People on this sub use the word shill when 9/10 times they really mean "Someone who doesnt by default support my opinion"

I doubt that there are almost no real honest to goodness paid to deliver this message by TPTB shills.

If you make a clear point supported with a few facts then there is no way a shill can shut you down.

Shill shouldn't be a way to shut someone down either. Just listen to their point of view and address any flaws you see while clearly defending your points. There needs to be a dialogue with dissenting viewpoints or we all become parrots squawking the same things and agreeing with each other.

I encourage shills because it improves the dialogue as long as all parties remain level headed.

I encourage shills

That's good, otherwise you might disappear in a puff of smoke.

thats why il comment on posts with <5 comments

If you make a clear point supported with a few facts then there is no way a shill can shut you down.

Shill shouldn't be a way to shut someone down either. Just listen to their point of view and address any flaws you see while clearly defending your points. There needs to be a dialogue with dissenting viewpoints or we all become parrots squawking the same things and agreeing with each other.

I encourage shills because it improves the dialogue as long as all parties remain level headed.

Fan-fucking-tastic points.

Its pretty naive to think anyone involved in an actual conspiracy would pay people to post on reddit, to attack people that had uncovered it. The 'shills' so to speak, will be the ones leading conversations and debate, submitting content, etc. Shepherds are more useful in the intelligence community than sheep.

I feel it would be naive to think that reddit comments would be something the shills would ignore.

It's what drew me to this platform years ago. They would be silly to ignore it.

Why would you bother refuting individual posts, drawing further attention to them, when you could just burry them under a montain of random other conspiracy posts? most of reddit users read the headlines, they never get as far as the comments.

most of reddit users read the headlines, they never get as far as the comments.

Strongly disagree. Most reddit users read the headline and then go directly to the comment section without reading the link. That is why this is such a fantastic medium for manipulating public opinion.

Yup, that happens all too frequently.

No. Most reddit users look at the link and don't visit comments, even fewer post. You have confirmation bias because the only people you see are the ones who go and then post. "Most users" also probably don't fuck with the news subreddits much.

While I understand your point, this is more a false equivalence, as these two operations are not mutually exclusive.

I've seen little in this fucking crappy sub on this crappy website that would worry anyone connected to any conspiracy.

90 percent of the shit here is shit that newfags just "believe" without any critical thinking.

If you make a clear point supported with a few facts then there is no way a shill can shut you down.

They just vote brigade and spam/one-line.

I tend t agree. Shills are being paid, they're real, and they exist. I only wonder how many folks are actually are too stupid to actually reach the reality-based conclusion and argue for that vs how many may be influencers.

use the word shill when 9/10 times

Where did you compile this information from? Source needed.

"Someone who doesnt by default support my opinion"

Strawman

I doubt that there are almost no real honest to goodness paid to deliver this message by TPTB shills.

Uh, I think you're wrong.

If you make a clear point supported with a few facts then there is no way a shill can shut you down.

If by shut down you mean downvote brigaded? Uh, you're wrong again.

Shill shouldn't be a way to shut someone down either. Just listen to their point of view and address any flaws you see while clearly defending your points. There needs to be a dialogue with dissenting viewpoints or we all become parrots squawking the same things and agreeing with each other.

If they have a point of view worth listening to, do you really think we would be calling them a shill?

Most of us that have hung out here long enough know better than to throw around false accusations.

I encourage shills because it improves the dialogue as long as all parties remain level headed.

Stop with the false equivalency. We know that shills exist, and they aren't just "people with dissenting opinions." How fucking dumb do you think we are?

This was one of the worst replies I've ever seen. You ask him to for citations on of the cuff numbers that are clearly his best guess and then make the exact opposite claim with no citations. You repeatedly tell him he is wrong without saying why he's wrong. You argue that he's making false equivalency yet earlier today you called someone a shill for disagreeing with your point.

Nice link, bro.

Read the rest of the thread, it turns out we were indeed in agreement. You're kind of grasping at straws.

If you really want me to link available "PR" and "social media" jobs, I can dig up tons. I would prefer to not name names though because that opens a whole new can of worms.

I took a glance at in see that you were in agreement which makes your quickness to throw around the word shill that much more egregious. What about the other points I made in my post?

There's actually an interesting parallel between that thread and this one. Could you think of more opportune times for "PR" than in either case. I believe there was disinfo in the Monsanto thread just like there is disinfo here. I really don't see how anyone would think those are outrageous claims.

I was simply pointing out that you are both calling WadeWilsonforPope wrong for saying that people use the term shill for someone they disagree with yet you yourself used the term today when when there seemed to be a disagreement between you and someone else. Seems like you undermine your own point, no?

I'm not sure if that really is looking at the bigger picture. I don't use the term loosely - actually I don't believe I've said it once in five years on reddit. (You can check) also I think the upvotes/downvotes in both threads tell a story in itself.

First off this user might be a good example for what I was talking about.

What exactly did I say besides my own point of view that got you worked up? The first two points were my own opinion, as I thought was clear. I should have stipulated that this is just from my own personal view as a user that spends too much time here, and considering that there is no way to know exactly who is "shilling" you and I both know there is no way to provide an accurate source on this.

Could you please provide a source as to why you think that there are shills here since you told me I was wrong that there are few real shills here (As I defined them)?

If they have a point of view worth listening to

This is again a failure on your end to completely understand what I was saying. Everyone has a point some are stronger than others. What I want to see users on this sub do is let a person say their point and then politely debate it. If what you are saying is factual and clear then you should be able to refute a point not silence a user with the threat of "shill".

Stop with the false equivalency. We know that shills exist, and they aren't just "people with dissenting opinions." How fucking dumb do you think we are?

Pump those brakes home slice and chill the fuck out. Do you think Im a shill? All Im doing is calling for users to be level headed when dealing with dissenting opinions. My point still stands the best way to handle a shill is clearly with good information. If shills exist you wont be changing their minds right? So change the minds of the people who visit this sub by engaging in dialogue, and not tossing out insults or being derogatory, it makes you look ignorant.

Maybe you should think about what you are saying.

I encourage shills

Not going to get a good response. Have you heard of controlled opposition?

*edit: a word

I encourage shills

I guess I could rephrase that as "I am confident enough in my point of view where I can defend it against another being paid to oppose it without resorting to anger or insults"

I encourage other points of view and again I do not believe that shill as many people define it is as prevalent as many user here think. This is only my opinion.

I'm sorry but if that is your point of view, you either don't spend enough time here or aren't really paying attention. What are your thoughts on controlled opposition? You never responded.

Yes I am familiar with controlled opposition and limited hangouts.

But I still believe the best way to fight misinformation is with facts and non aggressive discourse. Then you control the dialogue with information and not emotion, TPTB love it when you get aggressive and dismissive because it puts you right into the tin-foil hat narrative that people love to use against this sub.

So please by all means continue doing what youre doing, I was just expressing my point of view, my opinion on shills and how I deal with them.

So please by all means continue doing what youre doing

Okay, thanks. I personally believe you have provided nothing and are at this point just repeating yourself.

Also I don't really find myself to be emotional or dismissive at the current moment. I'd prefer if you'd stop framing me in that light.

Thank you for being passive aggressive and proving my point, I literally have no idea what sparked you to respond the way you have.

Could you please provide a source as to why you think that there are shills here since you told me I was wrong that there are few real shills here (As I defined them)?

You don't get to "define" shill. Shills are paid to spread disinformation.

As I have said multiple times previously I dont believe there are as many shills as you define them. I do however believe that there are many users who might be misinformed or holding onto old paradigms. This is only my opinion.

I still encourage users to be as clear and logical as possible even if they believe they are debating a shill. I fail to se why you are taking issue with any of this, aside from my disagreement over the prevalence of "shills".

I never really commented on the quantity of shills, did I?

No but I did and you told me I was wrong.

This is getting weird, what exactly did I say to you to get you to respond like this?

I read your points, and I disagree with you. Shills (people paid to spread misinformation) do not belong here, do not belong in /r/politics, do not belong @ CNN, etc. - whether you can handle them or not.

The message I am getting from you is "Shills are not a problem if you speak logically to them."

Well, maybe - but it depends on how you define "problem." I'm not just talking about winning internet arguments here (seriously who really cares?) The essence of misinformation is to muddy that waters and detract from real conversation.

Wouldn't your above message be a similar message that someone who is paid to spread misinformation would try to disseminate?

I hate to say it but reading through your comment history, your comments on this sub are nothing but half-assed one liners and asking people for a source. Maybe you don't belong here?

You do see the irony in what youre posting right?

The message I am getting from you is "Shills are not a problem if you speak logically to them."

I think you misunderstand the difference between not a problem and the best way to deal with a problem.

The essence of misinformation is to muddy that waters and detract from real conversation.

Which is why I support clear concise arguments so that this doesnt happen. So we dont have to fall back on emotional responses which muddy the waters. Shill are going to be posting here whether you like it or not, I wish they didnt exist but the reality they could very well be posting here and I encourage users to remain level headed.

For example if a user was writing something I disagreed with I might make a slight along the lines of "Your comments are nothing but half-assed one liners" or "you dont belong here" it almost immediately discredits that person as being small minded and unable to clearly say what they mean, or at least a lack of intelligence.

Its just reddit dude, chill out.

It's ironic that in a thread saying "there are too many shills," there are several upvoted comments that say "Don't mind us!" and "They really don't exist to the "level" (who knows what metric we are using) that you think they do!" Whether it's intentional line of thinking or not, it sets a dangerous precedent.

I think you misunderstand the difference between not a problem and the best way to deal with a problem.

No, it's that we disagree on the best way to deal with a problem.

I'm not emotional, after talking with you for the past hour+, I'm sharing my candid opinion. It's just Reddit dude, why are you so offended with the (extremely mild if-I-say-so-myself) language that I am using? I don't know man I think I've continued to make my points pretty eloquently.

How long do you want to go at this for?

This entire thread demonstrates precisely why trying to argue with shills is a pointless endeavor.

Only reason I kept going.

Ive been bored for a while, now why dont you go chase down some shills and do your thing

Cool, maybe you'll stay away for a little bit so I can do my thing.

Nope Ill still be participating in this sub with my quality posts.

I encourage you to keep practicing and maybe some day you too can be a quality contributor to... something.

Let's not lose our level head now

Shills are paid to spread disinformation.

Some do it for free. They are plenty.

This conversation is proof enough that there's a downvote/shill brigade when one opinion is voted up and the opposed it voted down when neither side is proven.

He got 35 pts! Yeah right...I called him out on his shit for like 2 hours straight before he called in reinforcements.

Lets pause for a moment. Do you really honestly believe I am being paid to manipulate public opinion through reddit? Why?

Do what I try to do. Call out the shills. Keep calm (most important thing ) understand what they are doing and why. Attack their points not the person. Point out any flawed logic. Don't let them change the topic of the fight. (Conspiracy x turns into argument about grammar. )

Calling out shills is against the rules here.

False. Accusing users if being shills is.

By abiding by the rules, you can call out shill-like behavior (usually with links to history), because the word carries weight here.

If anything, Rule 10 has strengthened this sub, as it is rare for an argument to devolve into name-calling and generally shillery. The responses are more powerful and the shills (who most surely exist) are rendered less effective, compared to the other subreddits.

You can, you just have to be careful with your words. Don't use the word shill.

I think that rule is only for show anyway. There are people here who habitually cry shill everytime someone disagrees with their submissions. Never a thing done.

It's another rule that can be used to silence discussion the mods do not want. It's not always enforced but is at times. I see it similar to the speed limit. Most people drive 10 over and do not get pulled over...yet it gives police an opportunity to willingly enforce.

We wouldn't have to have it be an argument about grammar if people here knew how to use it correctly. Obviously I'm not saying everyone, but of all the subs I frequent, this one has the most embarrassing track record for awful spelling and grammar. If you spell words like thru, or u or any other stupid spellings I immediately think you haven't passed high school and I have a hard time taking anything you say seriously

Grammar shouldnt mean anything tho. I never went to highschool because of family issues , so i literally dont know grammar... but i still have opinions that are just as valid as anyother. I think as a community their isnt a lot of sympathy or empathy. Its way too competive when it comes to discussions\arguements. I feel dismissing someone over grammer is like dismissing someone over dress style or income level . Plus not everyone has english as their first language

Not being a native speaker, and still cringing at the amount of bad spelling and grammar from native English speakers as I do in my own tongue, and constantly fighting against the Grammar Nazi in me, I whole-heartedly agree with you. If you make a good point, I don't care for your grammar. If you're wrong, I'll address your argument, not your grammar.

In any case, I will stay calm, patient and respectful and make a point of doing so the more you insult me.

It's not that hard, and it drives true shills mad :-)

Uneducated doesn't always mean stupid. But I hear you. I know a mechanical engineer who speaks and spells English well. Until he gets on the Internet. He is convinced u hav 2 rit lyk dis on da net. I had a hard time understanding him and couldn't take him seriously

Even my roommate who I regard highly is lousy with spelling mistakes. He also has one of the best vocabularies. It's difficult to remember that when he sends me a text message

(Conspiracy x turns into argument about grammar. )

You don't use a period to end a statement inside of parenthesis, you are clearly an idiot and don't know anything.

/s

Lmao

I'd advise against attacking their points. Sadly the only recourse is to troll them back or to ignore them completely. Don't try to argue with a 4-year-old

A logical calm argument against their points WILL make them seem like an idiot or a shill. Arguing like a four year old will derail the topic and make you look like a fool on a rant.

Exactly! Not only that but lets assume you are arguing with a "shill" (As in a person being paid to promote a certain view, not just a misinformed user) you wont change their mind.

But you will change the mind of the people moving through this sub and if you can present your argument in a calm logical and factual way it wont matter what that person is saying.

Yes. You get it! Exactly how you do it!

But you will change the mind of the people moving through this sub and if you can present your argument in a calm logical and factual way it wont matter what that person is saying.

Thanks for the tips!

This is the only way to do it.

Haha, I do that all the time, I call it "trolling the trolls".

Take nothing personal. Stay on topic. Address valid arguments, debunk false arguments, ignore when they become abusive, agressive and insulting (sometimes, when they overdo it, a short, snarky, witty response is enough to make them stop - TRP AMOG style). Lead the discussion. Why? Because it is not about you, nor the shill regurgitating the "debunkers 101" factoids and distortions, it's about the guy/gal lurking, reading, coming for the entertainment value and staying for the information, who might, at some point during your argument, have a sudden realization or feel compelled to do h[is|er] own research.

The thing is, the thread can get SO FUCKING LONG and remove any points you're making from the main thread of conversation that folks are actually reading.

Just had one in the Boston blacksite thread on /r/truereddit that went like 40 comments...and then the top-level comment deleted it all.

It's frustrating sometimes.

Probably, but sounds too idealistic for me. Things don't always work out how you expect, you know?

So don't try? Why not try to make their job as a shill harder? Have you no fire left in your heart? Do you stay in bed because you might fail in the course of the day?

See my other comment from this thread.

Bah, it's easy to reply to a troll. You point out the idiocy of their statement, they make some comment in return just rephrasing basically the same bullshit, you post something like "or just repeat the same thing and ignore the facts, that's another option". They'll make some other comment or just find a way to insult you or your post, and you ignore it at that point. You already 'won', there's no point going further. They want the "last word" for whatever tiny personal victory, let 'em have it. Anyone with a brain reading the thread will already be following your line of thought, not theirs.

Good points, thanks.

The last word comment is so true.

Remember - they want to waste your time and take away your productivity. Do not allow it.

That's one life lesson I've learned over the years. That 'last word' thing applies to real life as well as it does to the internet. You just need to recognize when someone keeps talking/arguing with you purely so that they can get that last word and 'win' that conversation in their mind.

So if you recognize that happening, you can usually use that to your advantage.

For sure. But nevermind that. Tell us all about the cube.

Yeah, tell us about the cube. If the shills are here, it means we are doing our job.

I think we're going to need your boots first.

I don't even bother commenting on posts anymore because of the amount of shilling and vote rigging.

How do you define "shill"? Does everyone who disagrees with you count? What about people who are part of organizations that you don't like who say you're wrong? I find myself arguing with people who wave their arms are Freemasonry because I'm a Freemason and I know how wrong they are... does that make me a shill? If so, is that a useful definition of shill?

My definition is this: someone who, regardless of what they may know or believe, is supporting a position for ideological reasons or reasons of personal benefit.

For example, if someone works for Congress and edits Wikipedia to make their boss look good because their boss told them to, then that's a shill.

But if someone works for Congress and edits Wikipedia to make their boss look good because they honestly believe what they are writing, then I don't call them a shill. I might question their bias, but that's another matter entirely.

How do you define "shill"? Does everyone who disagrees with you count? What about people who are part of organizations that you don't like who say you're wrong? I find myself arguing with people who wave their arms are Freemasonry because I'm a Freemason and I know how wrong they are... does that make me a shill? If so, is that a useful definition of shill?

The definition of a shill is someone who advocates for/or against a particular cause, yet pretends to be a disinterested third party, versus someone who has been tasked with or has an agenda.

It is in their advocacy for or against a particular narrative that shills will always be easy to spot. They refuse to give ground no matter how many citations you provide. When they fail to refute your points they pretend like you never made them. They deflect, they derail, they deride. When all that fails they resort to ad hominem and logical fallacies. Also, they typically like to get the last word, no matter how long the comment train goes or who has presented their side more successfully.

You can see these "disinterested third parties" all over Reddit, in partically every popular sub. Advocacy is fine. Pretending you are an average Redditor instead of someone with talking points and and an agenda makes you a shill.

As an example, in /r/libertarian I maintain the flair: StandWithRand. I openly advocate for Senator Paul as our next President. Were I a member of his campaign I would say it proudly, because the truth fears no investigation. Now, if I went into /r/politics and put up the flair Team Obama, then spent all my time detracting from Team Obama, that would make me a shill against Team Obama. When I go into /r/politics I announce I am a libertarian so people know what to expect.

It is in their advocacy for or against a particular narrative that shills will always be easy to spot. They refuse to give ground no matter how many citations you provide.

In my experience on /r/conspiracy citations tend to come in the form of YouTube videos that are, themselves, poorly documented. I've literally had people point me to YouTube videos of various company logos with entirely unsourced claims about what the logos represent as "proof" of conspiracies.

If I'm presented with rigorous citations of fact, I back down, but I don't back down just because someone is in possession of a URL.

When they fail to refute your points they pretend like you never made them. They deflect, they derail, they deride.

Heck, that sounds like a typical day in any reddit sub. I spend a lot of time in /r/DebateReligion so this wouldn't even register for me.

Also, they typically like to get the last word

That seems more like the behavior of someone who is immature, rather than the behavior of someone who is trying to sway opinion deceitfully. It's the deceitful intent that I really associate with the notion of a shill.

In my experience on /r/conspiracy citations tend to come in the form of YouTube videos that are, themselves, poorly documented.

Conspiracy theories, by their very nature, are going to lack citations because they are, after all, theories. Those posting the theories do not actually have access to the information that would corroborate their theories (ie.: internal government documents). If they did, they would no longer be theories (i.e.: it is no longer a conspiracy theory to suggest the government can/does track everything you do on the internet...thanks to Edward Snowden no one can be made fun of or thought to be insane when they suggest that idea).

In my experience many of the folks who post here do so in such a manner as to debunk government lies and obfuscation, versus saying hey, this is how it all happened.

Heck, that sounds like a typical day in any reddit sub. I spend a lot of time in /r/DebateReligion so this wouldn't even register for me.

Like I said, they are in every major sub.

That seems more like the behavior of someone who is immature, rather than the behavior of someone who is trying to sway opinion deceitfully. It's the deceitful intent that I really associate with the notion of a shill.

It generally does come off as childish. We agree that what tranforms a person from Redditor to shill, is the deceit factor.

Conspiracy theories, by their very nature, are going to lack citations because they are, after all, theories.

This is untrue. If I want to posit a vast web of US Government conspiracy to implement total surveillance, I can cite mountains of evidence. You don't have to accept that there's any conspiracy. You might maintain that it's all singular action, but the volume and insistence of the attempts to implement such a system in the US makes such an assertion difficult to defend.

If they did, they would no longer be theories

Some random examples:

The theory of gravity is a theory. We have a tremendous amount of evidence for it.

Now, if someone wants to say, "well, I have no evidence that aliens are controlling politician's minds, but I want to discuss how likely that might be," I have zero problem with that. Even when it comes to the things I care about. Want to talk about how Freemasonry could be an evil plot to establish Deism as a state religion? Let's go! I'll happily discuss the possibility as a purely logical conjecture. But if you claim that you know this to be true, then I'm going to demand that you support your claim with something more than a YouTube video of a guy charging $20/head to spin tales of "when I was a Freemason I learned all the real secrets!" You're going to need compelling evidence.

In my experience many of the folks who post here do so in such a manner as to debunk government lies and obfuscation

And debunking requires more than a hunch. It requires evidence.

Like I said, they are in every major sub.

If you want to redefine "shill" to mean "troll" then I agree that they're everywhere, but that's not what shill means to me.

We agree that what tranforms a person from Redditor to shill, is the deceit factor.

Common ground is a good thing.

This is untrue. If I want to posit a vast web of US Government conspiracy to implement total surveillance, I can cite mountains of evidence.

The government would not be acknowledging these programs without the Snowden leak. Now we have admission from the horse's mouth, so to speak, and that is far more definitive than piecing together the narrative of a conspiracy.

But if you claim that you know this to be true, then I'm going to demand that you support your claim with something more than a YouTube video of a guy charging $20/head to spin tales of "when I was a Freemason I learned all the real secrets!" You're going to need compelling evidence.

Nothing wrong with that.

And debunking requires more than a hunch. It requires evidence.

You seem to be suggesting a lack of evidence in this regard. I cannot speak to what situations or subjects you are referring to, but my experience here does not suggest a lack of evidence.

If you want to redefine "shill" to mean "troll" then I agree that they're everywhere, but that's not what shill means to me.

Trolls do it for the lulz. Shills do it because they are paid, or it is otherwise in their professional interests to do so. When they fail to disclose those interests and pretend to be something else, they have become shills. Kind of like the difference between a slut and a whore.

Common ground is a good thing.

Happens every once in a while.

The government would not be acknowledging these programs without the Snowden leak.

But prior to that, we could cite the numerous attempts to push a "total awareness" program; the leaks regarding ISP tapping; the immense number of highly secretive NSLs; the fact that the NSA had been caught trying to alter public encryption standards; the existence of USA/UK; the Australian leaks regarding their surveillance program and how it is used to allow Americans and others to "legally" perform domestic analysis; etc.

This can all be sourced. We don't have to speculate wildly and cite poorly researched YouTube videos.

You seem to be suggesting a lack of evidence in this regard.

I'm drawing a line between quality argument and poor argument. I'm saying that a refusal to accept the fact of a conspiracy regardless of how many citations are brought to bear is not unreasonable if those citations are to poorly documented sources.

It's fine as speculation, but it should be called out as such, not presented as fact.

rolls do it for the lulz. Shills do it because they are paid, or it is otherwise in their professional interests to do so.

That's the definition I'm used to, but your previous statements seem to apply to anyone. If we're limiting it to people with a "mercenary motive" then I would agree with you.

But prior to that, we could cite the numerous attempts to push a "total awareness" program; the leaks regarding ISP tapping; the immense number of highly secretive NSLs; the fact that the NSA had been caught trying to alter public encryption standards; the existence of USA/UK; the Australian leaks regarding their surveillance program and how it is used to allow Americans and others to "legally" perform domestic analysis; etc.

And it was all treated as bullshit by pro government shills. The second the Snowden leaks came out...they changed direction like a flock of birds and began to suggest we all somehow knew all this to be true prior. Then there was this push that he was a limited hangout.

I'm drawing a line between quality argument and poor argument. I'm saying that a refusal to accept the fact of a conspiracy regardless of how many citations are brought to bear is not unreasonable if those citations are to poorly documented sources.

Everyone has a slightly different notion of what constitutes poor documentation. There is no gold standard. There is no trusted media.

That's the definition I'm used to, but your previous statements seem to apply to anyone.

They don't. Not everyone fits the characterization I described.

If we're limiting it to people with a "mercenary motive" then I would agree with you.

That's where I draw the line.

prior to that, we could cite...

And it was all treated as bullshit by pro government shills.

Yes, but they were wrong to do so. The evidence cited was solid. Some disagreed legitimately, though. They were wrong in their conclusions, but they were not wrong to argue. That's the line I'm trying to make clear, here.

Everyone has a slightly different notion of what constitutes poor documentation. There is no gold standard.

Of course this is true to some extent, but I think you and I both know that it's a spectrum. There is citation which is at least better than nothing and there is citation which is arguably worse than nothing.

If you present the latter and numerous people refuse to accept it, then that doesn't make them shills. Again, I'm drawing a line between quality argument and poor argument.

Otherwise, we seem to be on the same page.

All of reddit is like that. It is a lost cause. RIP Digg....I mean reddit.

Individual posters isn't where the real shillery is at. I think it's in the mass data analysis and vote manipulation on a larger scale, by now.

Out of curiosity, have there ever been documented occurrences of shills attempting to operate on this sub? If there have been, for whom/what were these people shilling? Or is this an unrealistic request...

Either way, it would be really interesting to read into.

Edit: when I say "shill," I'm referring to actual, paid shills with some linkage to a concerned party. Just wanted to clarify my question.

So I'd start with looking in /r/shill. Then you've got your obvious brigade subreddits like /r/conspiritard etc. O and then this:

https://search.wikileaks.org/gifiles/?viewemailid=282044

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-fiorella/cyber-shills_b_2803801.html

https://ultraculture.org/blog/2014/02/26/reddit-shills-tried-hide-truth/

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ipyZwvinXs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&amp;persist_app=1&amp;v=Nr4o_CEgWM0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkAYKoJTOz8

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/03/01/paid-govt-and-corporate-internet-trolls-are-real/

http://www.activistpost.com/2014/02/yes-there-are-paid-government-trolls-on.html

http://www.vice.com/read/trolls-paid-by-a-telecom-lobbying-firm-keep-commenting-on-my-net-neutrality-articles-806

http://www.businessinsider.in/China-Hires-As-Many-As-300000-Internet-Trolls-To-Make-The-Communist-Party-Look-Good/articleshow/44859392.cms

http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/internet-trolls-may-be-trained-government-agents-according-to-leaked-document/

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/07/eglin-air-force-base-busted-gaming-reddit.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/03/reddit-become-interested-censorship.html

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2ft67v/former_reddit_mod_interviewed_details_of_adminmod/

Yet you were downvoted. Good work man keep spreading the truth. I happened to click in the third link first (Snowden/Greenwald) - how appropriate!

No, when /r/conspiracy says shill they should usually be saying "person who won't agree with me."

when some /r/conspiracy subscribers

FTFY

Usually it is a wanna be internet activist that refuses to allow a certain subject/perspective to be discussed or even debated in a civil manner.

I highly doubt it.

It doesn't make sense to me.

That's why I don't go to /r/conspiracy for research.

Read into books, particularly books from the 17th-19th century. They talk about the deception. Archive.org is a great resource.

What are these book things you speak of? Sounds like a bunch of fancy city boy talk to me. You sure got a pretty mouth.

Jokes.

If more poeple took the time to read books, we wouldn't be going down this path of *Idiocracy we are headed.

*stupid ass movie, unfortunately the future it invisions, is the likely fate of us the people. That almost makes that dumb ass movie a must see. As a warning of things to come.

I like money

I'm more bothered by the amount of garbage threads that get posted.

Online shills certainly exist, we have seen enough leaked official documents over the last few years to know that that is the case. And yes, they probably infiltrate Reddit, it's worth it for them alongside Facebook and Twitter, given that Reddit is considered the front page of the internet.

But where I would draw the line is whether they frequent this subReddit in particular, I don't think /r/conspiracy (or any of the subReddits included on the sidebar) really have that much of a real world impact that they even need to bother.

Take heart. Even if you don't get upvoted and reach the top, a few will read your comments. If you have good ideas or information, people will pick it up and repeat it.

Think of it like starting a fire. The shills will try to put it out, but if you start the fire in enough places, one of them will take off and be repeated. It just takes a bit longer for information or ideas to propagate.

Also, here are a few things I've learned:

• Some get paid by the number and length of reposes you give them, so they'll simply state the obvious opposite of what you're saying or twist the logic. If you get responses like that, you're best bet is to keep your response short and highlight the twisted logic.

• One tactic I've seen is that if you are posting to something current, they will distract you by responding to a comment made over a day ago. Don't bite, simply ignore it.

• Develop a thick skin and remember that you're not posting with your real name. It's just a login name, so it's not like you've got to defend your character. It's O.K. to be wrong or say something stupid. Just try to do better next time and move on.

Hi, I'm wondering if you saw this exchange right here in this thread? I'm interested to know what your thoughts are.

He's preaching to the preaching to the choir, so nit picking his post is kind of inappropriate. After all, this is /r/conspiracy. If he made the rant on say /r/news or /r/politics, the level of support needed would warrant your response. But then again, he should be tailoring his post based on the audience, and to support his position elsewhere would require more detail.

Based on your post, I would start wondering why you're here in /r/conspiracy picking someone's post apart. This is a sub for discussing and hashing out alternative theories, not for supporting every little detail. It is assumed that if you're here, you already subscribe to some conspiratorial views that are outside of the norm, so you should be much more tolerant. If not, regulars will assume you're either a shill or troll from /r/conspiratard.

First off, that is great advice. Second, you can get paid for the # and length of responses you get? I did not know that. How do you sign up for that?

Finally I would add, if you know about something, speak your mind. If you dont know about the topic, STFU, google it, and learn before you speak. So as to at least give the appearence of intelligence, that is if you dont like being called a dumbass, under any name.

If you are a troll by nature, what can I say, you are who you are. Most people are smart enough to figure that out and dont give a shit what you have to say anyway. Imo trolls often provide much needed comic relief for ones who have knowledge of and take the topics seriously.

At least for me. I know stupidity shouldnt be entertaining, but it elimanates many of head ache to see it as that, instead of trying to educate the ones who dont want to or cant learn.

There should be a /r/specialneeds to send troll users to until they are capable of having adult conversation.

lol

I like your username

Try VOAT. What they lack in quantity, they more than make up for with quality. They already have anti trolling rules in effect that most trolls dont have the patients for. Goes to the Dennis Miller saying on 2 for 1 sales. Two of shit is shit, if they really want to fuck you they'll give you three. Reddit is the equivellant. Except you get more that two shit opinions for one good one. I got a side bet on how many down votes this will get. Thats the only thing down votes are when dealing with shills. Wager fodder.

Post a comment on any thread on any sub involving Israel that doesn't support Israel. It will be immediately downvoted into oblivion.

16 days

Yes, OP, it's all one giant conspiracy against you. Sure....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusion

I busted a shill once on Reddit. I harassed him so much through PM that he stopped posting all together. It was glorious.

opposing viewpoints and shills are two different things. Shills hide shit for their overlords.

I'd say half the comments come from feeding the main headline or first paragraph into computers, which generates incoherent bot language. The intent is to drive people away. It is sabotage.

George Galloway with a message for them:

https://vine.co/v/Og1Wi2FXve9

I just go to the new tab and educate myself regardless of what the shills say or think.

It's not just this sub. It's all of reddit.

Lol then take your shit somewhere else? Downvote the shills?

certain opinions, certain posters and certain topics are obvious shillisms, treat them as such. downvote, ignore and refuse to engage. in fact, if it's a known "regular" aka mod approved shill don't even bother reading their bullshit, do not take the bait...

obvious examples: poster defends official 911 myth, poster repeats official version of theory X over and over, poster says "that makes no sense" and "too many people would know" and "how could you keep it a secret" and "you only think i'm a shill because i disagree" or any of the other bs cliche one-liners. poster demands evidence for speculation, poster demands a "source" for information garnered from multiple sources over many years. poster demands you cure their ignorance. poster feigns ignorance. poster refuses to modify position when you do go to the trouble of providing proof, a source and a free education.

Who's shilling who?

Go Home Shills.

Is the money these big gov corporation fat cats pay you really worth the enslavement of you and your families? Is it worth your soul???

Stop spending all day on the internet trying to prove something that isn't real, and get frickin lives, Shills!!

This sub is basically a lighthouse for 'shills'. Where else would they bother to go to read, study, listen in on or learn about the people that don't just blindly follow the heard?

I don't mind it so much. In fact, it's sort of a compliment. In a weird way they admire us for not being so easily influenced. It's like we're both two sides of the same coin. We aren't buying it and they can't sell it. Neither of us are part of the heard.

What do you mean by "shill", though? Is it just someone who disagrees with your opinion?

No, those are sheeple.

Reading the comments on some posts nowadays is like reading shill handbooks and beginner's guides.

Exactly. When you read through the comments you will certainly see a decent bit of legit discussion, disagreement, and healthy (or sometimes not, but not shilling) debate. HOWEVER at least 1/2 of the comments, especially on controversial topics or topics that other subs are interested in (Monsanto anyone? or how about 9/11 etc.) are from people who if they are not shilling, are certainly performing the same service as shills but are perhaps not being paid. They dont post here except for those specific topics, they are never open to discussion, they strictly support the status quo, and repeat the same thing over and over. They contribute nothing to the conversation or the debate.

A LOT of people in this thread and other similar threads always say "you just think anyone who disagrees with X theory is a shill!" Well first of all that is a strawman, but w/e it does happen now and again. HOWEVER, it is rarely the case, shills and people similar to shills (discussed above) are relatively easy to spot vs. just someone who happens to disagree with you (again for reasons above) and do show up quite often. Is there some overlap? Sure, but no where near the extent that some people make it out to be.

To sum up, yes this place is flooded with shills, as long as money is speech and call center-style agencies are a dime a dozen this will continue to be the case. This place is also flooded with shill-wannabies that love supporting the status quo on their own free time, and that will also be the case as long as the current power structure remains in place. Get used to it, do not engage them, read their manuals and have constructive discussions with those who have a more open mind!

How do you decide who is and isnt a shill?

I post about 9/11 and everyone agrees with me since i have taken physics and what happened in real life does NOT agree with science.

I post about global warming and i get called a shill by TONS of people. Yet, once again, I am just posting factually correct science.

So, in 1 case I am a real conspiracy theorist, and in the other case I am a shill. So which one is it???

Cause no one likes the guy on the other side of the fence. I know where you are coming from.

Wait till reddit finds out allowing and supporting some of the activities makes them not only complicit but facilitators of many many crimes.

Why would you care? Does it really matter what exactly they think say or do in here? Almost everyone in here I am sure looks thru downvoted comments and such to see what is really said.

Your need for votes in this sub is not needed we can look thru and see what is said. The consistant bitching about them and name calling when its not the case has got to be the saddest thing ever.

A shill is someone paid to change the narrative or steer the direction of a conversation. This sub isn't taken seriously anymore because of posts like yours. They make us a community look pathetic and weak. Don't pay them any mind man. Fuck acceptance and say what you thing needs to be said long as you don't break the reddit or sub rules.

Now you get a comment taken down then find a new way to say it and repost if its worth it. Too many in here wanna call anyone that won't agree with them a shill cause its accepted in here and that is stupid.

Fight with your brain and logic not your emotions.

I don't even bother commenting on posts anymore because of the amount of shilling and vote rigging. Reading the comments on some posts nowadays is like reading shill handbooks and beginner's guides.

I'm sure you've got lots of data and aren't at all relying on anecdotal evidence.

(Massive generalisations ahead)

In my experience the existence of what you're calling "shilling" and "vote rigging" is accepted as staight-up fact around here, and rarely with anything to support it.

That's not even getting close to the general habit of labelling anyone who disagrees or questions as a "shill". There are plenty of users who seem to be able to do little else.

It's actually hilarious how prevalent the sense of persecution around here is sometimes.

Calling out shills is against the rules here.

False. Accusing users if being shills is.

By abiding by the rules, you can call out shill-like behavior (usually with links to history), because the word carries weight here.

If anything, Rule 10 has strengthened this sub, as it is rare for an argument to devolve into name-calling and generally shillery. The responses are more powerful and the shills (who most surely exist) are rendered less effective, compared to the other subreddits.

You can, you just have to be careful with your words. Don't use the word shill.

I'd advise against attacking their points. Sadly the only recourse is to troll them back or to ignore them completely. Don't try to argue with a 4-year-old

Only reason I kept going.

Cool, maybe you'll stay away for a little bit so I can do my thing.

(Conspiracy x turns into argument about grammar. )

You don't use a period to end a statement inside of parenthesis, you are clearly an idiot and don't know anything.

/s

We wouldn't have to have it be an argument about grammar if people here knew how to use it correctly. Obviously I'm not saying everyone, but of all the subs I frequent, this one has the most embarrassing track record for awful spelling and grammar. If you spell words like thru, or u or any other stupid spellings I immediately think you haven't passed high school and I have a hard time taking anything you say seriously

This is the only way to do it.