[BrianOnHN]

Dang, I think that's a solid response. Thank you.

The theory behind SSM seems well thought out.

I think it would be helpful to enlighten people about the SSM when noting that a response is breaking the rules for an accusation of astroturfing.

For me, I think a brief explanation that well formed arguments are the only defense against an SSM would have removed a feeling of helplessness derived from reading your initial comment. And instead, lead me down a path which could really be helpful.

[dang]

That's great feedback. I only thought of that "SSM" wording just now but will try to weave it into future explanations. You can see that this argument has been cooking for a while: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23839602. There are lots of other instances but I can't think of a search query to dig them up.

[pvg]

The theory behind SSM seems well thought out.

And it's fun to extend in the obvious ways. For instance, what if a SSM (an 'essessum', as they are often referred to in the technical literature) is orchestrating a campaign to write comments insinuating astroturfery into HN threads? After all, taken as a group such comments look very much like the kind of commentary a nefarious corporate or state actor might promote, as pointed out by the shillologists themselves! A curious and under-explored connection.

[shostack]

As someone looking to learn more, can you suggest any specific technical literature on the topic that digs further into this?

[pvg]

I'm just being overly self-satisfied with the idea a shadowy army of shillologists and astoTERFs are diabolically manipulating HN by darkly warning about shilling and astroturfing for unknown but definitely nefarious ends.