Internet Gatekeeping Tactics

Group Psychology

Have you ever heard of the elevator group think study?

https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/01/13/asch-elevator-experiment/

Essentially, a person would stand “backwards” on an elevator, and all who entered the elevator would also stand backwards. This is the “psychology of conformity.”

Did you know every decision you make is essentially a “committee act?”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/you-have-a-hive-mind/

Group psychology is well-documented, and the internet is the perfect place to see it in action. Unfortunately, most are not aware of group psychology tactics, and these tactics are so easy to buy into. We are human, after all, and we want to fit in:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201505/the-truth-about-what-well-do-fit-in

From the article, “Social forces influence people’s judgments. People want to belong to a group, or want to avoid disagreeing with others, and so they modify their judgments to fit in more with what the group says.”

Internet shilling is not anything new, and subs like /r/hailcorporate are evidence of that. I’m not really here to discuss whether shills exist or not, though. As we all know, the best shills are indistinguishable from real users. Even Huffington Post acknowledges internet shills:

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

Further, here is evidence from a pretty infamous article – a confession of an internet shill. Whether you believe it or not is up to you:

https://consciouslifenews.com/paid-internet-shill-shadowy-groups-manipulate-internet-opinion-debate/1147073/

With that being said, I have been on Reddit a long time, and I have seen its transformation. I have also been a subject to harassment, death threats, and other internet tactics that make coming to this website more difficult by the day. However, I am also not willing to give up just yet. Instead, I would rather share my knowledge of these tactics so that more are aware and do not buy into them.

In this post, I wanted to examine the more subtle tactics used by internet “shills”, not necessarily argue that shills exist. I wanted to show how a thread can be manipulated easily with these subtle tactics. I wanted to show that everything that happens is subtle, which makes it effective.

Forum Sliding Tactics

Most of us are familiar with the infamous forum sliding tactics used by shills, but I really believe that there may be some who really do not know:

https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

I wanted to go through the basics and give some examples. I also wanted to simplify and summarize. This is just a summary of these tactics, just in case users are not aware or do not feel like reading the linked site.

Technique 1: Forum Sliding

Forum sliding is the tactic that simply means to turn the direction of the post. This can include vote brigrading, or it can include someone (or many people) logging into different accounts and distracting from the post itself. It is misdirection. In forum sliding, a “shill” somehow sidetracks the main argument being made. This is the one I have experienced the most on Reddit. For example, I often make posts centered around the United States. A simple forum sliding tactic would be to say “This does not happen in Europe.” This gets people away from the main idea of the post, and ultimately, I am arguing with somebody on items not even related to my post. It works.

Technique 2: Consensus Cracking (Disinformation)

I am just going to simplify this tactic, even though it is quite complex.

1) Make a post that looks compelling, but do not provide much evidence for the premise. (Ex. MK Ultra and Hollywood is real) 2) Present both sides of argument in posts (this seems very important). 3) Slowly, slowly build up proof against initial arguments under different accounts. Eventually, readers may not know what to believe (the goal of disinfo) or they may side with the counter-arguments.

This one is very, very sneaky. I do see posts like this on /r/conspiracy. The premise is there, the evidence is not, and it is naturally debunked. The readers are left confused and skeptical.

...“However in some cases where the forum members are highly educated and can counter your disinformation with real facts and linked postings, you can then 'abort' the consensus cracking by initiating a 'forum slide.'”

http://test.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread429408/pg1 It always goes back to forum sliding.

Technique 3: Topic Dilution

This is similar to forum sliding in that it requires misdirection. It actually is a part of forum sliding. Essentially, if somebody makes a post about sexual abuse in Hollywood, for example, a topic diluter may crack or joke or post information that is irrelevant to the initial post. The thread may turn “gossipy” and this distracts from the original content. On /r/conspiracy, I see jokes being made that distract from the original topic. This happens on Reddit all over. This is not to say I am against jokes – it just gets people off track.

Information Collection

This is quite creepy. This could be as simple as, “What do you feel about flat earth?” Already, the poster is collecting information about their users that can be used against them later. I remember one, time, I made a joke about bestiality, and that was mentioned in many of the comments of my posts from that point on. I also find it odd that many users are very aware of my posts. Now, you might say I post a lot, but some are very aware of small or discreet subs I post in.

While they may not be collecting information on everyone at every moment, if you are a prominent user here, it is likely. Also, the sub /u/polkadotgirl is on private, and I never created that sub. What info are the collecting there?

Anger Trolling

I think in some ways we are all guilty of buying into this, and I see this more on 4chan than I do Reddit. Perhaps people are more sensible here?

I think there are two things going on with anger trolling. Again, the “shills” want to get people off track by angering them. That is very easy, and it happens to me occasionally!

I think anger trolling has advanced. Basically, it is meant to get a psychological reaction out of people, and the “divide and conquer” posts work great! Racism posts are the best to get people riled up.

Do not forget that extremism creates "anger trolling."

Gaining full control

The comments are extremely important in any thread on Reddit, which is why I respond to them immediately. That is my tactic.

Ultimately, I am not really sure what happens on Reddit, but there is vote manipulation, and there are ways to censor comments and posters. Full control can also mean that a post is so infiltrated that nothing can come of it. To me, full control means a post is downvoted to 0, and the attacks are already there in the comments. Users read the comments, decide it is BS, and move along.

Look, there are definitely BS posts, but sort by "new" and be critical.

My Experiences

I wanted to include some tactics that happen that I feel are not talked about as often.

Ad Hominem

This is simple, but it works. Essentially, the user attacks the person, not the argument. Despite most of us knowing about this, it really works. Nobody likes to be attacked, and people will spend time defending themselves .This goes back to forum sliding, again.

It is important to note that ad hominem can be useful. Would you trust advice from a serial killer about how to raise your children? With that being said, ad hominem is so easy that it should always be evaluated. “Scientific American” summarizes how to evaluate ad hominem attacks and their relevancy:

“Being aware of how the ad hominem attack works can help us evaluate which instances of its use we should ignore and which we should consider. Ask yourself: How relevant is a political candidate’s character or action to his or her ability to perform in office? How pertinent is any person’s past or group affiliation to the claims that person makes or to that individual’s expertise in a specific domain? If the character-based attacks are not relevant to these larger issues, then they are best ignored. Instead we should attend to what is really important: What is a person asserting? Why does he or she offer a particular view, and is the view defensible?”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/character-attack/

Subtle Aggression/Close-Mindedness

One new tactic I am seeing is a very subtle sort of aggression. This tactic works because the person never resorts to ad hominem. However, they stand by their claim, even when users offer valid counter-arguments.

This is really simple actually. Let’s say an user is posting about the Mandela Effect. This tactic may be used:

“Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.”

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/7/21/1112509/-The-Gentleperson-s-Guide-to-Forum-Spies

In a thread about the Mandela Effect, for example, a person may automatically bring up “misremembering” without considering any of the main points posted. They are attacking the weakest points of the argument, which is also a distraction tactic.

I wanted to say that this is the most successful tactic I have ever seen. To me, it is very, very subtle. The person WILL NOT back down from their initial argument, and they will “cherry pick” any of your arguments. Even when you bring up valid arguments, they go back to other points to make your arguments look “stupid.”

Changing the subject works here.

The point here is that in a good discussion, a person will admit to being "wrong" when good evidence is presented.

This is a very skilled tactic in my opinion, and I wanted to explain more about this in my next segment.

What makes good discussion?

Socratic discussion is “cooperative argument.” That may seem like an oxymoron, but the best discussions utilize Socratic methods:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

Socrates once said, ““The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” “There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”

Even if somebody isn’t a shill, when they come into a discussion with the belief that they “know it all”, they are committing an act or ignorance in my opinion.

Shill or not, a person who does not follow these tenets is suspicious to me:

If something is gold, it will be gold anyway you slice it.

1) An open mind: When we are in a conspiracy forum, an open mind is of the utmost importance. Even when something is clearly disinformation, it takes an open mind to examine that disinfo.

This will be controversial, but when I see posts about flat earth, I immediately hear the cry of “disinfo.” It likely is, but that should not stop us from examining it. Gold is gold is gold. If “flat earth” arguments have flaws, they will be easily exposed.

2) Collegial discussion: How do you talk to your co-workers at work? In an ideal learning environment, we should talk to each other professionally. I consider internet forums learning environments, and they should be treated as such. Attacks should not happen in these environments.

3) Listening: When I teach, I have speaking, reading, writing, and listening standards. Guess which standard is over-looked? Many of us are just waiting for somebody to finish talking so we can talk. Listening is severely undervalued in our society. There is an actual Cornell study on this:

https://sha.cornell.edu/faculty-research/centers-institutes/chr/about/news/press/prdetails.html?id=559

I really need to work on this, even online.

4) Sometimes there is no “right” answer.

This is really hard for people. We want to believe that there is always conclusion, but sometimes there is not. For example, the Mandela Effect is pretty strange, but there is no absolute way of knowing with 100% certainty what it is. There is a point where we should say and acknowledge, “I don’t know.” Sometimes we just do not know.

When I get into arguments with people, and they are so sure they are “right”, I assume they are not willing to listen or really argue, which leads into my next point.

5) Debate vs. Discussion

Debate assumes somebody is “right”, but in the conspiracy world, we have to assume nothing is black or white. While debate is important, discussion holds its place, too. If somebody posts something racist, I find discussion is much more effect than debate. Recently somebody posted (on my sub) about the ties to race and IQ. I simply discussed with them, and it turned out pretty well.

The Elimination of Free Speech

We should allow all people to speak, even the worst thoughts, so that we can disprove them. Is it sad that I have to actually link to the first amendment for this?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Whatever happened to, “I may not agree with what you say – but I respect your right to say it.”

In my opinion, the problem in our society goes back to the removal of critical thinking in education.

When we lose the ability to critically think or argue, we lose the ability to examine. It is possible that technology is inhibiting critical thinking skills:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/is-technology-producing-a-decline-79127

We live in a world where anything is labeled as “hate speech” now. If we don’t allow hate speech to exist, we do not allow people to argue against it. It’s that simple.

Some relevant quotes:

““If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” ― George Orwell”

““I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” ― S.G. Tallentyre, The Friends of Voltaire

““If you're not going to use your free speech to criticize your own government, then what the hell is the point of having it?” ― Michelle Templet

The Dumbing Down of Society

In my opinion, society is being dumbed down. With internet as a tool, we have access to nearly all knowledge (though it is censored to some extent).

The problem is people are not utilizing these tools. They are falling into online tactics of internet shilling, or they are falling victim to distractions.

Here is a list of logical fallacies, and there are many:

https://www.nsbsd.org/cms/lib01/AK01001879/Centricity/Domain/1070/LogicalFallacies.pdf

Which are you buying into?

Social media can help create echo chambers where people buy into these fallacies and tactics. In some ways, the internet has made us more close-minded, and the social media echo chamber is real:

https://www.nsbsd.org/cms/lib01/AK01001879/Centricity/Domain/1070/LogicalFallacies.pdf

According to the above article, “Since we’ve become so attached to social media, we are less and less required to interact with people who disagree with us.”

I feel sad that with endless amounts of access to knowledge, some have resorted to the tactics listed in this post, paid or not.

Gatekeeping

Don’t forget about gatekeeping:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatekeeping_(communication)

There are some who will reveal just enough to keep us quiet. Many call Edward Snowden, Noam Chomsky, and David Icke gatekeepers:

For example, Noam Chomsky delves into conspiracy regularly but remains willfully ignorant about 9/11:

https://digwithin.net/2013/11/29/chomsky/

Gatekeeping can also be associated with disinfo agents, like Alex Jones:

http://www.spirituallysmart.com/Jones-CIA.htm

Whatever you believe, be aware of the tactics.

Conclusion

To end with a quote, “Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance.” – Robert Quillen.

We are all guilty of falling into echo chambers in our own minds. The point of this post is that it doesn’t matter if somebody is paid or not to mess with discussion. It matters that we are buying into

How can we better? How can we make internet forums better? The first step is to be aware of the tactics.

As somebody who has been abused my entire life, I am aware of my abuser’s tactics. The thing is, I wasn’t always aware. I bought into them for a long time. Now that I know what they are, tough, I no longer buy into them, and they no longer impact me.

The problem with it all is that we may never really know. I am saying that we all need to use our evaluation skills to determine what is true and what is not. We should not buy into the tactics listed, and we should question everything.

If a thread is downvoted to 0, ask yourself why? If an user is being attacked, ask yourself why? If any of the tactics are being used, ask yourself, why!?

“They follow the Hitler line - no matter how big the lie; repeat it often enough and the masses will regard it as the truth.” ― John F. Kennedy

Questions

Is this post downvoted, why? What are the comments in this thread? Let us all start thinking critically.

After all, we may be shills for a cause and not even know it!