Sockpuppet Management? How Would Someone Know?

[MineralMan]

There's some talk about organized efforts to field armies of sockpuppets to post on the Internet in concert. Automated software, supposedly, would allow them to generate multiple personas and disrupt discussion forums, comment areas, and more. And yet, there hasn't been any evidence presented that such is actually taking place on any widespread scale.

Such technology is certainly possible, but nobody I know of has come up with actual evidence of it happening in real life. Some people even seem to believe that there are such organized efforts right here on DU, along with on other forums and in various places, like Twitter and news comment threads all over the place. But the claims are all based on hunches and suspicions, rather than on actual evidence that it is happening.

It's easy to believe that a flurry of opinion that is the opposite of one's own must be done in some kind of organized way. However, it seems to me that there's plenty of opinionated people on both sides of every issue and that they aren't bashful about stating those opinions. Some phrases and memes are widely used on both sides of issues, so it's not surprising that they'd show up in postings on any of those venues. They aren't really evidence of sockpuppetry.

Still, nobody has been able to demonstrate any such organized, widespread use of such technology as sockpuppet management, in any real setting. Since only administrators of most sites can see things like IP addresses, this all seems like a lot of speculation.

It may be happening somewhere, at some level, but I'd sure like to see some evidence of it that makes it clear that such things are going on on a wholesale basis. I'll be watching for that evidence to be detailed.

Until then, I'll just go on believing that the people I see posting in various parts of the Internet are real people, posting whatever opinions they hold, right or wrong, and regardless of whether I agree or disagree with those opinions. Others can believe whatever they choose to believe.

Nota Bene: I'm one person, and only post on political forums and elsewhere with one persona. It's the same one I've used for many, many years, even before the Internet became popular. I never have more than one screen name on any site where I post. Never have. Never will.

[FarPoint]

1. I too only use one name....per site.

Anything more and I would drown in chaos just trying to remember the associated password.

[MineralMan]

2. Over 12 years ago, I started using the screen name I'm using now on

all political websites. I have another one for non-political sites. That's it. As you say, why complicate my life? These days, the only political site I ever post on is DU. I post on a couple of other non-political sites, but rarely. I could type all day long on websites, but I have to earn a living, so I type for money in my real-life business, which is writing website content for complete small business websites.

I write to live and live to write. That's my horrible little secret...

[RobertEarl]

4. Someone accuse you of being a sock-puppet?

We know you are a straight arrow. You may not grok reality and the new age of the internet, but you are no sock, MM. Don't worry about it. We got this.

[MineralMan]

7. Did I say that? I did not.

Why would you suppose that someone had so accused me?

[Cooley Hurd]

3. You won't know, except by their posts...

...for example, when they try to defend the indefensible (i.e. NSA data-mining and retention of that data indefinitely), that MIGHT be a clue about their true intentions.

[MineralMan]

11. Despite the common belief that some things are believed by

the majority, that still leaves a helluva lot of people who don't believe as you do. That does not mean that a few of those are pretending to be multiple people, conspiring together to oppose your viewpoint. There is a very wide range of beliefs out there, and each of them has lots and lots of people who believe similar things.

Some express themselves very well. Others do not, and merely mimic what someone else has said. Teabaggers are a common proof of that. If many people are expressing a certain point of view, that in no way is evidence that sockpuppets are in use.

[Cooley Hurd]

13. The corporate media has an awful lot to lose if they DON'T maintain the status quo

THAT'S why they attempt to assassinate the character of Greenwald and Snowden. If they didn't, they might lose their precious "access" to the WH, Congress, and every other entity that they allow to lie to them for that prescious fucking "access".

[Bluenorthwest]

79. A quote from Henry A Wallace:

"The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money and power."

[Zorra]

94. And what better way to spread poison than with sockbots?

Cuts labor costs, increases competition in the labor force, is more centrally controlled, and it can even be run from Bombay.

[treestar]

73. You're merely saying disagreement with you

What is "indefensible" is a matter of opinion.

[Ohio Joe]

5. It is called load balancing...

I recently simulated 1000 students taking a test from 20 instructors. It took me about two days to set up and debug/test before it worked. It took me that long because of the compexity of the test, not the number of people.

[MineralMan]

20. Yes. I once wrote a piece of software called "Flamer."

It was a freeware program that I created to test some artificial language algorithms I was working on. Centered around arguments about PC operating systems, it would generate messages of any length promoting or attacking one or another operating system for Intel-base PCs. The operating systems in question were MS-DOS, Windows, and OS/2.

Working from a large database of features, arguments, and general insults, it used sentence generating algorithms to create an unlimited set of multi-paragraph blocks of text. It could argue from any perspective and use the point of view that any of the three operating systems was so far superior to the others that the others were essentially useless.

No two posts were alike, and it could create posts of any length, and had options to control level of diction, complexity of sentence structure, and a number of other variables, including spelling abilities and grammar variations. A set of slider controls let you manipulate those variables.

The point of the exercise was for me to experiment with concepts for a piece of software that could create comprehensible, cogent text on any subject. By substituting different databases, it could be adapted to a wide range of topics.

I released it as freeware to stimulate more experimentation with language creation software. It worked quite well, but if you created a discussion using the software, the patterns became obvious over a period of time, if enough messages were generated. It wouldn't survive a real-world test with an audience of clever people for very long. In fact such tests were done by a group of folks who were also interested in developing artificial language generation. It was all preliminary research, but was tons of fun. I got busy, though, with other work, and did not continue development of the project. Others, however, may have. I don't know.

One thing that was certain, though, that nobody ever spotted individual messages created by the software as machine-generated. The output was quite good enough to not be recognized from a single sample. Presented with several samples, however, certain similarities in the overall structure made it suspicious.

Language creation algorithms have not progressed all that far, really, since then. Given a large enough sample of output, they can all be detected as artificial and not written by a real person. It was a fascinating experiment, though.

[leveymg]

27. Have you ever used it here?

You know, just to test it out in a "real-world" setting?

[MineralMan]

34. Nope. I don't even have a copy any longer.

It's probably out there somewhere on the Internet, though. The last time it ran on my computer was in 1996, and I was on CompuServe. I've moved on to other interests. Sorry.

[bemildred]

31. +1. That's right. nt

[Benton D Struckcheon]

6. It's called "poisoning the well"

Defined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Used by sophomoric people with zero critical thinking skills, and no tolerance for opposing opinions. That's all it is.

[kestrel91316]

8. Several online freelancer websites offer jobs that sound

very much like sockpuppet gigs. I assume many of them have a conservative political agenda. I have never bid on any of those jobs and would never do so.

[MineralMan]

23. Oh, the entire content mill industry is based on that.

Fortunately, that has slowed down somewhat, since Google improved its search algorithms. Content mills are going out of business right and left, and that's helping real content writers like me. The value of good content is becoming more appreciated, which means more work and better pay.

[leveymg]

29. If your work is creating real on-line content, perhaps you can share where you've posted it?

What is "good" content? Opinion that isn't algorithm-generated? If one can't readily tell the difference between machine chat and real first-person opinion, what is the value of the latter, other than it is more likely to pass through Google's filters?

This really is another interesting side of you.

[MineralMan]

37. There's a link in my signature line. At that link are a number of work

sample links for websites I've done. You're welcome to look at them. None have anything to do with politics, though. If you need some website content, you can contact me for a price quote. However, I only do complete small business websites, not individual pages or other web content. The link is there because I'm always looking for website projects.

I've been writing professionally since 1974. I'm good at it, and that's how I earn my living. DU is a hobby. When I'm not busy with paid work, I write here, because politics is something else I do, but on an unpaid basis.

At one time, I had a small software company, called OsoSoft. I closed it in 2004 and started a different company in a completely different field. I tend to change what I do every 10 years or so, and have had several different businesses, along with my magazine and other writing.

Knock yourself out.

[kestrel91316]

71. Yeah, I have found a few decent little temporary gigs that value actual writing.

I don't even try to get involved with any SEO type gigs, though. I can't write word salad to save my life.

[MineralMan]

72. All of my website content includes SEO, but it's not obvious.

Well done SEO content doesn't look or read oddly at all. Amateur SEO, though, does. Google can tell the difference.

[kestrel91316]

75. I actually have a 6 month blogging gig that does have a little SEO to it. They don't

ask for 10 uses of the same silly phrase in a 400 word post, unlike some of these clowns, lol.

[MineralMan]

88. These days, that's too many repetitions of the same phrase.

SEO needs to be balanced to be the most effective with Google's ranking algorithms. Instead of focusing on a single search key phrase in any page or posting, it's far better to use several different keywords or phrases. Keyword stuffing, which is what that 10 repetitions is, is a big no-no these days, and can actually cause Google to derank that page.

SEO has changed a lot. The web designer and SEO guy I work with on most of my projects spends most of his time analyzing Google results with regard to SEO. The sites we've built all rank within the top three searches for a wide variety of keywords and phrases related to the site, and we even get multiple listings at times on the first page of Google.

Anyhow, using multiple, sensible keywords and phrases on each page makes it a lot easier to write good content, and content is still what retains users on the site and converts them to leads and customers. Bad writing sends them to their back button.

[Your_Local_NSA_Agent]

9. That's just silly talk!

[Fumesucker]

14. I for one welcome our wise, benevolent and merciful new sockpuppet overlords

[leveymg]

30. What's the code, Richard?

[In_The_Wind]

43. Welcome to DU ... Your_Local_NSA_Agent

[hootinholler]

44. DUzy!

Oh, Um, "welcome"

[Pretzel_Warrior]

10. Oh no. There are people who can just tell. The programming is sophisticated enough

To engage them on any topic and provide insightful responses in disagreement, but somehow it has to be the work of highly sophisticated computer programs.

[MineralMan]

12. I believe you are correct. It's an easy way to dismiss

arguments opposed to one's own, I suppose.

[Cooley Hurd]

15. That soooooo goes both way, you realize?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

18. Yes, but the ones arguing FOR Obama are mindless web crawler bots. Their opinions don't matter

It is the REAL Democrats we're talking about here.

[Fumesucker]

16. Well that takes care of about ten percent of posters

What about the poo flinging monkeys? Do they have an algorithm for that yet?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

17. You are obviously a computer algorithm posting, so I won't dignify your auto-generated comment

With a response other than to say....geeks rule the world!

[MineralMan]

26. "poo flinging monkeys" is a string in an array.

Dim Insults$(count) as Array

To select an insult for any given sentence, I merely have to generate a pseudo-random number and add it to a line of code to insert an insult in the generated sentence. Depending on the size of the array, the number of insults is essentially unlimited.

So, yes, there is an algorithm for that. In fact, your brain uses a very complex algorithm to pick a particular insult from your array of available insults when you wrote that. But, your brain is a far better language generator than any computer program ever written, because it has the ability to pick the right insult for the specific situation.

[sufrommich]

19. I agree. If there is one thing internet forums

have accomplished,it's spreading unfounded paranoia and conspiracy theories.

[msanthrope]

48. It's the authoritarians who think that!!!

To the jury....that was sarcasm....

[reformist2]

21. I've been on messageboards where people are outed all the time for having alter-egos.

Last edited Sun Jul 28, 2013, 03:27 PM - Edit history (1)

It's not a big leap at all to go from someone creating a new personality to attack someone else, to a whole room full of people being hired to attack a particular political position or point of view.

[MineralMan]

38. Yes. They get caught because people aren't very good at

maintaining different personas. I'd think that would be very difficult.

[SidDithers]

56. Exactly...

People can change names, but they inevitably fall back into old habits, using the same favourite phrase, or divulging the same unusual bit of personal information. A leopard doesn't change his spots.

For instance, the term "fuckwittage" is a favourite, used almost exclusively by one person over their multiple zombie DU accounts. You can search back through the archives for the poster(s).

Another multiple time zombie regaled us with tales of his Laplander girlfriend, from north of the Circle in Norway.

Sid

[Whisp]

22. There are people here on DU just to disrupt

and to call down the Presidency in whatever way they can, on whatever issue of the day is.

Whether it is a concerted effort by a mothership sort of agency or whether it's an individual thing - doesn't matter. They Are Here and have been for some time.

[MineralMan]

24. There are people who feel strongly about all sorts of things.

Some of them post on forums like this one. On both sides. That's what discussion forums are about, really. But, they're individuals, almost all of the time. They may share beliefs and take similar points of view, but I'm not getting any sense of one person writing under multiple screen names here or anywhere else, really. And I'm pretty sensitive to individual nuances of language usage. It's one of my favorite topics.

There are a few people with enough flexibility of style and usage who could probably manage a couple or even three screen names and still appear human. However managing multiple screen names would require assistance by some language generation algorithms, and those produce output that can be recognized. I know that, because I worked on language generation algorithms in an attempt to come up with simulated conversational exchanges. What I learned is that there is a reason that the Turing prize has not been awarded.

Computer language generation algorithms are not human beings. They always give themselves away if you have a large enough sample.

[Whisp]

28. I guess my post was off your topic then.

I don't know how the computer generated beings work and how they would auto reply to a specific subject to appear human.
But that aside, I believe what I said in the previous post is true.

[leveymg]

32. Wouldn't a really large board like this be the perfect test chamber?

After all, you are assured unlike the Yahoo-type boards that people here (who aren't droids) have the essential BS receptors and subject-matter knowledge required to pick-up on phony opinions that might slip through elsewhere?

More and more interesting.

[MineralMan]

39. I suppose it would, but language generation software isn't very good, still.

Such software would be detected pretty quickly, and I'd probably be one of the first to detect it, since it's something I experimented with at one time. I never used it on any sort of public forum, though, except on a programming forum where language generation algorithms were being discussed.

[leveymg]

53. DoS attacks tend to be pretty crude, too, but people still do them to their enemies.

The program you're describing, if it works at all, sounds like it would have value to the HBGary's of this world. Their clients, the Chambers of Commerce and DC law firms of this world, are so ill-equipped technically and weighed down with client fees that they just might cough up $50,000 for a Proof of Concept.

I'm surprised you just threw Flame away, as you say.

[MineralMan]

59. The program was called "Flamer," not "Flame."

It was an experiment. I'm a student of linguistic theory, among other subjects. As a programmer, I had an opportunity to experiment with language generation, and built an engine to experiment with. It was not a commercial project, but an exercise. The subject matter I chose was chosen because it was silly and allowed me a lot of room to experiment. Arguing about operating systems is a lot like arguing about politics. It's entertaining, but useless in the larger scheme of things.

So, what did I learn from my experiment? I learned that language generation by computer is a very difficult thing to do well. Flamer was a very complex set of language algorithms and had a huge database to work with. It worked, and did generate comprehensible English prose on it's tiny little spectrum of subject matter. However, if you created a few dozen sets of output from it, patterns emerged that identified the set of output prose as artificial. No matter how much the algorithms were tweaked and no matter how carefully they were designed to inject personalized nuance, if you had two dozen such blocks of text, you'd begin seeing similarities and start wondering if a real human being wrote them.

So, I decided that the effort was not worth pursuing further, and decided, instead, to create a font previewer, installer, and manager for Windows. That program was named "Fonter." I sold it as shareware and it made me some money over its 6 versions. It did things with Fonts that nobody had done before, and was very popular, through Windows 95. Then, Microsoft made its own font handling better, and the program wasn't really needed any longer. I retired it. OsoSoft had a number of programs in its product list, along with a bunch of fun programs that I gave away, rather than selling. It was a cool business to run, and I could do everything myself, from coding to shipping of the products. I enjoyed it. When I stopped enjoying it, I closed the business and moved on to something else. I have none of the programs, none of the source code, and none of the marketing materials left. When I closed the company, I released the final versions of the programs into the public domain and closed down. It was a good run, and tons of fun. At one time, I was even the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Association of Shareware Professionals. A great experience in a new way of marketing software. Fun times.

Other Applications in the OsoSoft line were Rockford - a business card creation program, and MultiLabel, one of the first dedicated label printing programs for Windows, that offered every possible label printing feature, including bar-coding. There were others, too. Some are still floating around in their final version, and still run in most versions of Windows. I haven't tested any of them in Windows 8, but they'll probably run in that, too. But, I don't do that any longer.

So, Flamer is no more. I actually looked for a copy today, and didn't find any on the Internet. It was sort of a pre-Internet thing, anyhow, and was never commercially offered. Too bad. I'd love to see if it still runs on today's Windows versions.

[joshcryer]

82. DU is mostly an echo chamber. Reddit would be better.

And Reddit has a decidedly left leaning bent (politically; note it's diverse and you have your share of idiots, but generally speaking conservatism is voted down) so if they have tested this technology it has been ineffective.

Reddit has proven various astroturfing attempts before (in particular is QuickMeme which got banned for astroturfing). It has also proven various attempts to game the system.

DU's management has basically left the building, to allow the jury and "community standards" to run things. Dozens of banned posters over the years have returned and have basically gone completely unchecked with their blatant trolling. Get caught out on a lie? Who cares. Get caught posting misinfo? Who cares. Predictions completely off the charts and falsified over and over? Who cares. That's been my recent experience of DU.

DU's BS receptors are sadly kind of defunct, with people reading the headline of a post and not even understanding the content.

[leveymg]

102. If nothing else, DU is still an interesting place to observe large trends and meme formation

No matter how valid their origins or reflection of larger society, it is still a place where political junkies congregate and thrash it out. I agree that not all the changes are for the better, there has been a decline in the apparent quality and quantity of OPs, and I would also like to see a more active guiding hand by Admin; nonetheless, we both still have an active stake in this place, so it can't be that bad.

[Zorra]

25. The evidence of a troll is in its RW posts. They all have tells, which some of us have learned

to recognize because observation of the similarity of troll behavior over the long term has established certain patterns common to trolls.

If this were not so, thousands of trolls would not have already been tombstoned at DU.

Some trolls are more clever, and subtle. These troll are very good at not crossing the line, while they work continuously and insidiously to move the country further to the right. They can be volunteer independent true believers, or can be paid by an organization such as the Third Way for the purposes of corrupting and neutralizing the Democratic party. Third Way trolls are generally most concerned with promoting the interests of the 1% status quo Military Industrial Complex,

The most effective independent freeper trolls pretend to support some progressive social ideals, while consistently promoting a RW corporatist agenda.

A lot of us recognize these trolls, and understand what they are doing.

DU has tombstoned live trolls, the sockpuppets of live trolls, nests of live trolls, and troll sockpuppets. Sometimes live troll sockpuppets post too similarly to their live troll sockpuppet and are recognizable as the sock of live troll.

If it quacks like a RW troll, it most likely is a RW troll.

[leveymg]

42. If expressing RW opinion were the operative definition of troll, some of our most prolific posters

active today would be eating pizza with the worms. Some of the most consistently RW posters are even chosen for MIRT.

On the contrary, the only really bannable offense here is being stupid or crazy enough to be insulting - which isn't likely to be a characteristic of most long-lived programmed personas. That might be okay for some of the pawn personas, expendable for f-cking up threads, but that wouldn't likely be a hallmark of a successful long-timer.

This thread has been fascinating. It raises some existential issues about the validity of tolerance of difference and the tipping-point for when a political opinion board becomes so infested with ideological content fundamentally hostile to its mission that it is no longer viable, and how that process can be accelerated by applied technology.

[Mojorabbit]

81. I love this sentence

"It raises some existential issues about the validity of tolerance of difference and the tipping-point for when a political opinion board becomes so infested with ideological content fundamentally hostile to its mission that it is no longer viable, and how that process can be accelerated by applied technology."

It is just perfect as it feels to me that it is where this board is headed.

[joshcryer]

83. Post an example.

You can PM me if you'd like.

Note: this is an impossible task for you to fulfill.

[leveymg]

96. An example of a RW DUer? The limits of tolerance of difference? Tipping-points?

Crowding out by trolls? None of the above? All?

[Eddie Haskell]

70. Yes, let's weed out anyone who doesn't agree with us.

Please list the correct opinions in the forum rules so we can stay out of trouble.

Charlie McCarthy

[Zorra]

89. No, just the righties. nt

[snot]

33. Evidence: per docs obtained in a lawsuit, . . . .

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20130727-fake-social-media-profiles-part-of-dallas-pension-funds-public-relations-fight-with-nasher.ece?action=reregister . Close to $1 million spent on under-handed p.r. services including sock puppet commentary in a local publication just to try to influence the outcome of litigation between two buildings.

The stakes are MUCH larger w.r.t. national politics, and DU is a MUCH more influential forum.

Also, http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358242 (with thanks to Catherina!):

. . . . in some of the emails, HBGary people are talking about creating "personas", what we would call sockpuppets. This is not new. PR firms have been using fake "people" to promote products and other things for a while now, both online and even in bars and coffee houses.

But for a defense contractor with ties to the federal government, Hunton & Williams, DOD, NSA, and the CIA - whose enemies are labor unions, progressive organizations, journalists, and progressive bloggers, a persona apparently goes far beyond creating a mere sockpuppet.

According to an embedded MS Word document found in one of the HBGary emails, it involves creating an army of sockpuppets, with sophisticated "persona management" software that allows a small team of only a few people to appear to be many, while keeping the personas from accidentally cross-contaminating each other. Then, to top it off, the team can actually automate some functions so one persona can appear to be an entire Brooks Brothers riot online.

Persona management entails not just the deconfliction of persona artifacts such as names, email addresses, landing pages, and associated content. It also requires providing the human actors technology that takes the decision process out of the loop when using a specific persona. For this purpose we custom developed either virtual machines or thumb drives for each persona. This allowed the human actor to open a virtual machine or thumb drive with an associated persona and have all the appropriate email accounts, associations, web pages, social media accounts, etc. pre-established and configured with visual cues to remind the actor which persona he/she is using so as not to accidentally cross-contaminate personas during use.

And all of this is for the purposes of infiltration, data mining, and (here's the one that really worries me) ganging up on bloggers, commenters and otherwise "real" people to smear enemies and distort the truth.

As for how you'd know, I'm always cautious to leap to conclusions about any particular poster, but I do notice who posts what and whether their replies tend to derail useful discussions on issues I care about. And there's the very useful Gentlemen's Guide to Internet Spooks at http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5 :

1. COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of an internet forum
2. Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
3. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
4. How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
5. Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

More at the last link above.

[KittyWampus]

36. you think DU is influential? LOL!

http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?w=340&h=150&o=flt&c=1&y=t&b=ffffff&n=666666&r=2y&f=999999&u=democraticunderground.com

[leveymg]

49. Influence is not just about site visits and time on page.

It's about where ideas originate and how they proliferate across the web to other media and into the "real world" of politics. By that broader measure, DU is still pretty much up there among political web boards.

[msanthrope]

52. It never, ever ceases to amaze me...I swear that some of the most virulent anti-Obama

posters here must think the Administration is monitoring DU 24/7. We ain't that important.

[sufrommich]

55. It is a rather sad need to feel influential that

breeds a lot of this hooha.

[msanthrope]

61. And breeds, as you noted, a level of paranoia that is simply funny to watch.

Agent Mike isn't real. The NSA doesn't give a shit what OPs you post. Nobody is listening to your phone calls because you retweeted #OccupyRulz! Seriously...It's just hysterical, some of the accusations.

[HiPointDem]

54. yes, since i've seen information & discussion posted at DU make its way into more mainstream

news & opinion venues.

[MineralMan]

64. It works in the opposite direction most of the time, though.

Truly.

[HiPointDem]

65. not surprising, since people's main source of information is from media. all the same, i've

seen lines of discussion & povs that were once backwaters go larger because of DU. it has some influence, just as FR does. as you know.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

85. You really only need 10% of the population on your side to have a significant impact

For starters, and consider the huge impact just one journalist, and just one concerned citizen has recently had on the primary discussion of the day.

Word of mouth is still the most successful form of marketing, ever... and so it goes for politics as well (Look up Edward Bernays)

[MineralMan]

40. DU isn't really very influential, you know.

It's a nice forum, but has no real impact on politics. It's a place for political geeks to talk to each other. Real politics take place somewhere else.

[snot]

57. Regarding DU influence:

See Alexa: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/democraticunderground.com , which notes that 6,342 other sites link to DU.

And this R-wing site seems to consider DU noteworthy: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7300 :

One of the more popular leftist weblogs on the Internet . . . .

* * * * *

DU has established "Campaign Underground," an online database of information about political campaigns, voting trends, and media. The website also has a feature called Demopedia. Modeled on Wikipedia, this is a reference source created aggregately by registered DU users, and can be expanded or edited by any user wishing to contribute.

On July 1, 2005, DU initiated “Activist Corps,” a group of more than 1,000 registered DU members who are committed to participating in official calls-to-action that are posted on the website. The first Activist Corps campaign -- posted on July 12, 2005 -- exhorted members to write letters to their local newspaper editors regarding Karl Rove's alleged role in the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame's name. This effort resulted in the publication of more than 70 letters in newspapers across the United States. Other Activist Corps projects have included signing online petitions that urged U.S. Senators to reject the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, and writing letters of support to Cindy Sheehan, founder of Gold Star Families for Peace.

[MineralMan]

62. None of those offshoots of DU still exist.

Have you wondered why that is so?

[snot]

80. We still have the Activist Headquarters;

I don't know about the others. If they've disappeared, why do you that is?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

86. Minority Rules: Scientists Discover Tipping Point for the Spread of Ideas

July 26, 2011 — Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society. The scientists, who are members of the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center (SCNARC) at Rensselaer, used computational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority opinion. The finding has implications for the study and influence of societal interactions ranging from the spread of innovations to the movement of political ideals.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110725190044.htm

You're welcome

[MineralMan]

87. 10%. Well, since DU is the topic,

we have about 2-3000 actual active posters here. That's ten percent of not much.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

97. Our reach includes everyone we know

And then everyone they know.

And don't forget the greater group of readers vs posters or members.

Not that equals 10 percent, but it is significantly more than you imagine, and certainly has an impact.

[MineralMan]

100. Not so much impact as reflection, I think.

What DU shows is how various people think about issues and what their opinions are. The site is not large enough or powerful enough to actually influence the real political world. However, individual DUers who are actively working in political campaigns and serious activism of other kinds do make an impact. The number of those on DU, however, is small, in my opinion.

DU discusses current events and political happenings, but doesn't really influence them. That's not its role, really. DUers sign online petitions and make small financial contributions to actual campaigns, and a small percentage of DUers contact their own legislators about issues. A small percentage works actively in election activities and GOTV efforts, but it's a small percentage, based on what people write about here. A very few have their own blogs, online broadcasts, or write about politics in more widely read venues. A very few.

DU is a discussion forum. People here discuss politics. Discussion is not activism, though. It is important, but it is just discussion.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

103. Your imagination is limited

You do not need to be a party member to influence opinions.

The most important opinions are those of the people when you live in a functioning democracy.

[MineralMan]

109. OK. I'm sure you believe that to be true.

Please proceed.

[NoOneMan]

35. People willingly transform into ugly drone-like partisan caricatures for free

Why make the software? Time and time again, humans never fail at illustrating exactly how devoid of personal intelligence they are

[MineralMan]

41. That's true enough, which is why we're not seeing evidence

of sockpuppet management efforts here.

[reformist2]

45. There actually was a Sock Puppet Management LLC once! LOL

http://opencorporates.com/companies/us_wa/602609711

[MineralMan]

46. Ah, defunct companies abound.

Cute name, though.

[jazzimov]

47. Let me make sure I've got you right

and hopefully this will also clarify your statements for a few others.

If I understand you correctly, you are not saying that trolls - even paid ones - don't exist. It doesn't sound like you are talking about them at all. Also, you are not saying that sock-puppets don't exist, you're simply saying that it's very, very unlikely that anyone has thousands of sock-puppets. At most, they might have a couple. The whole purpose of sock-puppets is to persuade others by making them think that they are in the minority. Here at DU, I should think that many of us are used to being in the minority and therefore it is a useless exercise.

But, more importantly, how would you tell if some poster is a sock-puppet or even a paid troll?

Some trolls are easy to spot, sure. But how can you tell if someone is a professional troll or sock-puppet?

Therefore, rather than just "writing someone off" because you may think they are a sock-puppet or a troll. Instead, engage them to expose your own opinion. At least, that's what you prefer to do.

Have I got that straight? If so, I fully agree. If not, please correct me.

[MineralMan]

50. I don't look for sockpuppets. I don't care if there are sockpuppets.

I write posts and reply to posts. I do that one post at a time. The whole sockpuppet issue is absurd. When they are discovered, they get tossed, and the few I've seen have been poorly done, anyhow.

[jazzimov]

63. Thank you! nt.

[Coyotl]

51. Perhaps you remember:

Perhaps you remember when DU was hyperactive in relation to the oversight hearings and trolls were getting too thick:

Deja DU: L. Coyote Sep-18-07 - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1835214
Towards a Taxonomy of Political Trolls OR Filling a Neologism Vacuum.

The Taxonomy of Political Trolls.

Unlike Internet trolls generally, the political trolls, a distinct genera (Homoferus), remain poorly described.
The genus name derives from the combined form of:
homo hominis : human being, man + ferus : fierce, wild, savage, untamed.
It would be helpful to have clearer descriptions and nomenclature to deal with these pesky ratf**kers!

To start, we need to do more work to describe the Dem bashing species. ....

.... I found this delightful set of readings on trolls in a feminist blog. It is a good troll discussion starting point.
Although not providing essential neologisms like Latin binomials, I nonetheless found it highly entertaining.

Know Thine Enemy- Species of Troll
Filed under: Feminism, The Troll Files — Laurelin in the Rain
May 17, 2006 - link down

Disclaimer: I know I said that trolls are best ignored, and I stand by that opinion- not that I'm always level-headed enough to take my own advice. But I think it helps to have a field guide of troll species ....

L. Coyote May-29-07
26. DU is drowning in BLEMMINGS. Some well-meaning, some paid operatives

Blemming, noun, a blog lemming, a nuisance person or thread calling attention to and enthusiastic about a distracting topic
Blemming, verb. to distract from an important issue with irrelevancies, to blemish or inundate a reasonable discussion with extraeous issues

Usage: Blemmings often lead the herd over a cliff to drown in a sea of irrelevancy.

Synonyms: Online ratf*cker, e-provocateur, discussion troll, sheeople herder, the assault on reason, wedgeeezer, scatological besmearmentor

Gooooogling blemming: I was surprised to see a usage for "blemming" online. And one so suited to what I thought would be a truly fresh neologism. This from Jan 25, 2004. - http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blemming

1. blemming
To be a nuisance to;
To call attention to;
To be enthusiastic about;
To bring on a trip .....

====================================
It has not been fun to watch. In my view, this recent assault is not without reason. DU has been producing remarkable, instantaneous discussion and perspectives on news events, connecting dots. I see the items discussed on DU in the global press the next day. Being the media the media reads garners this sort of assault. It is a sign of success.

I hope the moderators are keeping all logs. Log files identify each and every computer used for each and every post. It is easy to run an analysis of that data and trace the sources of such assaults.

==================

L. Coyote Wed Aug-29-07
The Internet Troll As The Trickster Archetype
Author and Source: http://www.drewspeak.com /

........... Internet trolls can have real power. They can alter your emotional landscape, insert their presence very tangibly into your life. Being trolled can be a harrowing experience. Because of the implicit anonymity built into Internet dialogue, the user often has no clear idea who is harassing him/her - they are confronted only by an adversary who might be represented only by an alphanumeric “name” and a barrage of abuse. There is often little recourse against the offending party. ................

----------------------
The Psychopathological Troll, The Missionary, The Apprentice

Don’t Feed the Trolls

I found this article written by Adam Reed to be worthy of it’s own page…

Please Don’t Feed The Trolls
by Adam Reed http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Reed

In Scandinavian folk tales, a troll is a scary thing that lives under a bridge, and dedicates its life to preventing the bridge from being used for the purpose for which it was built. In internet fora, a “troll” is a participant whose participation is counterproductive to the purpose of the forum she intrudes on. Trolls may be classified, first, by motivation: the psychopathological troll and the missionary troll.

2. The Psychopathological Troll

The psychopathological troll is motivated to participate in an internet forum by psychotic delusions or compulsions, or by a neurotic seeking of false self-esteem. The postings of a psychotic troll are unlikely to make any recognizable sense at all.

........

3. The Missionary Troll

The missionary troll is motivated to participate in an internet forum by a desire to win others to his favorite belief system, .... Missionary trolls are pervasive, persistent, and above all numerous. They are the vast majority of active trolls.

4. Identification: The Apprentice Troll

The apprentice troll is one who has not yet achieved mastery of trollcraft, and lacks the habits of stealth that delay the identification of a master troll. Thus, the apprentice troll will often let her mask slip .....

MORE: http://trollpolice.com/dont-feed-the-trolls /

---------------
So, You Want to Learn About Trolls…
http://trollpolice.com/2007/08/29/so-you-want-to-learn-...

How can I tell someone is a troll?

You really can’t, and that is usually the biggest problem. However, with time, you can learn certain indicators that can help identify a possible troll. I should note that one or two “odd” things does not mean someone is a troll. Truth is, some people have led unusual lives and sometimes life can be crazier than fiction. It is usually after an extended period, and after a significant number of “red flags”, when you can truly suspect a troll.

There are several types of trolls.

Fake trolls — These are people who are outright liars. They make up stories and fabricate a history so they can slip into a group and join them .......

The “real” troll. — This is a real person who is probably completely honest about who they are and their family status. However, they are very needy people and tend to dominate conversations. They embellish their lives, exaggerating real stories to get sympathy and to make people like or love them. They seem to one-up everyone .......

A sub-set of the real troll is what I call the “vague troll.” They are real people, but just so happen to be troublemakers. .......

Destroyers — The last type of troll really needs a totally different category. While their numbers represent a small fraction of the people on the Internet, this group is the most dangerous. They have one purpose, to break-up a site, group, etc. They start debates on controversial subjects for no other reason than to stir up trouble. .........

------------------
Ready for this: A thesis on Trolls = Psycho-Sociological Discourse on Internet Trolls

Simple Vandals or a Unique Social Movement?
A Psycho-Sociological Discourse on Internet Trolls
http://www.io.com/~zikzak/troll_thesis.html

Amy Dhala, 1999
University of Texas School of Sociology, Post-Graduate Studies

Internet trolling has been around since the earliest days of Usenet, ......

....

troll v.,n.
1. To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT.

2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll."

------------- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3301126&mesg_id=3301948

[MineralMan]

60. Nope. Can't say I do.

I didn't join DU until Fall of 2008.

[Rex]

58. People have been banned here for socks.

Next.

[think]

66. It is impossible 4 me to know. So usually facts, evidence, reliable sources

and corroboration of these variables usually suffices.

However, some posters will spend a great deal of time avoiding the subject, the facts, the evidence, the reliable sources, and the corroboration of these variables.

Instead they resort to familiar strategies when the facts don't support the weight of their argument.

1. Attempt to discredit the messenger
2. Attempt top discredit the source
3. Focus on distracting & moot facts
4. Intimidate your opponent by questioning their intellect and ability to comprehend.
5. Additional mockery and insults.
6. Rinse. Repeat.....

It is all right to question the messenger, sources, and facts.

But when there is a pattern where the person disagreeing is repeating the same talking points without providing a real and factual basis for their response it get's old....

Again whether any of these posters are sock puppets is impossible to know for certain. (At least for me)

Just My Very biased Opinion....

[Eddie Haskell]

67. Well ...

I just tried to post in GD and I'm here to tell you ... something strange is going on. My post was altered. At first, I thought I'd hit the wrong button, but after correcting the original post; the same thing happened again. The first word of my post, "This", was changed to "conspiracy"; so help me God.

[Marr]

68. Are you seriously saying you don't think internet PR exists?

I've seen it personally with my own eyes. I can't post any proposals here for legal reasons, but a major software manufacturer once brought me in on a project that was about helping big companies conduct internet PR (particular focused on blogs and forums). It was all about cultivating an online persona, never ever ever disclosing the fact that you were a paid agent, redirecting or sidelining dialogues you don't want advanced, etc.

There's a lot of money that goes into it. I mean seriously, if Kellog's Cornflakes (not that that was one of them, it wasn't) is doing it, I find it very hard to believe that the "idea industry" in politics is not.

[MineralMan]

69. Of course it exists. I didn't say it didn't.

It's a very popular method of promoting things, particularly products.

I'm talking about software that allows managing multiple sockpuppets on a single website.

Spam merchants abound on the Internet.

[struggle4progress]

74. That's an important point

There's a lots of good discussion about it on my websites:

Cheap Viagra
Hot Teenaged Russian Mail-Order Brides

Mona and her friends think you'll also enjoy these sites:

Sex Slaves of Sasquatch
XXX Alien Abduction Porn XXX

You can check them all out absolutely free!

[Marr]

76. lmao /nt

[backscatter712]

77. I'd say the sockpuppetry and propagandizing is pretty obvious. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. This just seems the most likely scenario for it happening on DU

Most of the time, DU is pretty united on a subject (eg social security, Iraq) , but now, we have a subject on which the majority of DU is against the Democratic leadership (but not the typical Democratic rep). So this is a chance for sock puppets to make a difference - DUers might be persuaded to agree with the leadership, with a bit of effort. And the interests of the IT experts with the ability to do this (the NSA and contractors) are aligned with the Democratic leadership. So they have a position worth marketing - that Snowden and Greenwald should not be paid attention to. The obsession of about 30 DUers (you can see them in the rec lists of their threads) with disparaging those 2 people (plus Morales, and, when necessary, others in the story - eg Wyden, or The Guardian) do look very strange to me. One or 2 have always defended, or promoted, Obama at great length, and this is probably just more of the same, but it wouldn't surprise me if some of the newer IDs, whose main contributions on DU have been to attack Snowden, are fake accounts from somewhere.

There's one account that I'm pretty sure is a DUer's sock-puppet that they use to call out people they don't like - it builds up the hidden posts for insults, while their main account can stay clean - and they won't care if it gets banned eventually. It was used as such in the lead-up to the 2012 elections (calling any newbie who posted anything not completely in line with the Obama campaign a troll), and it's being used again now.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

84. You often appear to be woefully, and consistently misinformed

about many well known, long practiced, tactics of powerful people.

Yet, with your longstanding, feigned ignorance, you still try to convince people that you know better.

Interesting...

[MineralMan]

92. I see. Well, I'm suitable chastened then and will

go away, lie on my bed, and pull the covers over my head. Your comments has convinced me never to post anything again. Yes, indeed, it has.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

99. More an observation

I do not believe anything would change your well established practices here or on other boards.

[MineralMan]

101. What other boards?

DU is the only political website I participate in. I don't have time to write on other forums, or the inclination to do that, either.

[KharmaTrain]

90. Living In The Tin Foil Age...

...these days nothing happens that doesn't have some sinister, ulterior motive. Things aren't what they seems as there's surely some government or other conspiracy behind the scenes controlling events and people's minds. Of course you can never prove them wrong cause whomever you cite are surely part of that conspiracy or another one...or if they aren't they will then be. Disagree with some and surely you're a sockpuppet or on someone's payroll. It's how DU rolls these days.

This morning I was amused...they were interviewing some beltway stenographer who was trying to "eliminate" his footprint...avoid using his phones, trying to mess up survellience cameras and supposedly he claimed he was able to reduce 85% of his footprint. Of course he had no way of verifying cause all those who are surely snooping will never let you know...it's all part of a conspiracy.

[MineralMan]

91. For things that really matter, I don't depend on

discussion forums, even DU. I go looking for actual information. I don't look on blogs, either. If what I want is facts, without opinion, that's what I look for. I'm capable of forming my own opinion, I find, and I'm not much influenced by the opinions of others. DU is interesting, and I like to write on DU. Beyond that, it's another discussion forum. Some posters are well-informed and look for actual factual information to write about. Others just post what someone else has said about a topic. I prefer the former.

[KharmaTrain]

93. It Has It's Benefits...

...I like to think of DU as an internet "water cooler"...people mostly gossiping or pontificating; sometimes interesting, many times inane. It does serve as a great place to get breaking news...a starting point but definitely not the ending point as to get information; especially on controversial issues. Like you I go to many different places for information and then draw my own conclusions...sometimes coming over here to see if others feel the same way. In this brave new world we're all our own news directors and information managers...

[MineralMan]

107. Yes. Getting the actual news takes time these days,

and a lot of reading.

For me, it's a lot like research I do when I'm writing the content for a business type I'm not really familiar with. What I'm after is information on "best practices," usually, and to familiarize myself with the basics of that type of business and the goods or services they offer.

If I look at half a dozen other websites and other information sources, I find basic things all have in common in terms of how they do business. Those become my "best practices" information. It never fails. Most of the time, when I write a business website, I have one interview with the principal of the business, an I've already done my basic research. From there, I just write the website and send the entire content to that principal for review. Typically, there are only a couple of changes that need to be made.

Getting the news is a lot like that. If you read several "reliable" sources and find the common information, you're pretty close to what actually is happening or has happened. In the process, ignoring all opinion writing about it makes the job easier, since opinion writers generally pick only the facts that match their opinion and ignore the rest.

Personally, I form my own opinion, based on my background knowledge and the actual facts I glean from multiple sources. That's why I don't really comment much on minor or temporary issues. Those, I just wait until it's all sorted out and learn the conclusion. Others have different methods.

[karynnj]

95. This is a wonderful, thoughtful post

I wish many of the people yelling about sock puppets etc would read your op and think of their own experience on this board. My experience is that the users I see the most often are very recognizable by how and what they write.

Because my experience was one of having my DU "home" in one of the groups (John Kerry), I saw thousands of posts from many people in that group. Because there was an obvious focus for that group, many of us met when we went to see Secretary of State Kerry speak. One pleasant and surprising thing was that in real life everyone was consistent with what they wrote on line - though in real life, fuller, more interesting people.

I have used only this one name on DU - and it was one that was designed to quickly identify myself as being from NJ, which I was then, and that I am a woman (Karyn - a variation on the spelling of my name as I couldn't get KarenNJ ) The only other name I have used anywhere is Karenc - again a quick way to identify a little of me using the grade school way of writing a name. I had registered at DK, but then chickened out of posting, as karenc before finding DU where I saw someone else using her name and a state. As I found myself looking at profiles to see if people were men or women and where they were from, I liked that format.

[MineralMan]

98. Thanks. Like you, I easily recognize the writing

style of most of the frequent contributors to DU. I'm not seeing evidence of an army of sockpuppets here. We have lots of short-term and infrequent posters, who post short replies to things and use the DU Rec feature to mark posts they support. Since they say little, I don't think about them much.

What I do notice, though, is that there are many, many DUers who almost never post. If you look at the list of people that is displayed when you click the number of DU Recs, you'll discover a lot of names you don't recognize. I suppose recommendations matter to some people here, but I don't find them very helpful. What I like are thoughtful posts and replies that demonstrate that someone has actually thought about an issue, done some individual research, and that share opinions based on personal experience and that research and thinking. Other types of posts and replies don't interest me that much.

There are many DUers who post well and thoughtfully. I don't always agree with their conclusions, but I appreciate what they write, and consider it. They are why I am here. The rest is not that important to me.

Anyway, if there are sockpuppets here, I suppose they're mostly seen in the DU Rec list and in very short posts that don't really add to the discussion. They're not interesting to me.

[Jackpine Radical]

104. You still haven't caught on, have you?

I'm actually Will Pitt.

[MineralMan]

105. We are all Will Pitt now.

Except for some DUers. Those are ProSense.
A smaller group is Cali, though.

[Jackpine Radical]

106. Who's doing 3rd Way Manny this week?

[MineralMan]

108. Manny is a special case, I'm pretty sure.

I don't read that stuff often. I haven't found much of interest there.

[OilemFirchen]

110. Oh yeah?

Let it be known that the OP himself is a persona so sophisticated as to have destroyed the credibility of Glenn Greenwald almost two years before Glenn's earth-shattering NSA revelations. The software's that advanced.

Don't let the overlords pull a fast one. SOME of us have ways of sniffing this stuff out...

I'd add a sarcasm tag, except that the botware will convert it to clapping hands, thereby rendering this post null and void.

[MineralMan]

111. I can't destroy anyone's credibility. That's something people do all

on their own. Besides, the fact that Greenwald referred to a post of mine and used the word "manichean" in describing me doesn't show any evidence that I destroyed his credibility or anything else. He praised Ron Paul, and I mentioned it. If he doesn't want mentions of praise for Ron Paul, then he should not dispense such praise. Because Fuck Ron Paul.

[LanternWaste]

112. I'd imagine one tell would be to deny their existence.

I'd imagine one tell would be to vociferously deny their very existence...

[OilemFirchen]

113. Too obvious.

The better tell is to start numerous threads announcing their arrival.

[MineralMan]

114. Nah. I don't think so. Since one cannot prove a negative,

that's not a good tell at all. If someone thinks that such sockpuppets exist, then finding evidence of that would be the appropriate thing. So far, nobody has done that by pointing out any organized sockpuppet activity by any organization on places like DU and others.

It's really up to the people claiming that such things are going on to show evidence that they are, and in the place where such activity is suspected. I'm saying that I haven't seen any such evidence for DU or for any other place I visit. Just accusations without evidence. That isn't how truth works.

There have been a few individuals with sockpuppets here on DU. That's certain, since there have been bannings due to it. However, that's just individuals. There's no evidence of any organized sockpuppetry, and that's why I'm saying I don't think it exists.

So, if you have such evidence, I'm sure the administrators of this or any other similar site would like to see it. It's not really appropriate in a public thread, since it would involve calling people out. But the administrators would no doubt appreciate detailed evidence of such things, I'm certain.