Every now and then I notice that a new Doper will post to Great Debates as their very first thread. And lately it seems to be along the lines of:
“I consider myself pretty liberal, but I think Bush’s tax cut is great.”
“I’m normally very pro-choice, but the thought of abortion grosses me out.”
“I voted for Bush in 2000 but there’s no way in hell I will in 2004, that other guy seems nifty.”
So the question is, if NGO’s are using this board to spread their ideas, is that right? Would that be considered trolling?
And if they aren’t, why aren’t they? Seems like a moderately affective medium, what’s stopping them?
I was thinking back to a rumour I heard about Christina Aguilera, that as she was coming out, people affiliated with her started talking about her on internet chat rooms to help boost her popularity–artificially.
So, will any Dopers admit that they are simply posting as part of an organisation?
NGO == Non Governmental Organization. It’s overstated bureaucratese for “Organization”, which is inferior because it can’t be replaced with an opaque acronym.
NGO’s are Non-Governmental Organizations, like Greenpeace.
I was wondering if groups like Greenpeace designate people to sit in front of a computer all day and post on message boards.
Keep an eye out for someone that makes their very first post in Great Debates with a very political agenda like, “According to Greenpeace, the world is in trouble, what do you guys think? I don’t normally agree with them but this time they were bang on.” Made me suspicious.
Yes. I am the head of a NGO called The Guinastasia Society. Its sole aim is to express and encourage the beliefs and politics held by it’s namesake and founder-me.
Let’s keep the ridicule to a dull roar. Because the OP has a perfectly valid question, and it’s a reasonable thing to debate.
As more and more people concentrate on high volume internet sites, it’s only reasonable to assume that we’re going to be the recipients of guerrilla marketing. Not just of political positions and candidates, but I wouldn’t be surprised to soon find sales managers for Ford or Ray-Ban or Kellogg’s hiring people to go on message boards and tout their products.
This has already happened in the stock market. The stock market message boards are regularly bombarded by ‘touts’ who come along and drop hints about stocks that are about to go through the roof. This happens especially with penny stocks, where even a couple of people making purchases can move the stock price.
For example, I notice that the thread, “Why do Republicans hate the poor” has 1707 views as of now. That’s a respectable number of people, all of whom are politically engaged. Prime targets for a guerrilla marketing movement. Good bang for the buck.
Howard Dean is running a ‘horizontal’ campaign. Instead of going the traditional route of hiring ad managers and paying money for television ads and stuff, he’s got a blog. He’s no doubt got volunteers out pounding the virtual pavement for their guy, too. Hell, it’s a lot easier than going door-to-door in the winter. Why take all that effort to talk to one person, when you can post a message on the SDMB and have it be read by thousands?
In fact, as more companies and agencies figure out that there is a lot of power in the new communities on the internet, I expect it will become a royal pain in the ass. If some guy leaves a message about how great his new Ford Escape is, we’ll have to wonder if it’s real, or if it’s some salesman sitting in his office writing his 50th message of the day.
I’ll bet the ‘reader reviews’ on places like Epinions.com and Amazon.com are already flooded with fake reviews by people with a vested interest in the products being reviewed.
I wondered that last week. I was reading threw a list of scathing reviews for a really bad movie, but the very first one couldn’t say enough good things about it.
I’m fairly sure Amazon has been caught out before by reviewers pretending to be the author, or by reviewers who (it’s been alleged) were just writing puff pieces for the publishers.
There have been times when someone’s argument is so poor, so ludicrous, that I’ve wondered if they were faking belief in their argument to make that side look foolish.
I’ve had too many run-ins with internet fakers to take anyone’s word for anything, but when I see the same faces (well, names) and they have consistent personalities, I do tend to trust that they believe what they say.
The tactic described in the OP certainly seems to be in use in some places- if not by political groups, by promoters for commerical enterprises. For example, I take part in an herbalism forum, and there are occasionally posts from someone who registers with the board one day and the very next is promoting some processed remedy or other, with (surprise) a link to the site selling it. I suspect lots of these folks are shills for the website operator.
I’ve learned to be somewhat wary of new or relatively new posters with facile, provocative threads on sensitive topics - especially those dealing with race, religion or ethnicity.
I’m not sure where you make the distinction or draw the line.
For instance: I’d like to have a Green party candidate in the whitehouse. The only trouble with that idea is that I’m lucid and I’m not hallucinating. So I’ll stump for Dean. Depending on how the dice fall I may stump for Kerry. A debate forum is a legitimate place to air your opinions. I’m not sure that becoming an activist for a cause and wholeheartedly embracing your beliefs in it and wanting to espouse them should disenfranchise you from the forum.
It seems more of an ethical question of whether you are being honest and forthright about your position with those whom you are trying to sway.
I’d hate to see this place become a house of spam. But I believe for instance in mega dosing vitamin C for health, and in using 5-htp for a variety of low serotonin ailments. I don’t currently own a company, or stock in a company, or any vested interest in promoting the use of these products. But if I choose to go in that direction because it is something I beleive in, should that preclude me from espousing those beliefs? Nah.
I think the only reasonable alternative is for the masses to remain skeptical and vigilent and call bullshit on insincere hired hacks promulgating snake oil. There are intelligent minds here that shred logical fallacy. We need only fear NGO's if we lose faith in our own intelligence and those of our brethren in Cecil.
This is where reputation comes into play. Internet societies seem to have had an automatic feedback system to cull out all but the most determined gorilla marketers. If someone comes on with 3 posts and tout the amaing benifits of their ford explorer, they will be treated with a great deal more scepticism than if someone who has 10,000 posts and 3 years history. How many people are willing to put in that amount of effort just to pimp a product?
Someone may not put in that history with the original intent of shilling for a product, but I can imagine someone who already has such a history being offered enticements (e.g. financial or free products) in return for it. I suppose companies or organizations (or even governments) could even “buy” existing online identities and then use them as they see fit.
Yes, but the cost/benifit ratio doesn’t work out in their favour. As soon as it becomes blatantly obvious that a person is pimping a product, their reputation goes down teh drain regardless of postcount. And sooner or later, your going to run out of people with high postcounts who are willing to sell them. Plus, any company which even ATTEMPTS such a thing would probably get slandered all over the web if anyone finds out. In the end, they cant do it themselves and they cant use anyone elses accounts.
