Federal government routinely hires internet trolls, shills to monitor chat rooms, disrupt arti

[JoshLowry]

http://www.columbuspolice.org/Units/TEW Info/recognizing_sleepers_word2007trifold.pdf

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/358624

Somebody make a new FPIAC doc.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I have no idea when Willis got a wiki page. I have no idea what Willis told Brakey the first time he met him. Did he say "I was a spy for INSCOM and the NSA for 10 years, I should be National Committeeman." At some point I was aware that he worked for the military in some capacity. Working for the Military isn't a red flag. I can imagine a number of soldiers who would fight in wars might prefer a candidate who wanted fewer wars. However, someone who is part of the humongous spy apparatus in the DC area would not want to see someone who wanted to slash his employers budget elected. It just doesn't make sense.

Maybe it's because Willis associates with--uh, what did the co-chair of RNC call it?--oh yeah, the wrong people. Maybe it has nothing to do with conspiracy but just good old fashioned prejudice.



http://waldo.villagesoup.com/center/news


News sources were recently afire with the defection of Mark Willis from the Republican Party. Willis ran for chair of the Republican National Committee earlier in the year, only to be defeated by Reince Priebus. Supporters of Willis immediately cried foul, to the extent that prominent Republicans ignored the will of its members, and instead installed a status quo candidate.

New revelations have uncovered that Willis' support from the "wrong groups" might have gotten in the way. That is at least the sentiment from RNC co-chair, Sharon Day. Day was recently quoted by a Boston newspaper, saying, in effect, that the will of the people is usually done. Day said that many in the party were very uncomfortable with Willis's support from LAMBDA, an organization that provides legal defense and counsel to LGBT persons.

Day maintains that the Republican Party is still a big tent organization, but lamented the vocal support Willis received from LAMBDA. "Many in our party are still not comfortable with certain groups being very vocal regarding candidate support," she said. She continued by saying that she personally had no problem with it; however she cautioned that "...if those with the purse strings are uncomfortable, then you're going to have a hard time winning anything. Some of these people start to question your personal motivations and separating that from professional affiliation." Day declined to comment if the funders were questioning anything regarding Willis' personal life, only saying that Willis has been married a long time with two children.

The recent revelations, once again, stir the debate on whether the Grand Old Party is really focused on becoming a truly big tent party, or if the old prejudices will continue to plague it. Day is seemingly one of the minority of Republicans who are optimistic, but others, such as the Tea Party, may have ushered in a new era. Day acknowledged that it remains to be seen if 2016 will result in a serious fracturing, and perhaps a total rethinking of the party's place in American politics.

 

[UWDude]

Of course there are paid government shills. They are all over youtube. They tend to have no videos in their playlist and history, or have a list of music videos they watched a few months before the recent post.

And when it's revealed by a whistleblower or FOIA documents, we'll hear a bunch of apologists make excuses, or tell us, "well duh, I think everybody already knew that, it just makes sense the government would do that" just like they did when Snowden revealed the NSA is spying on everyone and recording everything.

 

[BlackTerrel]

Of course there are paid government shills. They are all over youtube. They tend to have no videos in their playlist and history, or have a list of music videos they watched a few months before the recent post.

And when it's revealed by a whistleblower or FOIA documents, we'll hear a bunch of apologists make excuses, or tell us, "well duh, I think everybody already knew that, it just makes sense the government would do that" just like they did when Snowden revealed the NSA is spying on everyone and recording everything.

To what benefit are they posting on youtube? Has public opinion ever shifted based on comments on youtube?

I don't think any opinion has ever shifted over those comments. It's just people trolling each other for the most part.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

To what benefit are they posting on youtube? Has public opinion ever shifted based on comments on youtube?

I don't think any opinion has ever shifted over those comments. It's just people trolling each other for the most part.

Some of those youtube comments scroll faster than the toilet paper roll in my house. One comment might be read by 5 people on a viral video.

Some people actually think that a viral video with 2 million hits in a few days was organically viewed by almost 2 million different people. It's kind of like those internet reviewers of movies, books, and products who review things they've never viewed, used, touched, or even heard of.

 

[UWDude]

To what benefit are they posting on youtube? Has public opinion ever shifted based on comments on youtube?

I don't think any opinion has ever shifted over those comments. It's just people trolling each other for the most part.

Public opinion has shifted greatly because of comments all over the internet. It is serious business, and probably one of the most influential shapers of public opinion. That's why the united states is not bombing Syria right now. It's not because the MSM told everyone about the rebels being al-queada, and it's not because people are looking for videos of al queada in Syria. It's because people are posting links all over social media, forums, and youtube, and battling each other.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Ahem, Doug Wead.

He was a shill for the Bush campaign back when Bush was running for office. What kind of shill, I do not know, but he claims to have been a shill nonetheless.

Yeah, there are no such thing as shills. Pay no mind to the ever increasing encroachments of our liberty and how dangerously close we are to a second revolution. Government would never hire people to try and sway public opinion to ensure that they keep their control over a failing system of government. COINTELPRO and Operation Mockingbird were only legitimately implemented to stir up a hornet nest of conspiracy theories. Yeah... that sounds about right.

Doug Wead was a "debate shill" - i.e., he was a "stand in" for Bush's debate opponents in practice sessions before a presidential debate. Wead would pretend to be one of the opponents Bush would face in the debate and try to trip Bush up and such like things. People who play those roles in debate preparations are called "debate shills" (or merely "shills") - it has nothing to do with the kind of shills and shillings being discussed in this thread.

 

[BlackTerrel]

Public opinion has shifted greatly because of comments all over the internet. It is serious business, and probably one of the most influential shapers of public opinion. That's why the united states is not bombing Syria right now. It's not because the MSM told everyone about the rebels being al-queada, and it's not because people are looking for videos of al queada in Syria. It's because people are posting links all over social media, forums, and youtube, and battling each other.

It's a reach. Most Americans don't know what is happening in Syria and don't care. They just don't want to use American money or people on a conflict we have no side in.

BTW why did all those MSM polls come out and tell us that the vast majority of Americans were against intrevention in Syria?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

There's always a lot of factors that go into these things. There is no doubt that telecommunications like the internet play a part. The once monopolized media now has to compete with sources like Youtube. You now see the mainstream new sources sometimes following the lead of alternative new sources.

You can't discount Russia. There is a reason those senators wrote that letter to Lew to try to put the squeeze on Russian banks' money. You also just don't casually and aggressively engage countries like Syria and Iran.

Some of it is also just the force of history. The cyclical nature of things means Asia is going up, and we're going down. I've said for a long time that the US has been on the decline since 1960. Most notable is the general falloff of GDP since that time. People are now finally starting to recognize that Iraq was really just another version Vietnam, in that we are desperately trying to stop the setting sun on the American empire. You just can't build an empire by enslaving a whole race of one people and committing genocide on another race. The chickens have now come home to roost, and no amount of propaganda can change that reality.

The focus has definitely turned inward. We have turned on one another like a mother eating her young, and some in the world like that just fine. A collapsing America will mean more desperation and more government paranoia. Everybody is a potential enemy. Telecommunications and history however, have come together at the right moment. Some Americans will still try in vain to stop the collapse, but the inertia will be too much for anyone and everyone.

 

[UWDude]

It's a reach. Most Americans don't know what is happening in Syria and don't care. They just don't want to use American money or people on a conflict we have no side in.

There have always been large swaths of people that knew little of politics. This is nothing new.

BTW why did all those MSM polls come out and tell us that the vast majority of Americans were against intrevention in Syria?

They tried their best to make it look like it was close in many cases... ...but the comments sections in every news story on the internet made sure they couldn't fudge it too much. Read any comment section about Syria, and note the overwhelming majority opposing. Any body that ever read a comments sections will notice that 95% of the comments oppose intervention, for a host of reasons.

But believe me, the media tried to hide it, the media tried to make the polls look close, the media tried to make it look like polls were trending towards support, but in the end, the MSM failed. The oft quoted "only 9% support it" poll showed more than 9% support. Many polls showed over 40% support for some sort of intervention, but in all the comments, in social media, everywhere on the internet, it was and is clear to anyone the numbers are far, far lower than 40 or even 20%.

The MSM has failed. And a failure this catastrophic means that they will never come back. But that doesn't mean the CIA, NSA et al are just going to give up and cede the propaganda machine's controls to the people. Nope, they will try and astro turf like the cheap lie peddlers they are.

No amount of paid shills can stop a mass mutiny like that.

 

[pcosmar]

Somebody make a new FPIAC doc.

As I remember (and I am getting old) I wanted to make the FPIAC a bit broader,, and not focused on just Missouri.

 

[BlackTerrel]

They tried their best to make it look like it was close in many cases... ...but the comments sections in every news story on the internet made sure they couldn't fudge it too much. Read any comment section about Syria, and note the overwhelming majority opposing. Any body that ever read a comments sections will notice that 95% of the comments oppose intervention, for a host of reasons.

But believe me, the media tried to hide it, the media tried to make the polls look close, the media tried to make it look like polls were trending towards support, but in the end, the MSM failed. The oft quoted "only 9% support it" poll showed more than 9% support. Many polls showed over 40% support for some sort of intervention, but in all the comments, in social media, everywhere on the internet, it was and is clear to anyone the numbers are far, far lower than 40 or even 20%.

The MSM has failed. And a failure this catastrophic means that they will never come back. But that doesn't mean the CIA, NSA et al are just going to give up and cede the propaganda machine's controls to the people. Nope, they will try and astro turf like the cheap lie peddlers they are.

No amount of paid shills can stop a mass mutiny like that.

Why were the comments sections so overwhelming when the fed government is hiring so many internet trolls?

I also don't think internet comments are necessarily representative. Most people don't comment and I don't think most even read the comments. Many youtube videos will have 3 million views and 5,000 comments (made by 1,000 people). It's a specific demo that comments and reads the comments - it isn't necessarily representative of the people who are actually reading the story.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

http://www.columbuspolice.org/Units/TEW Info/recognizing_sleepers_word2007trifold.pdf

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/358624

Somebody make a new FPIAC doc.

lol... same regurgitated shit. Sounds like it's right out of the Gestapo/SS-Stasi-Министерство внутренних дел Российской Федерации-NKVD/KGB handbooks. These are the exact policies the U.S. was fighting and routinely was headlined public mockery during the Cold War. Just goes to show you, ANY excuse and reason will be given to maintain absolute control on everyone and set the dialectic for the 'Enemy of the State'.

Attitude Indicators:

* Excusing violence against Americans on
the grounds that American actions
provoked the problem
* Fury at the West for reasons ranging from
personal problems to global policies of the
U.S.
* Conspiracy theories about Westerners (e.g.
the CIA arranged for 9/11 to legitimize the
invasion of foreign lands)

 

[UWDude]

Why were the comments sections so overwhelming when the fed government is hiring so many internet trolls?

No amount of paid shills can stop a mass mutiny like that.

I also don't think internet comments are necessarily representative. Most people don't comment and I don't think most even read the comments. Many youtube videos will have 3 million views and 5,000 comments (made by 1,000 people). It's a specific demo that comments and reads the comments - it isn't necessarily representative of the people who are actually reading the story.

yes. the demographic that cares. we have already discussed that there will always be large swaths of the population that do not care about politics, and that demographic is irrelevant to this conversation.

 

[TheGrinch]

I'm not sure how this is news. This has been going on since the very beginning of the internet.

This. And it's not like that many have to be paid. There are plenty of willing participants. 2PRTY4TW!!!

 

[Carson]

Back in the 60s and 70s it was documented that the CIA would infiltrate small peaceful organizations and try to get them to do violent things. These were groups of like 20 or 30 people.

There are thousands of visitors here every day and we had a huge community during the elections. Some people here are preparing to defend themselves during a possible civil war. There is no way in hell this place is empty of feds, that is just completely preposterous.

I remember a story from back in the sixties where some of the ■■■ or others infiltrated the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party during the Greensboro Massacre and I'm thinking they gave the orders that turned it in to a mess that got the groups shut down for a while.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_massacre


Here's that word... and a link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

"FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover issued directives governing COINTELPRO, ordering FBI agents to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize" the activities of these movements and their leaders.[10][11] Under Hoover, the agent in charge of COINTELPRO was William C. Sullivan.[12] Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, although himself the target of FBI surveillance[citation needed], personally authorized some of these programs."


greensboro massacre 1979
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV07Z5C2kHg


I'm also reminded of a some sort of rally a while back where some of the people had sticks and rocks or something and tried to lead a charge but the organizers warned people off that they didn't belong. It turned out they were the police.

I think it's the one down the page where the cops are pretending to arrest the other cop infiltrators to try and get them out safely (Circled shoes.).

http://www.whale.to/c/agents_provocateurs.htm


Not that everyone that is mad as hell and isn't going to take it any more is an agent provocateur.

 

[BlackTerrel]

yes. the demographic that cares. we have already discussed that there will always be large swaths of the population that do not care about politics, and that demographic is irrelevant to this conversation.

You don't get 90% opposed by people not caring. The majority of people don't post or read the comments in youtube videos. The majority of the population was against Syria war.

There's also the point that I don't think anyone was swayed by those comments. The people posting already opposed invasion. I'd like to hear from someone who supported invasion and changed their mind after reading youtube comments.

 

[UWDude]

You don't get 90% opposed by people not caring. The majority of people don't post or read the comments in youtube videos. The majority of the population was against Syria war.

Many people do not even answer pollsters. They just hang up. And 90% is an inflated number anyway, peddled by Alex Jones. Find a poll showing 90% of the population opposes action in Syria.

There's also the point that I don't think anyone was swayed by those comments. The people posting already opposed invasion. I'd like to hear from someone who supported invasion and changed their mind after reading youtube comments.

it's not even like that. It is a long process, not a one time comment reading and all of the sudden someone's mind is changed.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

No, Grinch, we get the result we get because that is what most people want. The "They" in your private comment is most of the people.

 

[revned]

Doug Wead was a "debate shill" - i.e., he was a "stand in" for Bush's debate opponents in practice sessions before a presidential debate. Wead would pretend to be one of the opponents Bush would face in the debate and try to trip Bush up and such like things. People who play those roles in debate preparations are called "debate shills" (or merely "shills") - it has nothing to do with the kind of shills and shillings being discussed in this thread.

The fact remains that they hired someone to ingenuinely provoke false arguments and try to trip people up in debates. To say this has nothing to do with internet shills is overlooking the basic fact that they have paid people to engage in similar operations outside of the internet in the past. What's stopping them from doing the same exact thing through the internet? The internet is packed to the teeth with debate and happens to be one of the most influential mediums for political debate in current times. If anything, Wead's involvement as a shill for the Bush campaign shows that the model of the shill remains constant even through the internet.