Countering lies and vile attacks online is not trolling.

[MineralMan]

It is a defensive thing. Frankly, I'm always glad to do that free of charge, and will be doing it as I have always done. Some campaigns actually pay people to do that, either by moderating comment areas or posting counter messages.

At our recent MN state senate district DFL Party convention, I chatted with the House representative for our congressional district. I had noticed a series of vile attacks against her on her Facebook page. She is, like all Democratic House members, a superdelegate, and has stated her plans to vote for Hillary Clinton at the national convention. A number of people had taken to posting ugly threats and name-calling in comments to posts by the congressperson on her FB page.

I mentioned those attacks to her and asked if they were causing any second thoughts. She said, "Absolutely not." Soon after that, one of her staffers began moderating comments on her Facebook posts. Those attacks disappeared. That's one way to deal with such attacks. Betty McCollum is a Clinton supporter. She will remain one, based on her own decisions and thinking.

On the other hand, Senator Al Franken simply leaves such attacks visible on his Facebook page to demonstrate their vileness. Others are posting counter messages to them, but that name-calling and personal attacks continue. I haven't had a chance to talk to Senator Franken recently, so I'm not sure if he plans any actions about them. He is also a declared superdelegate who plans to vote for Hillary Clinton at the convention.

Every Democratic campaign has to deal with attacks by Republicans and sometimes by people claiming to be Democrats. There are different ways to handle such attacks. A Hillary Super PAC is apparently paying people to post counter messages to such attacks. That's one of the ways to do it, too.

Counter-posting is not trolling. It is a defensive action taken to respond to negative statements, name-calling, lies and threats. It is a legitimate response. It is not trolling.

Note: A version of this OP was posted in another thread. I have expanded it here.

This is my opinion, and I thank you for reading it.

[Mnpaul]

1. This from someone "upset" over Warren being called a girl

[MineralMan]

4. I will always oppose misogyny and sexism.

Using demeaning language towards any adult woman is wrong, in my opinion. No United States Senator is a "girl" to be patted on the head like a dog. Nope. I will always comment on such things. Sorry if that bothers you.

[lagomorph777]

14. Wow, gotta back up MM on this one.

That's a first for me.

[Baobab]

44. I would bet money that some huge percentage of "vile" posts from people who are claiming to

be "Bernie supporters" acting in an over the top, particularly annoying way are more likely than not working for these "under the radar" sock puppet firms and are likely paid not by the Clinton campaign, but instead by VERY deep pocketed industries that have a lot to gain from a Clinton Presidency and a lot to lose from a Sanders Presidency.

Just look at the differences in health care costs between the US and Canada.

[Mnpaul]

27. And no outrage when it happens in the Hillary forum?

I've come to the conclusion that Clinton's supporters lack any self awareness. It's only bad when Bernie supporters do it.

Sorry, not buying your faux outrage.

[MineralMan]

29. I rarely visit the Hillary Clinton group, nor do I regularly

post there.

Good day to you.

[Mnpaul]

32. Thanks for proving my point

you will look the other way when the "vile, disgusting attacks" come from camp weathervane

[MineralMan]

33. That proves nothing at all.

I choose to read and post almost exclusively on DU and in GDP. That's my choice. In fact, I spend more time than is good for me doing that. I don't have time to visit other online discussion areas.

I'm not even sure where this "camp weathervane" is. I know we have a Hillary Clinton Group on DU. Is that what you're referencing?

[Mnpaul]

37. and now with the stupid act

you know exactly who I'm talking about. I guess that is another thing you wish to ignore.

[MineralMan]

38. Do I? Actually, I do not. So, if there's some

Hillary Clinton forum you're talking about, link to it. I don't play guessing games, and I wouldn't go there anyhow. DU is plenty for me. More than plenty at times.

[JimDandy]

42. Because the faux *What's camp weathervane?* worked out so well for you the first time

lets play it again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251777960#post29

and again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511172614#post16

and another one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=779086

awww, what the heck, once more:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1760674

and for the finale....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511660541

[ibegurpard]

2. you have nothing to worry about

No one in their right mind would believe anyone would pay you to bore us all to death.

[MineralMan]

5. I'm not worried in any way.

[BootinUp]

3. Not surprised by Franken. Love that guy.

As a Hillary supporter who believes she is the best candidate I support this online campaign to get the facts out there.

[MineralMan]

7. Thanks!

[Hortensis]

15. I also. Over-zealous SBSer attempts to bury discussion

under blizzards of partisan attacks do need to be foiled. Voters have a right to good information,and for that matter to good, intelligent discussion when they look up their representatives.

[Sheepshank]

6. I get upset at either paid or unpaid trolls that are insistent and persistent.....

I get upset and either paid or unpaid trolls that are insistent and persistent and disseminating lies, innuendos and falsehoods.

I know the Bernie Campaign is involved with social media, I know that Trump is also doing the same. All candidates know that unless lies and misinformation are dealt with asap on social media they have a tendency to blossom. Obama was the first President to realize this and started the whole ball rolling with sites to get at the facts. Social media is so pervasive, absolutely no candidate should be ignoring the impacts and the messaging.

[MineralMan]

8. Today, every campaign has paid people working on social media issues.

It comes with the territory now.

[Sheepshank]

11. Actually I find it interesting that BS supporters think this is an issue?

at what point would they assume that Social Media should be excluded from any campaign strategy?

Bernie Supporters seems to be using is to swarm and bash. and it is having a negative blow back...so there is a prime example of how NOT to use it.

[MineralMan]

13. Social media is used and misused by almost everyone.

In many ways, it has become quite useless when serious issues are involved.

I no longer participate in anything but Facebook, and that only on my own page. I never mention anything political there, either, and hide those who do. The rest of the social media venues simply get none of my attention.

[Katashi_itto]

9. Slow day?

[MineralMan]

10. No, not really. I'm getting ready to begin

work on a new website content contract. Today is a thinking day. Tomorrow, I begin writing on it.

So, I have time to spend on DU today.

Still, I'm not sure why the activity level of my day is of interest to you, frankly. Why would that interest you?

[yallerdawg]

12. "Priorities USA" has committed $40,000,000 to 'counter-posting' for GE!

We will defeat the Republican "billionaire."

[AgingAmerican]

16. Paying people to post is trolling

[MineralMan]

19. Really? In all cases?

Every campaign has a social media team that is paid to handle its social media presence. Do you truly believe that Bernie Sanders does not have paid staff handling the social media aspect of his campaign?

Aside from that, people will post on social media and online venues all on their own, with no payment at all. DU is evidence of that. Posters here are not being "directed" in their posting. Most have been posting here for a long time, of their own volition.

The common assumption that positive posts or counter-posts to negative things is due to paid trolling is simply ridiculous. There are tens of thousands of people doing that because they feel moved to do so.

You may well be one such person, posting on your own behalf but in support of a candidate or in opposition to another candidate. I would never assume that you were paid to do so.

I'm also pretty slow to call anyone a troll for simply posting positive or negative things about a candidate. People do those things all the time, based on their own opinions and thinking.

Are people being paid to post on behalf of candidates? Of course. Every campaign pays people to do that.

[AgingAmerican]

22. The term is 'Sock puppet'

[MineralMan]

24. That, too, is an overused term.

It's an interesting one on a discussion forum where the vast majority of members post under more or less anonymous screen names.

From time to time, there have been sock puppets here, with the same poster posting under multiple screen names. Generally, those are exposed fairly quickly.

But almost everyone here is posting under a name other than their real name. Given that, it's very difficult to prove accusations of sock puppetry.

[Fumesucker]

48. Eh, I live somewhere being exposed as a liberal and an atheist can be detrimental to your livelihood

Not that I haven't had people let me know they are aware of my identity several times now.

When I first came to DU they were damn near hunting libruls with dogs in my area, it's one of the things I find most ironic about the New And Improved DU that liberal voices are also attacked and condemned here now.

[MineralMan]

49. Kinfolk said, "Move away from there..."

Where I live, being a liberal and an atheist is just fine. It was where I used to live, too. I live where I choose to live, because I live only once.

[Sentath]

23. I would say astroturfing (nt)

[HumanityExperiment]

17. 'defensive thing'...

"posting counter messages"
counter trolling... yeah, we've seen you take this tact as a main course of action here with GD-P
it is odd that when I call you out on it you feign ignorance on doing so and being so

"Betty McCollum is a Clinton supporter. She will remain one, based on her own decisions and thinking"
Interesting pivot, does she have a responsibility to declare the reasons as to how and why she came to that 'decision and thinking'?
Maybe that would force the 'trolls' to have to focus on that rather than working 'personal attack' angles...

Do SDs have a responsibility to define the reasons for their votes for those to see within the party? what about transparency?

'Counter-posting is not trolling' Is this your attempt to create a 'cover' for your actions besides the ones you describe here?
How convenient....

I stand by my many times I've posted... you're a troll MM, so embrace it, you're not 'counter-posting', you're a troll

[MineralMan]

20. That's about the dozenth time you've directly called me a "troll."

I'd encourage you not to do that. It's a personal attack on my integrity and motivations. I post here of my own volition and based on my own reasoning. I am not paid. I post on my own behalf.

As you know, I do not alert on replies to my posts, so I will not alert on your personal attack above. But, I ask you to please stop making personal attacks against me on this website.

[HumanityExperiment]

25. Troll...

Does one's posting behavior define them? If your activity falls into the category of trollish then it is such is it not MM?

Should I call it 'counter posting'? is that what you're trying to pivot to?

I'm attacking the posting behavior not you as a person MM

How do you define 'troll' MM? I'm curious, since maybe we might be at odds over that very definition...

Let's hash this out so you and I can figure this out and maybe come to an agreement and move on from this...

[MineralMan]

26. No. I'm not going to "hash it out" with you.

I'm going to ask you once again to stop calling me a "troll" on this website.

I will do that each time you do so.

So, you can stop those personal attacks or not. It's up to you, entirely.

[HumanityExperiment]

28. Counter posting trill?...

counter posting trout?
counter posting twit?
counter posting thug?
counter posting trump?
counter posting trog?
counter posting tweedle?
counter posting twang?
counter posting toto?
counter posting twizzle?


what name would suffice then MM?

How is it acceptable for you to define 'trolls' then come back with 'counter posting'? it would seem you would need to heed your own advice and not COUNTER POST eh? 'So, you can stop those personal attacks or not. It's up to you, entirely'.....

Let's see which way you take your own advice shall we?

[GreatGazoo]

18. I think we disagree on candidate but I like your sincerity.

[MineralMan]

21. Thanks. Soon, we'll all be Democrats supporting Democrats.

The primary season is just about over. I look forward to that.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. And yet you make OP's like that 'hand on ass' OP which is not responding to any vile attack it was

a vile attack. Fully constructed of your own volition about a Democratic candidate. That was not in any way a 'defensive action' and it was your own agency foisting an offensive attack on an esteemed Senator who has won many many delegates in this election cycle. That's not 'counter posting' that's just making a scummy, cheap attack. Sleazy sure but defensive? No.

[MineralMan]

31. That post was an unsuccessful attempt at humor.

Plenty of people posted countering replies in that thread. I decided not to self-delete, so there it is. Transparency. I posted it. It failed to produce the humorous response I expected.

You're free to refer to it as you wish.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. It was a negative attack on a candidate you oppose, not a defensive action. The dubious claim that

you thought it was funny is not a defense at all. This OP claims all you do is 'defensive' posting. That was no such thing. Can't have it both ways.

[TexasBushwhacker]

34. If I wanted to make sure that superdelegates

stuck with Clinton, one way would be to contact them and thank them for their support. Another way would be to contact them as a faux Sanders supporter, be nasty and make threats. Ratfucking happens. Just sayin'.

[MineralMan]

35. I do neither, really.

I figure people who become superdelegates are more than capable of making up their own minds about whom to support. I sometimes get a chance to talk to a couple of people who are superdelegates, but I don't try to convince them of anything.

Frankly, all of them are quite accomplished people who have succeeded politically. Some are elected officials. Others are dedicated Democratic Party activists and leaders. All are more than competent to make up their own minds. My input is not required, I'm sure.

[azurnoir]

36. since when is bringing up the past record of a FLOATUS who's husband spoke of her co-presidenting

and Senator an attack? More over Betty McCollum is voting against the will of her own constituents , while she is up for re-elction-I'd be severely surprised if she has not considered those 2 disjointed facts

[Mnpaul]

39. Everything critical of the chosen one

is a vile, despicable attack. They can't counter it or explain it away so they go into outrage/victim mode.

[MineralMan]

40. Well, Betty's up for re-election in November.

I suppose her constituents will register their wishes at the polling place, don't you? Next presidential election year, we'll be voting in a primary instead of in poorly-attended caucuses.

In fact, the candidates for the Democratic Nomination will be on our primary ballot this year, although it won't count in delegate allocation. I'm going to be very interested in comparing the results of that primary with the results of this year's caucuses in her district. I have those results on my hard drive, and will be making that comparison after the primary.

I'll report it here. In Nebraska, for example, the results were reversed in their primary election from the caucus results.

That's why MN will have primaries, starting in 2020, instead of caucuses to allocate delegates. I think that will be a better way to measure the wishes of the voters. I love caucuses, but don't think they have enough participation to be really representative.

[cry baby]

43. Good points that I hadn't really thought of. Thx. nt

[PufPuf23]

45. Why then are you not fair and balanced in your posts here at DU? eom

[MineralMan]

47. Because I'm not Fox News?

I'm not required to be fair and balanced, you see. I'm a partisan poster. Thanks for asking, though.

[betsuni]

46. K&R

[PowerToThePeople]

50. I have zero respect for any Clinton supporter.

But I would not go after them on their own Facebook page.

[MineralMan]

51. Of course not.

Most people wouldn't. Yet many, many are doing just that.

[Bradical79]

52. I don't see how it helps any

There are plenty of people willing to "correct" others for Clinton for free, and it's a really terrible look in 2016. This sort of activity is never viewed positively, mostly because people only encounter this sort of thing in two cases
1. It's a tactic commonly employed by corporations artificially trying to hype a product/brand through phoney fans, or
2. The other case is usually an authoritarian leaning regime doing this to spread their propaganda

Basically, it's astroturfing, and activity looked on with derision by most people who are aware of it. Maybe they crunched the numbers and decided the negative fallout was outweighed by the positives for the campaign, I don't know.

In my occasional forays into other forums though, it seems to have been just an extra distraction used to divide rather than converse. Accusations of being a paid shill have increased, making many exchanges just dead ends drowning out any legitimate discussion. I feel like it's certainly been a contributing factor to the increased dislike of her in the polls.