Hey OP - Thanks for these articles. Especially the Ex-Shill one. It was disclosed a couple years back that the DOD was implementing (not creating or pondering) software that automated the shill process. Basically it would look for X,Y,Z talking points and respond with A,B,C. I developed a system like this when I was a teenager, so I can only imagine what modern ones are capable of.
This just goes to show: don't believe anything you read on the internet.
Like my finest teacher once said, "Believe nothing that you hear, and half of what you see." This skepticism is really the key to sanity when you dive into politics and the imaginary world of the interwebs.
Astroturfing falls into the second half of that old saying. People throw around accusations of "astroturfing" every time they disagree with a gaining political organization. For example, lots of people said the Tea Party was "astroturf" without ever really defining what that means, but in reality hundreds of thousands of Americans have shown up at Tea Party rallies, and millions upon millions support these groups for various reasons.
In this Guardian article Astroturf is defined as "the attempt to create an impression of widespread grassroots support for a policy, individual, or product, where little such support exists." I had previously thought the definition was, "an organization funded by special interests that attempts to disguise their group as a populist movement, when in fact little popular support exists."
Regardless, throwing around accusations of Astroturfing does little justice to anyone. I've worked with a variety of "progressive" and "left" groups, many local ones and some international in scale - when you get down to the nitty-gritty of running a 501c3, the real work is in FUND-RAISING. Everyone who's ever done management of a 501c3 knows that this makes or breaks the organization. Experienced fundraisers usually do not target a vast population, they target the rich folks almost exclusively. So, if I need $20,000 in seed money, I'll probably try and raise $5,000-$10,000 from 2,000+ donors, and $10,000 from 5 or 6 donors. Most experienced 501c3 fund raisers will run their campaign this way - it doesn't matter if they're from Earth First! or Mother Earth News or Code Pink or Iraq Veterans Against the War - everyone sucks the teat of the rich.
In order to suck the milk out of these ginormous tits of cash, you have to do a bit of creative truth bending. Always something along the lines of: "We're going to do X, Y, and Z, next year - it's going to change things! It's going to be BIG!" never "This money will keep me and two other people employed, so that we can do 10% work and 90% fund raising for next year." So, deception is another key element of 501c3 fund raising.
Here's my point: just about every 501c3 participates in astroturfing to one degree or another, it's not dishonest, it's just the way it is - and, some groups are better at it than others. The Tea Party excelled at it, the left antiwar movement sucked at it, and the green organizations do a pretty good job. This concept of For Profit Business "astroturfing" is bullshit, in my professional for profit business we call this "Marketing" which is nearly synonymous.
@Example - I've noticed a pretty big uptick in the number of comments alleging one person is "right wing" or "far right". Drop that stupid bullshit, please. Every time you call someone "Right Wing" you're saying "I'm a fucking moron and myopic left-winger that dismisses contrary points of view simply because they disagree with my own." Maybe you take pride in being a bigoted and prejudice left wing person? I don't know. Just accept people, thoughts, and ideologies for what they are, don't try and pigeonhole ideas into your preconceived notions about "left" or "right". There's many problems with this: 1) it never expedites anything. 2) It divides people. 3) It's all contrived, baseless, and made up to manipulate *you.*
Here's the prime example of how it fucks everything up: Is the anti-war movement a left-wing or right-wing platform? It's neither, for you can find people on both "sides" who want to end the wars for various (and sometimes identical) positions. What about civil liberties and civil rights? Is that left-wing or right wing? What about Justice? It is totally illogical or ignorant to believe that all political thought could be divided into this binary spectrum.
Inevitably you're going to come across someone who you share several points of view with, but maybe they'll be opposed to one or two things that you feel strongly about. You're left with a really simple option: work with this person, or do not work with this person. The latter is a foolish, illogical, and shortsighted decision; for disagreements occur naturally amongst people, and working with people you disagree with (especially those you disagree with) will always *help you* define and embolden your own viewpoints. If you are a left-wing person then you should feel compelled to work with people you disagree with out of the notion of "Solidarity." If you only talk with allies you're basically engaging in an intellectual circle jerk, except you all eat the cookie in the end. It's super useful to disagree with people and have dialog! Insults like "far right" really contribute nothing positive. Break out a thesaurus and at least call them a "bleeding asshole of impotence and idiocy."
It's much easier to adhere to principals of equality, justice, and humanitarian ends without partisan name calling. So please, drop that bullshit, and don't bring it back. Just accept people for who they truly are: either, useless or willing to help. There is no other divide that is important to you achieving your goals.
>>>So please, drop that bullshit, and don't bring it back.
Make us. You sound like a RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA WHORE. That btw was your predisposition to authoritarianism showing. You have a delusion you can shut people up by the force of your disapproval lol. This is NOT the same as wanting to shut down someone who is ORGANIZING VIOLENT RACISTS, for example. You're just trying to shut down someone because you don't want to be called out as a right wing douche. The ONLY way you will not be called out is if you have a friend volunteering for IMC who can delete all criticism you don't like...then it can LOOK like you're little temper tantrum "worked".
The fact is there's only one group that wants to convince people there is no right and left: far right racist douches who use a twisted brand of 'inclusiveness' as a cover to spread their shit.
Don't want to be called out as a right wing douche? DONT ACT LIKE A RIGHT WING DOUCHE.
BTW,
the left[NOT the Democratic party] = people working for equality for everyone
the right[NOT necessarily Republicans] = business and other political interests working to get ahead at everyone elses expense.
It's a fact. Deal with it.
Astroturf needs more fleshy definition from what Guardian UK attempted
Guardian UK article is good, but they neglect to point out --
while asserting that "the practice has been widespread ever since newspaper editors first invented the letters page" ...
that the term itself, 'astroturf' is named after a fairly recent invention.
Fake (plastic) grass.
Metaphor here, is key.
Grass is the metaphor for 'grassroots', meaning 'emerging organically from the populace' or 'from the average person'.
i.e. if some 'movement' or widely held thought(s) are 'grassroots' then it is emerging naturally and organically from a multitude of persons who constitute that movement.
But that only applies to _real_ (biological) grass.
Astroturf -- the plastic/polymer stuff of football stadium fame -- is artificial, and while it may appear to be green and look like 'blades of grass' it's not rooted in any soil, didn't grow itself (organically) FROM BELOW i.e. out of the ground, and moreover
is LAID DOWN artificially FROM ABOVE by persons who have pre-PAID for its manufacture.
When we go back to the meme/movement 'political'-style astroturf, this is most commonly done with LARGE amounts of money/funding.
getting -- often directly paying, via individual-person cash payouts, wages or even salaries -- people to show up for a demonstration or town meeting, for example.
From a FUNDing and payment perspective, it's simply another form of lobbying. (Though a stealthy / disguised / 'covert' one; a la Little Red Riding Hood, as concerns its outer appearance.)
As was seen for example, in the recent Tea Party 'movement'. (An outgrowth of a real 'grassroots' idea that started with a small group of former Ron Paulers, and then it was hijacked by the Koch Brothers media-brainwash machine. All kinds of 'Tea Party' protests, springing up 'organically' all over the U.S., but nearly 100% funded, organized, called, and backed by Koch & Co. This is extensively documented.)
So it relates to specific modes of FUNDING, as well as the ostensible appearance (real or fake/stealthy) of a particular movement / meme / whatever.
(and of course also, the
Guardian UK article was specifically dialing in to the online-automated variety; it wasn't their purpose in that article to give a full 'history' of the phenomonenon)
Wow, thanks for providing the ample evidence that you're just a myopic turd. How are those polysci classes at Portland State this term? Getting good grades, or is your professor a part of the right wing conspiracy and trying to shut you down? In either case, don't stop now: join up with some socialist group and talk about how & why "liberty" enslaves people. You are on a roll my friend, and the sky is the limit!
"You have a delusion you can shut people up by the force of your disapproval lol."
How could I, conceivably, "force" an anonymous person on the internet to do anything? Do you know what the word "force" means?
I was simply trying to educate the [now deleted] commentator. I would have thought you to be less delusional if you instead used the word "persuade", but you didn't. Hey, when was the last time you had a heart-to-heart with your father?
Also, please use any opportunity you can to refer to me or my ideas as a right wing douche. I get my kicks out it (if you call me a Republican, my dick moves a little).
Welcome to PIMC: the censors here are overzealous, giddy to disapprove, ideologically aligned, and they keep their public identity unknown for no good reason. It seems almost entirely contrary to antiauthoritarian principals. It's a blast!
Hey Rex - I know you're a surrender happy goon that loves to suck up to (and suck off) authority at any whim.
But here's something you may not be aware of about authorities... .
When they bark orders at you, they don't say "Please". I did, moron.
Here's another tip for you: When authorities start barking orders (which you've clearly never experienced), they usually have a gun on their hip, or the threat of violence is implied. This is yet another reason why I believe in distributing self-defense equally among people: to stop persuasion by force.
homepage: