I can't refute this person/this person disagrees with me, thus they're an internet troll or shill and I don't have to deal with or refute them."

^ Most instances of so called trolls or shills
 
OP
Travis

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
"This person is making me angry/I can't refute this person/this person disagrees with me, thus they're an internet troll or shill and I don't have to deal with or refute them."

^ Most instances of so called trolls or shills
Well certainly; any one particular instance of troll calling may not be particularly accurate, yet are more so as a whole than framing each individual case merely as an ego-sparing confabulation. Shifting the focus from the corporations to the people—those aware of their online activities—is in-effect aiding and abetting the subterfuge by discouraging it's rational appeal.
 
Last edited:
OP
Travis

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
"This person is making me angry/I can't refute this person/this person disagrees with me, thus they're an internet troll or shill and I don't have to deal with or refute them."

^ Most instances of so called trolls or shills

I hope you didn't mean to imply that this had been the case with Jack Kruse. Because if you think that he'd somehow 'won' any of the foregoing arguments, there is very little that can be done about you. I can only suggest reading a book on food politics written by industry insider Marion Nestle.

And it is somewhat puzzling how you've posted exactly three comments in two months, and all on threads that I've started. In the other one, you had take the ridiculous position that native cellulose could travel to the brain where it could be mistaken for glycogen. This is despite the fact that β-linked polysaccharides take-up Lugol's in such a radically different manner they'd never be confused, and the two can also can be discriminated through differential enzymatic hydrolysis. The only polysaccharide that can confounded for glycogen through routine analysis is amylopectin. The only foreign polysaccharide actually demonstrated to travel to the brain had been retrograde starch granules of amylose and amylopectin (Volkheimer, 2001), and cellulose doesn't even have branches.

'Really it seems every glucose polymer should be capable of being absorbed hole... [sic]' ―BigYellowLemon

'So shouldn't that make cellulose even more toxic then ungelatinized starch?' ―BigYellowLemon

'The "misfolded glycogen" could imo be any of these glucose polymers.' ―BigYellowLemon
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
550
To reply to your first reply, yes astroturfing is very real, and I have myself in the past claimed certain posters are bots (on reddit). I am sure during the 2016 pro-Dem, anti-Trump bots were going hard, and they still to this day are going at it, but much less so (look at what happened to base subreddits like politics, where it went from reasonable centrism to absolute flamewars/threads getting locked within 4 hours). Reddit has been completely compromised by bots and secret deals.

Bots are real and used by all sorts of industries. But on an individual basis it's almost impossible to tell whether someones an actual bot or just a propaganda parrot (both have the same effect). And currently, the claim that someone is a bot is being used by the establishment in order to shut down opposition. They're currently programming the masses into pulling the bot card whenever they encounter someone online they disagree with. I've seen a lot of so called "bots" win arguments against dumb people.

About Jack Kruse, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Was there something about Jack Kruse in this thread? I didn't read the thread when I posted, I read the title and skimmed. Regardless of what the topic of Jack Kruse is about, I personally think he's good at drawing people in at first and making them think he knows his ***t, but after a comprehensive view of his work is understood, you realize none of it makes any ******* sense whatsoever. And his work becomes irrelevant when you realize most of QM is bull****. Also his grammar and writing is just awful, it's a stream-of-consciousness about ideas that really don't have merit.

I'll occasionally go on this forum and if I see a thread that's interesting I'll make a short post. I guess your posts have been the ones that interested me, and I posted a short idea that I created on the spot in 5 minutes. I think you misunderstand what I said in that thread.

...Oh, I get it now. You think I'm following you from thread to thread that you've created and basically attacking your ideas or something. Hahaha, that's not the case at all man, I literally have not thought about it at all. I just see a thread and post, and the Peat forum has just been low on my radar so I don't post that often. I assure you, this hasn't been a conscious effort at all, it's as simple as me seeing a thread title, reading, and seeing if a contrarian idea appears and then posting, I'm not even really attacking your ideas or trying anything malicious, in fact I think your theories are great and think you are one of the greats.
 
OP
Travis

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
To reply to your first reply, yes astroturfing is very real, and I have myself in the past claimed certain posters are bots (on reddit).
I wouldn't imagine that'd be the impression most people would gather from reading your comment.
Bots are real and used by all sorts of industries. But on an individual basis it's almost impossible to tell whether someones an actual bot or just a propaganda parrot (both have the same effect).
It's quite easy in certain areas, those where such statements can be: logically, mathematically, and scientifically proven false. When someone contradicts inviolable laws of physics like clockwork—e.g. between the hours of 6 a.m. and 4 p.m. on weekdays—you know they are being disingenuous if they demonstrate an intelligence high enough to preclude the possibility of them being ignorant. Yet concealed propaganda is far harder to ascertain in the food/nutrition/biochemistry-related arena because so many people sincerely have ideological, cultural, and sentimental ideas about food.
And currently, the claim that someone is a bot is being used by the establishment in order to shut down opposition. They're currently programming the masses into pulling the bot card whenever they encounter someone online they disagree with.

What would be the logic behind them doing that? From what I can gather: 'the establishment' benefits, more often than not, from the public perception of financially-motivated and industry-solicited comments being genuine. This is of course because they have the most money, affording the largest corporations a near monopoly in covertly-planted disingenuous memes.
I've seen a lot of so called "bots" win arguments against dumb people.
I hope you do realize the word 'bot' is an abbreviated form of the word 'robot,' and thus denotes a machine or computer program. I have yet to see a computer program sophisticated enough to win an argument against a human. Even the most effective chess computers draw from a cached library of moves made previously, by grandmasters, in most situations; they often only use novel algorithms for like positions. I wouldn't suppose that even chess computers would suggest the type of intelligence necessary to follow an argument, much less 'win one.'

'It was a brute force approach, and one of its developers even disclaimed that it was artificial intelligence at all.' ―Wiki
About Jack Kruse, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
I had of course mentally confounded Jack Kruse with Jack Roe, the pro-PUFA crusader. Whenever a person extols the virtues & essentiality of ω−6 fatty acids—on a Ray Peat forum no less—I get a sort-of post traumatic amnesia due to catecholamine shock. The pertinent memory traces calcify, the tubulin polymers specifically, and become resistant to total recall. [Such memories may be recovered through enhanced neuronal carbonic anhydrase activity, an endogenous neo-neuronal bypass, or Ca⁺ restriction.]
I think you misunderstand what I said in that thread.

How could a person possibly misunderstand such unambiguous statements? I would imagine that over that over 90% of scientists would agree that it's less 'me misunderstanding what you'd said' than you misunderstanding analytical carbohydrate chemistry. [Citations available upon request.] This normally wouldn't be such an issue, but seeing as that post implies that lettuce is an equally-significant dementia hazard that crystalline starch—the only endogenous polysaccharide with proven brain uptake—I had to mention that purely in defense of rationality. A corollary of your statement of could would be that: all herbivores, omnivores, frugivores, and humans would just as likely have cellulose in their brains than amylopectin—despite only the latter ever having been detected. Persorption is radically different that absorption, which is why the phenomenon had necessitated a new term.

If you still imagine that I'm misunderstanding something please let me know.

...Oh, I get it now. You think.. .
No less unconscionable that attributing statements to a person—i.e. to 'put words in their mouth'—is directly attributing thoughts to them.
 
Last edited:

Amazoniac

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
8,583
Location
Not Uganda
The extinction of pi by Miles Mathis

"Whatever these planted critics may be paid to say, the subject is now pretty much settled. No one who studies my arguments can fail to recognize that I discovered something very important here, so we must assume the people trolling me on the web are agents of some sort, wasting our time with low-level debating tricks. In the ten years this paper has been up, I have yet to see a reply or debunking worth addressing.** None of them even appear serious on the surface, and none are from recognized people in any field. Most are from anonymous sources. This is to be expected, I suppose, since it is difficult to debunk something that is obviously true. The standard method of debunking the truth—the method we see at places like Snopes, for instance, or other mainstream spook fronts—is with low-level character assassination, couched lies, and other oily subterfuge. We have certainly seen that in the mainstream response to me from the beginning, but we have seen little else. I am only telling you this because Google seems to be in on the game. Any search on me is littered in the first pages with this misdirection, and someone who didn't know any better would assume I really am widely considered to be a crank. I'm not, as you can see here. Probably more of my papers (on both sites) have gone viral than the papers of anyone else in history, though you have to dig a bit to figure that out. My science papers are being mobbed by mainstream physicists as well as by interested amateurs, including this paper."

:lol:
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom