Jocelyn Campbell wrote:I've heard a concern that just signing up for this kind of webinar, SBA and Yelp Present: Success With Online Reviews (2 sessions in Feb. 2014), will put the attendee on a government watch list
paul wheaton wrote:Even if the story is entirely fiction, I think that most of the details are perfectly accurate.
I know, for a fact, that corporate trolls exist. I suspect that there are about 40,000 people that work as corporate trolls at any given moment - and that this is a growth industry.
paul wheaton wrote:I didn't create it. Somebody else created it. And then they made me an admin of the page and un-admin-ed themselves.
I know very little about fb. I know that a lot of people spend almost all day there - any one of those people knows about 30 times more than I do.
I reluctantly created an fb page about seven years ago. Jocelyn talked me into it.
I check there about once a week.
Currently, Jocelyn and Destiny seem to post stuff at the fan page.
Recently there was a post there of a meme that we created years ago.
I didn't even notice the post until two days later.
I know that years ago it would go up on facebook and there were 95% positive comments and one of the negative comments was something like "prove it!" - so I added my "quickie proof" to this thread: https://permies.com/t/16161/md/Subsidies-penalties-true-cost-food
This was a quote that was trimmed from a podcast I recorded about the movie farmageddon.
If I remember correctly, there was a point in the movie where a woman was talking about how difficult it was to get organic certification for her little farmers market stand. Not only the fees, but the monthly paperwork was three inches thick.
Back to the recent post on facebook ..... here is some of the stuff that appeared on the paul wheaton fan page in response to this meme ....
When you compare conventional produce and organic produce, there is no nutritional benefit of one vs the other. However buying organic food gives you an innate desire to be an asshole, to tell others how crappy their food choices are, to justify one's position with whatever made up stats they can think of, and to follow people like David Wolfe and Vani Hari. Oh and, you become gluten intolerant overnight too.
Organic agriculture gets -plenty- of subsidies. As far as I know, there are no organic 'penalties'.
Could you please cite your sources for this information? Specifically, what organic penalties are there? And what subsidies are only available to conventional farmers?
Why say "chem-ag"? Organic has just as many syllables as the word chemical. Oh wait, you're trying to make it sound bad so you can scare people. Nice try though.
I love how organic proponents all seem to be under the hugely mistaken impression that organic means pesticide-free, which is patently untrue. USDA Organic-approved pesticides are generally more toxic than synthetic pesticides, and includes known carcinogens.
The only reason Organics cost more is because fool's will pay more, you know, "suckers". Unless it's the fact Organics use more pesticides.
Are you implying that "organic" methods of production don't utilize matter?
Link to the data and analyses used to reach that conclusion?
A quote on a pretty picture passes for evidence these days?
Care to provide evidence and data to support these claims?
When you lie out your ass to continue to spread fear instead of facts and truth.
In what wonderland do you live in Mr. Wheaton? That's some funny math you got there.
Did you... Did you just quote yourself?
"Paul Wheaton makes up bullshit"
I'd really like to see citations for this...
What absolute bollocks
I think I just copied about 3/4 of the comments that were at the top level. There were some permies that tried to help these folks but they were pretty shouted down.
Mark Hornbaker: Yea Paul Wheaton, where's the link to back up this claim? What do expect us to do? Use our own brains, type in a search and research this on our own??? That's completely unacceptable!! Funny thing, I just watched a 2+ hour video of yours where talked about this very thing. What was the phrase you used? People expect you to be their own personal google b@$ch ?
The thing I once read which I think is funny is "I'm not your fucking google mommy!"
So .... I say something in a podcast and somebody pops it into a meme. Somebody else creates a fb fan page. And a third person posts the meme to the page. Apparently I am responsible for monitoring all of this and making myself available for responding to the crazy.
I wonder if any of these folks are paid corporate trolls?
The important thing is: I am glad that we have a forum where we can talk about the things we want to talk about in the way we want to talk about them.
bob: chevy transmissions always give out in a year.
steve: You lost me, I would never give up my ford pickup.
ed: Chevy? Seriously?
walter: everybody knows that chevy rusts out eleven times faster than anything else.
susan: I think what you mean to say is that you got swindled into a chevy.
mick: Is it just me or are the new chevy designs really ugly?
dan: A few months ago I test drove a chevy and "new car smell" was replaced with "toxic waste smell." There is no way I would allow my children in a chevy.
joe: after three months of shopping for a new pickup and test driving what seemed like a hundred trucks, I went with ford. In hindsight, I regret all that time spent shopping.
abe: my cousin end up stranded on a busy bridge just four days after buying a brand new chevy truck. He is trying to take it back, but the dealership won't touch it.
bill: Chevy is going under. When they are gone, you won't be able to get parts. And you will need parts.
andy: I think the older chevies are okay - probably on par with the older fords, but the newer chevies are using cheaper parts but the price has not gone down. I advise people to steer clear.
jane: I think you should sell that chevy while you can.
paul wheaton wrote:I think a lot of corporate troll stuff is blamed on "internet trolls" and I need to point out that there is a huge difference:
internet trolls: Will say anything to get a rise out of people. Will knowingly state blatantly false stuff just to see people get upset. Will typically post hundreds of posts from the same account in a short period of time. More likely to write really long posts.
corporate trolls: They have a job to do. They need to get a rise out of people to draw attention to their message. Will usually be managing a dozen accounts (sock puppets) simultaneously. The sock puppets will agree with each other and work really hard to discredit anybody with a contrary message. Posts will usually be pretty short. Each account will usually have just a few posts. Sometimes the account will have posting history, but any one account will almost never write a lot of posts within one hour.
Internet trolls, or just "trolls" have been around for decades. Bored people that just want to find some way to get noticed and don't care about the consequences of their actions.
Corporate trolls are fairly new. Just the last five years or so. But they have become really huge in the last two or three years. I would guess that 60% of the comments posted on the internet come from corporate trolls now.
Expect PR bullshit any minute now. I occasionally share this comment I made a while back on threads I think might be swamped by PR Workers -
Former PR worker here, 99% of our job is to convince people that something that is fucking them over is actually good for them. The whole concept of 'shills' has somehow became a conspiracy theory when in reality it's just PR workers who are paid by a company to defend their product/service. My last job was defending fracking.
Anytime a post containing keywords was submitted to a popular website we where notified and it was our job to just list off talking points and debate the most popular comments. Fracking was an easy one to defend because you could paint people as anti-science if they where against it. The science behind fracking is sound and if done properly is safe, so you just focus on this point. You willfully ignore the fact that fracking is done by people who almost never do it properly and are always looking to cut corners.
Your talking points usually contain branching arguments if people try to debate back. For example my next point would be to bring up that these companies are regulated so they couldn't cut corners or they would be fined, all the while knowing that these agencies are either underfunded or have been captured by the very industry they are trying to regulate.
The final talking point, if someone called you out on all your counterpoints, was to simply try to paint them as a wackjob. Suggest they are crazy for thinking agencies who are suppose to protect them have been bought and paid for. Bring up lizard people to muddy the waters. A lot of people will quickly distance themselves from something if it is accused of being a conspiracy theory, and a lot of them are stupid enough that you can convince them that believing businesses conspiring to break the law to gain profit is literally the same as believing in aliens and bigfoot.
Edit: Just to clarify I am not an expert in the field of fracking, I am just a PR worker who worked on a fracking campaign and used it as an example. I got into a few heated debates about fracking in replies to this comment and some things I said might be wrong because as I said I am not an expert. I don't want this to take away from the actual point of this comment which is to make people aware of PR workers and how they try to sway online discussions.
David Livingston wrote:Apart from heavily policed spaces like permies its a race to the bottom out there.