You're not responding to the parent's point. They're not saying that it causes or doesn't cause cancer.
They're saying Monsanto and other multi billion dollar industrial players have permanent PR campaigns running that include posting on social media. I think that's obviously right and a big problem in terms of public discourse, at the very least, because it drowns out legitimate questions and concerns.
I am responding. Accusing others of astroturfing is a violation of HN guidelines.
FWIW, people seem to vastly overestimate the amount of astroturfing that they are experiencing, perhaps because they find it difficult to believe many people have different views than they do.
They are pointing out that Monsanto does it, not accusing anyone here of being a shill.
I thought it was a good reminder that views can be, and are influenced by industry (it's the foundation of modern PR?). I believe it's helpful to make others aware of this.
HN guideline: Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like.
> Monsanto has had a huge astroturf campaign online for several years defending/promoting glyphosate (even on this website). ... I started noticing that there were the same users over and over with extremely well-researched defensive responses (the stuff that only someone with a PhD or JD could put together) and it's pretty obvious what's going on.
Seems pretty obviously an insinuation that HN is full of pro-Monsanto astroturfing and I don't think it is a stretch to say it is a commentary on the specific comments in this thread.
The reply to which you replied is flagged and killed. It was not a very hot reply. It did not break the "guidelines". Well worded and informative actually.
No, the rules forbid explicit accusation. Not vague insinuation.
A rule forbidding vague insinuation would be too broad and open to abuse.
That said, Monsanto would certainly deploy a flock of shills to HN, reddit, twitter, facebook, etc. The existence of motive, means and opportunity is clear. Therefore they have definitely done that.
Maybe people just in general are opposed to removing car infrastructure and it is not some anti-democratic plot against your views?
It's kind of sad that everyone thinks the person responding to them is a bit nowadays. In the vast majority of cases where I have looked into it, the person is not a "shill", but it is a convenient way to shy away from the actual arguments they are making.
Unfortunately, that convenient method is not welcome here at HN. Reread the HN guidelines.
I'm saying people repeating talking points from industry without realizing it, or having really considered them in any serious way. This extends to offline conversations with family / friends so it's not about shills.
The og comment is flagged so I can’t reply to it but anyone with two brain cells can see the level of astroturfing Monsanto/Bauer has done in the past 15 years
