[dymk]

"Just asking questions" in the form of "So, why are your comments all <about this>" isn't impolite; it's engaging in bad-faith tactics to silence a point of view, and an implication that the user is a shill.

It's not even a reasonable accusation; the comments from the user supposedly supporting facebook is actually just three fairly thought out, nuanced comments.

[inflatableDodo]

Looking through, seeing as you are now amusingly encouraging me to analyse another person's post history; Only 3 posts, posted over the course of a year, all only in support of facebook. I wouldn't confidently mark the account as subtle astroturfing, could be an extremely lazy but also seemingly enthusiasic facebook fan, but it raises an eyebrow now you draw my attention to it. I mean, shilling does exist. As to your closing point, the existence of some nuance to an argument doesn't have any real bearing on the possibility of a given account indulging in shilling. It may be unreasonable, but if it is, it is not because of that.

[dymk]

I never said it was bad form to just look at comment history. What’s bad form is the users tactic to sic a downvote mob on them for having an unpopular opinion.

[inflatableDodo]

So it's bad because by mentioning someone's comment history it somehow deprives another entirely seperate group of people from having personal agency and tricks them into downvoting? Does this make sense?

edit - also, where is this downvote mob? Are you saying that the comment in question should have far more ego points than it does? The comment is not greyed out. And if so, how do you know?