Astroturf accusations

Astroturfing is basically an effort to make a cause appear to have grassroots support when it really doesn't, hence it is akin to a layer of fake grass that is commonly called Astroturf.

On the comments of internet news articles, if a person speaks in favor of an unpopular cause, that person is instantly branded as an astroturfer.

But sometimes I wonder if the person being accuse isn't actually astroturfing but is just a sufficiently dedicated fanatic.

It is kind of like a Poe's Law of sorts.

PS: This thread was inspired by the comments section on any CNN article about... China.

edited 11th Apr '12 8:40:11 AM by Worlder

The only time I've really seen someone make the accusation was in a biased diagram about the Tea Party and OWS, with the accusation being made against the Tea Party. It gave no evidence or reasoning behind this other than a generic "Republicans suck" sentiment. I haven't seen any astroturf claims that really had any backing to them, at least in regards to major movements in the US.

edited 11th Apr '12 1:52:04 PM by Boredman

I have, and there are in fact very real ties to major corporations with the Tea party. Freedomworks and Americans For Prosperity are both major organizers of Tea Party organizations, and are heavily funded by Verizon and Koch Industries, respectively. Freedom Works was founded by Dick Armey, who also runs a lobbying firm.

And in fact both organizations used to be the same thing.

edited 11th Apr '12 2:59:33 PM by Enkufka

The easiest way to tell the difference between astroturfing and a particularly crazy grassroots is budget. For example, there was a pro-SOPA website that claimed to be grassroots, but had enough money to hire actors for their videos—including a number of very high-placed MPAA officials.

But things get murky when one's just talking about one or five people. Commenting on an internet news article no less.

At that scale it could be a very small astroturfing team or a completely random bunch of people that like something these other people hate.

at that scale, it's really not that much of a difference. Grassroots claims are usually made of movements rather than individuals, such as the Madison protests, the OWS, or the Tea party. And it could be argued that each of those has some degree of astroturf (1st a bit, various groups bused volunteers in for free or reduced cost, second not so much, but I do not have any way to prove that (no articles to cite or anything), last was definitely astroturfed, not only by Freedomworks and AFP, but also by FOX news, which hyped protests and then covered them as major news pieces, and has consistently sided with the tea party over various issues.)

It is true that people are hired to post on the comments sections of news articles, meant to give the editors or an interest group an upper hand in the argument, and they have all sorts of tricks and such. But "astroturf" doesn't really apply there, that's a completely different set of terms.

Protip: Depending on the number of supporters something has is a bad idea, you're unlikely to get reliable numbers. You need to rely entirely on your own judgment most of the time as number of supporters doesn't make something right or wrong.

I know that.

I just see that one can call someone an astroturfer on the Internet, but it is much harder to prove that they are an astroturfer.

Even if the 5 Cent Party does its work on foreign news websites, it doesn't exclude the possibility it is just bunch of nationalistic internet users with too much time on their hands.

edited 12th Apr '12 3:47:57 PM by Worlder

You don't even need multiple people. One person can easily sockpuppet spam a particular comment thread.

Enkufka> Freedomworks and Americans For Prosperity are both major organizers of Tea Party organizations, and are heavily funded by Verizon and Koch Industries, respectively.

Enkufka> Freedom Works was founded by Dick Armey, who also runs a lobbying firm.

Suppose it's so. But, well, does it "prove" anything at all other than "it matters for someone"? Here's another example: CIA'ggle dataminers, oligopolysts and friends of Happyology oppose censoring internet into non-functionality - including lawyer support and whatnot. which is quite obviously in the corporation's interests. Does from this fact in some way follow that:

a) This position is really unpopular?

b) This position is really awfully horrible?

@T-Beholder: the fact that they are funded by Freedomworks and AFP disproves the claim that the tea party, or at minimum the groups of the tea party funded by said groups. These groups then provided means by which the tea party sabotaged discussion of various topics in a public forum, not least of which the health reform town hall meetings. Said meetings were sabotaged by small groups of very vocal Tea Party supporters provided with a cheat sheet of how to make themselves be more noticeable.

And I find any group which seeks to disseminate false information with the intention of sabotaging the public's understanding of an issue really makes me mad.

As for the rest of the post, wait what?

Well it's typically a good way to bash someone's point of view if their point of view is unpopular. It's usually more valid in the case of someone being financially or politically backed to say something they don't truly believe in, to create a presence of opposition. That happens a lot in US political debates where each side pretends their side is the "popular" one in any issue.

As for the hidden stuff in the OP about what this was sparked by... it's a very a common claim in those types of debates. The problem is the belief that nobody can actually LIKE anything over there, so if you speak in favour of anything there, you must be brainwashed. It's gotten so bad it's sort of a running joke for the receivers of those types of complaints to regularly talk about how brainwashed they are.

edited 2nd May '12 9:44:02 PM by breadloaf