[whoopdedo]

If I were being paid to influence a debate, especially being paid by the U.S. Government, the first thing I do is lots and lots of research. The easiest way to discredit someone is to point out technical ignorance in their argument. So I'd make my point technically sound on all points. I'd research the counter-argument so I have rebuttals to every knee-jerk response the amateurs on the internet will toss at me. I'd read other discussion threads and make note of writing styles that frequently engender agreement. After all, this is my job and I've got professional pride on the line.

And there are a lot of people on the job market who can do those things very well. It's something American schools have been teaching for decades. In my high school there was this thing called a forensics club. "What's forensics? Isn't that like crime stuff?" I asked. It was explained to me that they learn how to debate issues, like free speech on school grounds. "Well obviously we want free speech." "Actually", my friend says, "I'm going to be arguing against it." "You don't support free speech?" I ask. "I do. But I was assigned to the against side." I thought it sounded stupid. Now I get it. It was cognitive dissonance as a vocational lesson.

So it's the people who sound unusually well-informed that I most suspect of astroturfing. Except I assume they also practice how to make what they write not sound rehearsed.

[MisterWebz]

So if you were operating 50 accounts to try to influence the debate you'd be posting 50 informative and persuasive comments? I doubt it, that would take way too much time.

If I were an NSA shill I'd just mention something about Snowden harming the US or Snowden being a spy. It's a controversial and dumb argument so it's going to get a decent amount of replies. It also doesn't take much effort. You'd derail the conversation, and informative comments would be drowned out by a bunch of people arguing whether Snowden is a hero or traitor.

[whoopdedo]

You only have to write the argument once. Then use the social media management software that's being peddled to tweak the wording slightly so you have prepared text stating the same thing 50 different ways. Then if someone gives a counter-argument that you have a prepared response for, you can copy-paste that in a matter of seconds. Arguments you haven't prepared for are ignored because the goal isn't to engage in dialog, it's to give the false impression that a dialog is occurring. To an outside observer the forum would appear to be populated equally by people for and against the topic. Even though it's really an overwhelming support for one side and a single agent spamming with 50 different personalities.

Derailing a conversation works well because they will have a large number of responses prepared that talk about, using your example, Snowden being a traitor. So once they've wedged the issue their spam can become the dominant voice. If the discussion had drifted to an area they weren't prepared for, say the historical precedents for whistleblowers of government misdeeds, they probably don't have as much material for that.

My point is I assume astroturfed material would not be written off-the-cuff but meticulously edited ahead of time to give the desired impression. And near the top of that list must be the requirement that it not look like an obvious shill.

I wonder how effective it would be if agents were able to control both sides of the debate, even? A more sophisticated shill would give the appearance of supporting the opposition but will subtly help draw attention to the propaganda. A living straw man, as it were. Not unlike the way SWAT police will pretend to be violent protesters to goad troublemakers into doing something they can be arrested for.

[sroerick]

> A living straw man

The term is agent provocateur, I presume

[krapp]

I see nothing wrong with presenting a coherent argument backed up by research which accounts for opposing points of view, even if it's the US government doing the arguing. I would much rather they try to persuade people through dialogue than violence or subterfuge. And I wouldn't consider what you're describing to be subterfuge, necessarily.

[wfo]

Theoretically, my goal wouldn't be to influence debate. It would be to find places where thoughtful individuals discuss ideas like this that have an anti-current-government-position bent, and not put forth well reasoned thoughtful arguments. Instead I'd just throw out, en masse, the same tired fearmongering comments, surveillence apologist comments, accuse snowden of being a traitor, anything that would make the pro-democracy elements of this site feel like they are in the minority, or unwelcome. Then they leave, or comment less. Movement destroyed. A slew of garbage one liners about protecting freedom or trusting the secret ultra-powerful decision makers and all of a sudden anyone who has anything intelligent to say feels like, "why bother. This isn't the place for me, obviously. Maybe noone agrees with me."

Actually changing someone's mind through argument is almost impossible. On the internet I'd say it is impossible. So don't change minds, just make the people who disagree with you feel like the whole world is against them when actually they're in the majority.