I was reading how the Clinton campaign had paid trolls on social media message boards who would argue for her case. I have no doubt other politicians, special interest groups, and maybe some corporations do the same.
So I’d like to ask, has this board ever had any paid trolls? I guess you spot them by them basically staying on one issue and continually arguing a point.
How would that look different from half of our regular posters? 
That’s a definition of troll I’ve never seen. I would call such a person a plant or a shill not a troll.
Professional, no. But we do have a number of “talented” amateurs.
We’ve had a couple of one-shot posters come in and talk about how awesome Putin and Russia are compared to western countries, and some of them I suspected of being paid shills. On the other hand, maybe they’re Russian nationalists for free.
I suspect it’s a lot easier to tell your actual followers to flood social media rather than to pay fake followers.
How do I get a job as a paid shill or troll? Is the OP hiring?
I’m assuming the spam is paid-for, if it’s not bots. But those may be paid for as well.
U.S. Uncut is a site that is highly partisan in favor of Sanders. In calling such commentators “trolls” they are essentially trolling themselves.
I can’t recall anyone who appeared to be a paid political shill. We’ve had obsessive posters posting in favor of a candidate or agenda but I can’t imagine anyone paying them for it.
Paid political shill = anyone who argues against your candidate.
It’s more of a Facebook issue, since people tend to friend others with similar views.
Not sure about “professional trolls” but we have had quite a few “concern trolls” come and go FWIW.
This board is run by a cadre of highly talented, Johnny on the spot moderators. They work out of an annex to the Al Gore mansion in Nashville where he runs the internet, NOTHING escapes their unblinking eyes.
I can’t think of anyone on this MB who continuously posts anti-Hilary threads. Can you?
Just wish I was being paid.
But then their is always a Hillary supporter ready with their own stats so hmmmm…
I wouldn’t quit my day job. 
I once suspected in the past that some accounts only went active in the 18 months before a presidential election and then went dormant again a month or two after it.
The idea was soundly ridiculed by the other posters as well as the Mods, who have access to full data on who posts where and when in an easily sortable format.
TL;DR ___ No.
There was/(is?) one poster that I do suspect of having ties to an industry group. He had two superficially disparate hobby horses which constituted the vast majority of his posts, both of which would benefit the industry in question.
Other than that, I have no offerings besides the possibilities of drive-bys occasionally.
I know who you’re referring to, and I always thought be might be a paid shill, too. He certainly gave a hell of an impressive imitation of being one, if he wasn’t.
Unless I’m missing something, I don’t see evidence in the linked story or in a CTR release that the group is paying people to post pro-Clinton messages on social media under the guise that they’re just regular folks.
It’s especially hard to believe claims of plants/astroturfing when they involve websites and forums with limited audiences (sorry, but the SDMB probably isn’t big-time enough to be worth paying people to post here).
It gets even more ludicrous when you’re talking about a message board or comments section with only a handful of participants, and someone insists that you’ve got to be a paid troll because you refuted their jackass claim. A company with a multimillion dollar ad budget is hardly going to find it efficient to hire scads of minions to (for instance) patrol Amazon book reviews comment sections to reinforce the corporate line.
You might be surprised at the idiotic, useless nonsense big companies spend money on.
You’re using “US Uncut” as a source?
A word to the wise: don’t.
Assuming you want accuracy in your media reports, that is.