[Meta] If you're fighting "the shills", you've already lost. (One single head, one single degree)
1 2018-08-30 by CelineHagbard
Disclaimer: Shills exist. Governments and agencies thereof, corporations, NGOs, political parties and others employ people, including automated and semi-automated agents, to propagandize social media including reddit.
Ideological shills also exist. They are not paid, but nevertheless, they push narratives unthinkingly, defending and attacking what they've been conditioned to. In practice, there is no difference.
What is the purpose of a shill?
The purpose of a shill is to distract, deceive and divide. They employ many tactics: sliding the conversation, attacking secondary arguments while disregarding the larger picture, devolving the conversation into personal attacks, and so on.
The shill has many success conditions. If they wear you down to the point where you give up, they win. If they keep you tied up in pointless diversions, they win. If they get you to lose their temper, they win.
The shill is not your enemy
In the case of a paid shill, they're making what, maybe $15 an hour, if that, for mind-numbing, soul-crushing work? The ideological shill thinks they're actually making the world better. They're not your enemy; they're the victim of the same system you are, and probably more so.
They are your adversary if you seek truth, but they're also a potential ally. If you should feel anything toward a shill other than compassion, I'd suggest pity over animosity.
Calling shills "shills" is ineffective
Not only is it ineffective, it's counterproductive. You can't win. I mean this literally: you cannot win, only we can win. Information warfare is not about defeating an enemy; it's about either recruiting or demoralizing the people who would oppose you. Choose.
When you call a shill a shill, it's perceived in a number of ways. Those who agree with you stop thinking; they are reinforced in their beliefs by confirmation bias. Those who disagree with you stop thinking; they are reinforced in their beliefs by a confirmation bias in the opposite direction. You've changed no minds here.
But the battleground of an information war is always where the lines meet: the undecided. And what the undecided perceive is that you have no argument. Calling someone a shill is probably the worst way possible to convince an undecided, let alone an opponent, that you're correct.
The battleground of an information war is a single mind
The nascent Internet was the promise of a New World, the same world but one in which each of has access to the sum of human knowledge, and access to every mind across the world. This is its gift and its curse.
The gift was obvious, blindingly so, but the curse was more subtle. As truth-seekers and truth-spreaders, we've been conned into thinking we're trying to convert everyone, or even that we should try. This is a mistake. César Chávez knew how to organize: "first you talk to one person, then you talk to another person, then you talk to another person." Just because you can talk to thousands at once, doesn't mean you should.
One single head, one single degree
The shill is irrelevant. The crowd is irrelevant. (I shouldn't have to tell you vote totals are irrelevant.) The only thing that matters is the single mind. You might not know whose mind it is your trying to change. It could be the person you're talking to, but usually isn't in cyberspace. Your goal is not full conversion to your worldview, as if you have it right anyway. The goal is simple: get one single person to turn their head one single degree.
If you can do that, your efforts are not in vain. If they turn their head back afterwards, your efforts are not in vain. Pick a person and picture them in your own mind, whether it's the person you're talking to or not, and speak directly to them.
Remember how you got here. It wasn't a bearded dude with crazy eyes on the street corner screaming to the masses; it was a series of men and women who spoke to you, who got you to turn your own head by a single degree. You probably turned your own head back, too, the first two or ten or hundred times, but it stuck with you. You saw what couldn't be unseen and thought what couldn't be unthought.
83 comments
1 TotesMessenger 2018-08-30
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
1 dmacrolensam 2018-08-30
Why fight when you can work your clit?
1 CelineHagbard 2018-08-30
I guess you stuck with the [meta] tag: a masturbatory comment about masturbation.
1 dmacrolensing 2018-08-30
Why not? It's all anyone does here. Keep acting like you're averse. Would you prefer people not stick with your lame tags? A masturbatory comment about masturbation for a masturbatory about nothing. lol
1 dmacrolensing 2018-08-30
Why not? It's all anyone does here. Keep acting like you're averse. Would you prefer people not stick with your lame tags? A masturbatory comment about masturbation for a masturbatory post about nothing. I'm sorry you get to feel what's it's like to read spam like words of the pointless quality, like your post, when you read that comment. More () will help. You done working that clit yet? lol
1 kit8642 2018-08-30
I find if people start getting hostile, point it out, make your point and move on. I feel like we feed the trolls/shills here too much. I know I'm guilty of it.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-08-30
For sure, man. Forum sliding only really works when other people jump on the slide.
At the risk of being called a conspiracy theorist, if I were running a shill op, I'd definitely have some accounts pushing whatever narrative they were trying to push, and another set of accounts responding childishly with poorly thought out arguments. Not saying most or even many of people who feed the shills are part of the op; just that it's like we're doing the job for them.
1 kit8642 2018-08-30
I more impressed with the people who do it without a pay check. I honestly feel bad for them.
1 kit8642 2018-08-30
I'd probably start a daycare center, create a team of 3-4 year old who constantly ask "why", teach them to type "But why?", and let them go at it.
1 YourHeadWillCollapse 2018-08-30
"What's the conspiracy?"
1 Splub 2018-08-30
One thing I'd look out for is when you ask for information, and they don't tell you in their own words. Instead they link a long video/article/etc that is purposely designed to get you in the mindset to believe whatever they're selling.
Basically where they want to tell you a story rather than lay out the summarized facts/opinions.
1 KindConsideration 2018-08-30
or 15 links and 15 copy pasted paragraphs
1 Rockran 2018-08-30
How can you know if you're fighting a shill?
Many of your points work under the assumption that one has already been identified.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-08-30
Not at all. My addition of ideological shills means I don't really care if someone's being paid, but what they're trying to do. Are they sliding a conversation or pushing a narrative, whether its one I personally agree with or not? They're a shill. I won't call them that, because that helps nothing.
I think you're missing the point of this post if you think it's dependent on identifying or classifying shills. It's about ignoring and countering shill behavior, regardless of whether they're paid or not.
I know you get pegged as a shill a lot here, and I'm sure I'll catch some shit for this, but 95% of the time you're just expressing the skeptic's POV. If someone's only response to that is calling you a shill, they've lost.
1 procgen 2018-08-30
Isn't everyone pushing a narrative? Aren't you?
1 omenofdread 2018-08-30
Some narratives are "more equal" than others.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-08-30
Sure, in the technical sense, everyone including myself is pushing various narratives. When I use the term pushing a narrative I'm referring to the accounts that take every new piece of information as confirmation of their previously held beliefs, rather than taking it for what it is.
Trump is a lightning rod for this. A new piece of information comes out about Trump, maybe well-sourced and maybe not, and instantly you have the two sides interpreting it purely in terms of what they already believe.
Someone who's not here to push a narrative is someone willing to look at new information with fresh eyes, to entertain ideas they might not believe.
1 mastigia 2018-08-30
The One single head, one single degree section is probably the most valuable advice I have seen on reddit in years.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-08-30
I kinda picked that up from r/C_S_T, where the nature of it and small size meant you often were just talking to one person at one time, sometimes a week after the thread fell off the front page.
In that sense, I'm not even necessarily trying to change a mind, just reach a point where we each understand each other. My goal's as much to learn as to teach, but hopefully both happne.
1 mastigia 2018-08-30
We all have shill induced PTSD now. War footing is the norm. It would be nice to move back to something less defensive.
1 ichoosejif 2018-08-30
I’m always learning something.
1 mastigia 2018-08-30
Then more efficiently. Like how superior Skippy is.
1 ichoosejif 2018-08-30
May, I was just lifted. Meant no harm.
1 WarSanchez 2018-08-30
Agreed.
This post sums up some of my feelings about the true nature of this sub. Come in, leave your feelings aside, educate yourself, learn something, try to rattle someone's beliefs just enough where they have a paradigm shift.
1 kit8642 2018-08-30
I also feel like it's preaching to an opinionated/bias choir. I tend to hop in other subs to mix it up. The fun part is when you see an anti establishment comment flourish in a establishment sub. Although I may not always use this handle.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-08-30
I like to call it guerrilla redditting:
If you want to reach the masses, (i.e., not one mind, one degree), this sub is probably the worst place to do it. People come here with their preconceptions firmly established. Much better ROI in the wild.
1 kit8642 2018-08-30
Well said! That's the game I play and enjoy. Also seeing how much you can distort their reality without breaking that delicate bubble. Almost leading them to the water. It's how I get my rocks off at this point.
1 JamesColesPardon 2018-08-30
Back befote I was banned from the big subs (and before we startef /r/C_S_T) we used to call that slingshotting.
1 WarSanchez 2018-08-30
Where you blanket banned by a certain squad of mods or was this individual situations for going against the narrative?
1 tiberius_regulus 2018-08-30
Inaction is an action. This is something some of you colloquial mods don't realize or understand. I have my theories on why ;)
1 CelineHagbard 2018-08-30
Who said anything about inaction?
Care to share, hun?
1 tiberius_regulus 2018-08-30
Will I be banned if I speak freely?
1 CelineHagbard 2018-08-30
I give you my word: not here, this thread only.
1 tiberius_regulus 2018-08-30
Great, and thanks!
Mod actions show it all. I see mods actions as actually encouraging the divide and conquer tactics. Some say there are enemies and some say don't engage. This leads to a constant state of confusion. Not saying you're a part of it. Just my observation.
If I have an enemy and I don't need to ignore them. That solves nothing. I should engage them. Inaction is an action. Something, something, holocaust poem. Rule 10 ruined this sub imo. Nuance is everything.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-08-30
I didn't make this post as a mod, and I'm not telling anyone what to do. Just making my observations and recommendations like we all do here.
There are enemies — though I don't think the foot soldiers, paid or unpaid, have much real awareness of who the forces they're working for really are or what their long-term goals are. And I wouldn't even say not to engage, but just that certain forms of engagement are more effective than others. Calling shills "shills," even if they are, just seems entirely counterproductive if you're trying to convince someone not already convinced.
Did you read the Johnstone piece I linked? Do you agree with her logic regarding people calling others Russian trolls? As if they aren't awful already, whenever I wander into the default news and politics subs, I see people getting called Russian trolls for the stupidest shit. Say one of Trump's policies was good? Troll. Say HRC is a corrupt politician? Troll. Fuck, give documented evidence of Mockingbird, MKULTRA, Ajax, or any of the other fucked up shit US intel agencies have done? Of course, you must be a Russian troll.
It can be effective at building filter-bubbled groupthink, sure, but that's about it.
I don't think engagement is the problem so much as the way I see it done so often here, and from the other side seeing Russian trolls behind every bush.
Infowar is not like conventional war, where the winner is the one left standing. We only win an infowar if we can teach enough people how to think. I disagree with you on a lot, but I know you can think, and I'd much prefer an ally (even if they don't think of me as one) who can think than one who agrees with me on who the shills are or aren't.
1 kit8642 2018-08-30
And that maybe their objective, to spin your wheels.
1 tiberius_regulus 2018-08-30
lol, try to spin my wheels and I'll make you spin out. This is kind of my point.
1 kit8642 2018-08-30
And once again, that maybe their objective. They don't care but you do.
1 tiberius_regulus 2018-08-30
I really don't though. The truth shall set you free. See, this is the problem with you mods past and present and people in general. Read Sun Tzu.
1 kit8642 2018-08-30
Okay! Have at it then.
1 tiberius_regulus 2018-08-30
Look into who Tiberius was ;)
1 kit8642 2018-08-30
I got the heads up the day after our last encounter. Wish I knew, I would have loved to dance with you. Much love!
1 JamesColesPardon 2018-08-30
This was anticlimactic AF
1 kit8642 2018-08-30
womp womp wwwwwoooooommmmmppppp.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-08-30
Bingo. Send out the conscripted skirmishers to occupy the veteran legions.
1 omenofdread 2018-08-30
sigh... that's brilliant. crafty bastards!
1 asailorssway 2018-08-30
they demand links... so you give them.. pdf's they dont read them. "you gotta page for me!? i havent got all day!!" so you give them video's... "ACK!! wot tf mate? what's up with the music? montage? I only got 3 minutes in..."
meanwhile anyone watching that is themselves too lazy to click will take what talking frog said as scripture. you've given the narrative piranha something to frenzy over, there are a couple of folks chiming in their support, (thanks guys,) they are disastrously downvoted, again point for the frog, and you're wasting your time talking to a vaccum.
to new users, click the 0 threads, the 0 posts... this is reddit. someone has an opinion about everything. true 0 doesnt exist here.
1 Red-Vagabond 2018-08-30
This refers to a heavy majority. The tribal nature of the power structure relies on this division. Your post is very poetic, yet I fail to see the significance. This is a numbers game. "One single head, one single degree" is meaningless against an army. The pack is stronger than the individual. Comfort and convenience is more suitable than truth. Winners demand losers and in this system you will either comply or die. There is no compromise, only hypocrisy,
1 CelineHagbard 2018-08-30
Exponential growth. One soldier who decides not to die for a general who doesn't care about them is a win. One soldier who decides to fight that general is a double win. One soldier who turns his former comrades is the path to victory.
You attack their front; you get slaughtered by overwhelming force, and you reinvigorate the enemy. You pick at the flanks, the supply lines, the minds of the enemy, you eat its support from within.
1 Red-Vagabond 2018-08-30
Everything here is war.
The physical seems so pointless. A blessing to the innocent and yet a curse for the wicked. You might learn more in a single lifetime as a peasant than a thousand lifetimes as a king. I think everything will eventually balance itself out. Spirit tends to not quit.
1 feedusfetusfajitus 2018-08-30
Life is a marathon, my friend. Truth will fuel you for eternity, lies will only propel you for a life time, at most.
1 iseeyoubruh 2018-08-30
its hard to fight a shill as a group when posts that provide actual reasoning are downvoted to hell via vote brigades and manipulation. I've seen rebuttal posts get downvoted even though it was well sourced and based on logic...
1 CelineHagbard 2018-08-30
I agree. That's the biggest problem with reddit as a platform, and I think it might make it an worse-than-useless battleground.
Calling out shills does nothing to fix this though. Banning shills doesn't help either. It's a Hydra; cut of one head and three more sprout.
1 HeyJesusBringMeABeer 2018-08-30
It took the slaying of many Hydras to put down the M0nsanto beast. If it wasn't for people naming them shills and putting their names on numerous shill lists, and really jerking people's brains awake as to what they are witnessing, would anyone have been the wiser?
They'd still be here today, destroying half the threads on Reddit with canned insta-rhetoric. In this case we "fought the shills" and we won. They tried to rig that fight as "science vs anti-gmo activists", but it was really just normal people recognizing corporate astroturfing. The fight was straightforward and obvious.
But once Shareblue/CTR/Cambridge Analytica came along, it was a new breed. They made it us vs us this time, so it's a tough battle and the way you win this fight is by finding common ground.
1 DashFerLev 2018-08-30
If you want the narrative, sort by top.
If you want an argument, sort by controversial.
If you want the old rConspiracy, sort by new.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-08-30
Pretty much. That's how I use the sub as a user.
The real problem is that you have to know this, and a newcomer/fence-sitter just sees the narrative. I do kind of like the idea of setting the default sort sub-wide to controversial or new.
1 thinkB4Uact 2018-08-30
Is the removal anonymous voting really that undesirable? We could analyze how we're being manipulated.
1 iseeyoubruh 2018-08-30
yesss exactly! Transparency around voting would help in determining if bot accounts exist and patterns to look out for.
However I see three problems: 1) Reddit will disclose how many bots and fake accounts and shills are on the platform---thus it will lose credibility among its corporate owners and users (a decline in users is death to social media companies)
2) Users might vote less due to the disclosure. It will make it easier to portray narratives that a "majority" seemingly supports if people remain silent.
3) It can cause the rise of witch hunts. Mass distrust among users...
1 bittermanscolon 2018-08-30
Is calling out a shill as a shill not helpful at least in helping others see the shill and what their tactics and motives are?
1 CelineHagbard 2018-08-30
I'm of two minds on this.
In the meta? Yes, calling out shill tactics can be a useful strategy, even a necessary strategy. In this sub, probably 90% of users are aware of the general motives and ideas behind the concept, somewhat less understand some of the various tactics they use.
But in a thread on say, GM0s/M0nsanto, if you call out someone who disagrees with the dangers or potential dangers as a shill specifically, you risk just turning off the fence-sitters more than persuading them. The "so everyone you disagree with is a shill?" argument is pretty effective in the main.
There's a balance. If I could rewrite the rules unilaterally, I'd probably do something like: you can make posts calling out shills as long as you have evidence and an argument, and can link to them within the post you suspect the shilling, but other than that, within a thread about a topic its off limits.
See, the problem is, shills feed off of sliding the conversation away from what it's supposed to be about. If you get into it with them, now you're contributing to the slide.
1 bittermanscolon 2018-08-30
Thanks for the reply.
1 asailorssway 2018-08-30
sooo... this there anyway we could talk with the other mods about doing something like this?
the rules arent handed down on emerald tablets or anything, even the constitution has a grocery list of amendments. we've seen changes made... ss, two month rule.. for examples. i like your suggestion. while i am a firmer believer of breaking the rules when necessary, i would prefer a platform where i didnt have to.
how could the userbase get the mods attention, in the correct way, foir them to be open to discussing changing the rules?
1 OB1_kenobi 2018-08-30
There's another strategy that works just as well and should be the very first step.
A shill's greatest advantage is found when people are either unaware of their presence, or deny that any shilling is going on.
So one of the best things you can do is promote awareness.
1 dmacrolensing 2018-08-30
But you don't contribute to the slide by helping make the sub full of posts about the "shills", that of course everyone is who suggests that this is in itself the yawniest of spam? And I'm the masturbatory one? How meta. lol
1 Fooomanchu 2018-08-30
Couldn't disagree more. Calling out shills is very important for increasing the awareness of the growing shill problem. Something that has obviously been effective on you, given your opening disclaimer.
Also, the very definition of shill is someone who's getting paid to post. It's hard to take you seriously when you're trying to lump others in there who do not get paid as "ideological shills".
1 CelineHagbard 2018-08-30
Seeing shill accusations in threads is not what persuaded me; seeing the actual documented cases is. r/shills and u/NutritionResearch's documentation makes the case quite well. But if I was betting, I'd say less than 20% of shill accusations in this sub are actual shills.
I disagree with you that the undocumented shill accusations are useful at all. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're a shill. Shit, have you talked to people in real life? Half them believe whatever they're preferred media outlet spews, regurgitating whatever BS they put out.
I understand what the word means, and I also see how its used here. The real problem with shills isn't that they're paid, it's that they distract, deceive and divide. Plenty of people do this for free either because they drank the koolaid, or just to fuck with people. On a functional level, there's no difference.
1 cleeftalby 2018-08-30
Myself I mostly just ignore shills (and stop a conversation if I encounter one), but their tactics targets newcomers to the whole conspiracy idea and to make it ineffective it is mandatory to call them out. We are talking about people who still think that news media are unbiasedly reporting news - and internet discussions are for discovering the truth among well-meaning and honest individuals.
IMO there should be a sticky post on top of this forum with an explanation of shills tactics and a warning that you will encounter a lot of disinformation here (just like in ordinary mass media) - but (unlike in ordinary MM) you will also find many bits of censored truth and (like in everyday life) only you are responsible for telling apart the two.
1 Xililli 2018-08-30
This is absolutely fantastic!
1 Estamio2 2018-08-30
"Eddie Bravo, is that you?" -s
Fantastic Post, OP.
I reply to shills with a polite "Thanks for commenting!" and often get a soft pseudo-reason follow-up. And I am actually glad someone/thing commented.
On my 2011 post on "No Planes" I got:
"At least you know how ridiculous this post is ;)
After the shill first offered: "Bwahaha oh, my sides. The no planes thing again..."
Seven years since, the conversation includes "no planes at Pentagon or Shanksville..."
Planting seeds and playing the long haul. You have the rest of your life to carry ideas.
[deleted]
1 Horrid_Proboscis 2018-08-30
Great post. I really like its pragmatism.
1 joe_jaywalker 2018-08-30
Well yeah, when you are actively protecting shills it's kind of hard to "fight" them.
1 omenofdread 2018-08-30
I don't agree at all.
As to whether or not mods are actively protecting them, that's an interesting claim.
As to this being a disgrace, I think that's just wrong. You really shouldn't have to to use the term. It's a thought terminating cliche. It cannot be your only argument.
1 JamesColesPardon 2018-08-30
He says, citing no evidence.
1 joe_jaywalker 2018-08-30
Citing evidence that users are shills is a barnacle offense, is it not? That’s how bad it is. You’re supposed to pretend there are no shills.
1 JamesColesPardon 2018-08-30
Reread OP please.
1 IMA_Catholic 2018-08-30
I believe, but have no evidence to prove, that he is in part talking about people like me how mostly stay out of the political stuff but who post reality / physics / factual based rebuttals to his flat earth related postings.
1 72414dreams 2018-08-30
Nailed it
1 Imma_trigger_you 2018-08-30
If you believe in your words and only type what you can mostly back up with other evidence then you can easily defeat shills.
There's two types of people those who shill and those who lie about it. Just what are we "shilling" for and why is that cause more worthy of our shill than others?
Since we are using it as a catchall and verb.
1 labledcrazy 2018-08-30
I disagree, shills, bottom spooks and useless idiots need to be called out and identified.
You're right about the information war though, but limiting our capabilities to combat this war only hinders us.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-08-30
Did you read the Johnstone piece I linked? Do you agree with her?
1 labledcrazy 2018-08-30
Right off the bat with the headline I disagree.
That is my point too, these shills, bottom spooks and useful idiots are easy to argue with, truth will always beat lies.... To say I have no argument against these parasites is flat out wrong....
Again, we should be able to identify and label humanity's enemies, otherwise we will continue losing this war.
1 Raven9nine9 2018-08-30
I believe it is necessary and valid to call out the shills for who and what they are when they respond to a post or comment with a personal attack on the user. The shill absolutely is the enemy of the political activist, the human rights activist, the whistleblower or the truther because the shills purpose is to discredit that person in the eyes of the masses they are trying to reach, therefore discrediting the information they are trying to share without actually discussing or debating that information.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-08-30
I give you my word: not here, this thread only.
1 kit8642 2018-08-30
Okay! Have at it then.
1 procgen 2018-08-30
Isn't everyone pushing a narrative? Aren't you?
1 kit8642 2018-08-30
womp womp wwwwwoooooommmmmppppp.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-08-30
Did you read the Johnstone piece I linked? Do you agree with her?