Thom Hartmann: Board disrupters being paid ten cents per post

[HamdenRice]

DUer Cleita reported this in GD, in case you missed it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2847829&mesg_id=2847829

Ten cents a post for posting on liberal message boards?

So what I suspected all along is true. Thom Hartmann mentioned getting freeper-like disruptive posts on his show's message board, trashing anything being discussed from a leftist POV. His people traced one of the posters to another RW board who bragged about getting paid 10 cents a post to spread disruptive messages with RW talking points straight out of conservative talk shows like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly by some RW organizations. He didn't mention who paid them.

It seems to me that a lot of the Hillary bashing and Obama bashing posts might be from these posters. There is a certain difference between stating that you have concerns about some things about the candidates than out and out calling them names and accusing them of things that aren't even remotely true. Maybe we should be alert for these kind of posters and alert the mods when the BS gets too much

[BadgerLaw2010]

1. How is that possibly worth someone's time?

Even if you are not otherwise busy (i.e. employed), you would have to make 1,000 posts to earn $100.

[HamdenRice]

2. As one poster in Cleita's thread put it ...

"Pork rinds and chewing tobacco don't buy themselves."

We're not talking about high pay/high quality public relations.

:rofl:

[JackRiddler]

5. That's not the right question.

Are people willing to do it? My guess: Yes.

If I had been paid $0.10 for every post I was happy to do anyway, I wouldn't say no to a check for $630 or so. Would you?

[Sweet Pea]

6. Hell yes!

Free money for posting on a board???? Where do I sign up!

This is really one of the funniest urban legends I have ever come across. Paying people to post on internet bulliten boards? Whomever bought off on this one nailed the whole hook, line and sinker.

[HamdenRice]

7. You mean those "urban legends" reported as fact by the NY Times?

The OP is simply about the bottom feeders of professional forum disrupters. I'm sure that some are paid much more to post a little more thoughtfully, as the NY Times reported last September. After all, the Bush administration has stated many times that the internet is a "front" in their global struggle.

The Times has reported on other occassions about PR firms that hire people to plug particular points of view in internet forums.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/22/washington/22bloggers.html

At State Dept., Blog Team Joins Muslim Debate

By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
Published: September 22, 2007

...

So Mr. Jawad, one of two Arabic-speaking members of what the State Department called its Digital Outreach Team, posted his own question: Why was it that many in the Arab world quickly condemned civilian Palestinian deaths but were mute about the endless killing of women and children by suicide bombers in Iraq?

...

The team concentrates on about a dozen mainstream Web sites such as chat rooms set up by the BBC and Al Jazeera or charismatic Muslim figures like Amr Khaled, as well as Arab news sites like Elaph.com. They choose them based on high traffic and a focus on United States policy, and they always identify themselves as being from the State Department.

...

<end quotes>

Is it possible that there are paid disrupters who don't "always identify themselves"?

[anigbrowl]

64. I guess you've never used Mechanical Turk

Amazon's crowd-labor system where you can indeed hire people to do trivial tasks for tiny amounts of money. For example, if you're putting a video on youtube and you want it to get a lot of views so as to get on people's radar, you can hop on over to MT and with $20, pay 1000 people 2 cents to watch and rate it...which a lot of people will do. Some are bored, some live in parts of the world where $0.02 has a meaningful value, and $5 a day is good money for a few hours' work. It's also used a lot for gathering marketing data and the like. Obviously, not everything over there pays only a few cents, some tasks pay $20/30 each but they usually require specialist skills (eg rating a contract, which might take a law student 15 minutes or something).

[dchill]

10. Not really an issue...

if they were doing it for free, anyway.

[FogerRox]

11. Cut and paste is your friend... . . . . . just sayin

[greyl]

3. 100 bucks for 1000 posts? Yeah, that's believable.

I'm gonna go ahead and not trust the original source who is allegedly an anonymous right-wing poster.
It could also be a left-winger or a no-winger posting nonsense in order to disrupt that RW board.

All in all, not a credible tale.

[JackRiddler]

44. So wait, does that mean you've done 13,600 posts for no dollars at all?

That sounds pretty unbelievable, and yet it's true. Not just of you, but also of me.

If so many people are willing to post all day for free, because they believe in what they write, then 10 cents sounds like a possible price for getting true believers to do something like this. For example, cutting and pasting talking points with slight modifications everywhere, but making a bit of cash on the side while doing it.

[reprehensor]

4. Not surprised.

It does explain the dogged adherence to the 9/11 Torture Story in their sub-forum, though...

[salvorhardin]

8. Ten cents a post?

Pfft! Stupid bottom feeders bringing down the average wage of trained disinformation technologists everywhere. I never settle for less than a quarter a post. It's this kind of behavior that shows how desperately we need a union.

[LARED]

9. You can say that again

If he's doing piece work @ 10 cents a post, this must be a third world disinfo agent.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

12. We do need a union to protect ourselves from scab posters

We should demand a minimum wage per post from the NWO.

[MinM]

13. 10 cents a post!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=109&topic_id=36735&mesg_id=36737

[TheUnspeakable]

15. on Tuesday's show-Sock Puppets!!

he went into a rant about these posters being paid by the RW-said they have "dozens" of "Sock Puppet " identities, and they argue with themselves-they pose as a leftie and a rightie and the rightie wins the argument. Says they're all over the internet. I absolutely believe there's some of them here. (I won't mention any names,they know who they are, LOL)

[Marksbrother]

17. The book you cite in your signature line is one of the very best

books ever written about President Kennedy and what drove the conspiracy to end his presidency and his life.

[TheUnspeakable]

20. yes, it really is..

wish more people understood what really happened.

[SDuderstadt]

18. Why don't you go ahead and name names?

I'm pretty sure that DU goes to some lengths to effectively prevent anyone from having multiple sign-in names here.

[TheUnspeakable]

21. i like your sig line!!!!!

i don't think i should mention any names -somehow I'll end up getting tombstoned and you'll still be here

[SDuderstadt]

24. My going rate is a buck a post...

and $1.50 for anything outside of normal business hours. I also take all major creditr cards and PayPal.

[Marksbrother]

26. Whoever is paying is getting ripped off

Even at 10 cents a post.

[SDuderstadt]

28. I didn't think I needed to include...

the sarcasm emoticon, but I will in the future out of consideration for people unclear on the concept such as yourself.

[SidDithers]

14. Well, if Thom Hartmann said it...

it must be true.

Sid

[Marksbrother]

16. This is not exactly a big revelation.

There are many people who have long claimed that PR firms hire people to post disruptive messages, insult posters, and
otherwise suppress the truth about various and important topics.

[SDuderstadt]

19. ''suppress the truth''

Isn't it far more likely that the more ''out there'' elements of the ''truth movement'' (no-planers, etc.) just can't sustain their claims? Claiming someone is trying to ''suppress the truth'' is pretty lame.

[Marksbrother]

25. Is your favorite JFK assassination conspiracy denier a CIA agent?

You frequently cite John McAdams whenever you post about the JFK assassination, so as a public service to other DUers, here's a
link to a site that gives some background information on Mr. McAdams that DUers might find interesting.

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/mcadams.htm

It also gives examples of how people like him work on the internet to disrupt and suppress those who are legitimately interested
in finding out the truth.

Here's an exact quote from Mr. McAdams on his site:

Is John McAdams hell-bent on destroying the (alt.conspiracy.jfk) newsgroup? Sadly yes. His own words appended below summarize his intentions better than I could.

From [e-mail] Sat Feb 15 05:17:02 1997
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Blown back by shot
From: [e-mail] (John McAdams)
Date: 14 Feb 1997 22:17:02 -0700

You buffs have been cooperating marvelously with my scheme to make this group a shambles. And you know the bizarre part? My scheme is not a secret.
I have publicly announced it.
I have made it perfectly obvious.
I have rubbed you buffs' noses in it.
It's blatantly obviously to everybody.

.John

[SDuderstadt]

27. I invite other members to read your links and decide for themselves whether...

McAdams is "CIA". Good luck with that.

As to the alleged post from John McAdams, does that really sound like something he would write? Is John McAdams that unusual of a name? How do you know that isn't someone posing as McAdams? Why don't you deal with McAdams facts rather than try to discredit him? Is it because he pretty much destroys your goofy claims?

What about Vincent Bugliosi? Is he "CIA" too? You know, the Vincent Bugliosi that wrote "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder"?

[Marksbrother]

29. Mighty good of you to join in inviting DUers to visit those links,

although you don't seem to be exactly happy about the prospect, given your comment: "Good luck with that."

Sounds like you are trying to discourage people, while at the same time expressing your "belief" that no one WILL check it out.

[SDuderstadt]

30. No, dude...

your attempts at mindreading failed yet one more time. I WANT people to read your links and decide for themselves. I'll even post them again to aid in that effort. Both of your sources are extremely amateurish and don't serve your cause well. Here's just a little sample:

Who is John McAdams?
Who is Mcadams, CIA disinformation asset, or just plain Crackpot?
Since Mcadams is known to use the alias "Paul Nolan" just how many other names has he used to deceive?
He claims to be many things. A jet-propulsion expert... or Crackpot? Here is what was discovered...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE OFFICIAL MCADAMS FAQ
Frequently Asked Quuestions regarding John Mcadams / aka Paul Nolan
By Jim Hargrove
Back To The mcadams FAQ MAIN Page
This FAQ info seems to have prematurely disappeared from DejaNews, but after considerable searching on my old hard drive, here, by popular demand, is the "Official John MacAdams FAQ," first posted on Usenet way back in 1995 by a wonderful Englishman named Bill MacDowall. Bill made "John Locke" (an earlier and even meaner version of "Amythest") stop smearing people on this newsgroup forever by using well-paid lawyers, who for once served a reasonably worthy cause.
This FAQ exists to answer some of the most frequently asked questions about John McAdams.
This FAQ will be posted regularly to forewarn new users of the dangers of becoming another McAdams victim.

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/mcadams.htm

Here's an exact quote from Mr. McAdams on his site:

I am really starting to doubt your cognitive abilities, dude. No, that's not "an exact quote from Mr. McAdams on his site". If it is, please find it. Don't let someone as inarticulate as Jim Hargrove do your thinking for you.

[Marksbrother]

31. It's important for DUers to understand how disinfo agents operate

on the Internet.

You seem to feel that Mr. McAdams is a fine, honest, sincere, completely objective gentleman. I disagree. I think he and his kind
are a danger to those of us who are trying to find out the truth about important events.

I was going to post these links a few days ago, but I hesitated out of fear that McAdams's web site might be considered a hate site.
He's such a disgusting, dishonorable purveyor of disinformation, it's understandable that plenty of people might consider his
web site to be a "hate" site.

Do you really approve of the kinds of methods that people like him use?

[SDuderstadt]

32. Please point to any "hate" on McAdams website, dude...

Also, please tell me what "kinds of methods" he uses and how, precisely, you determined that.

You understand that your links are NOT to McAdams website, right? Do you really have this much difficulty cognitively?

[Octafish]

33. Here you go.

T H E O F F I C I A L M A C A D A M S F A Q

[SDuderstadt]

34. Umm, the challenge was to link to "hate" on McADAMS' site...

not what Hargrove claims it is. Did you even bother to fact-check Hargrove's claims? Can you point me to any "hate" specifically on McAdams' site?

[Octafish]

35. The real question regards McAdams' character.

Sorry to get you off off-topic.

[SDuderstadt]

36. No, the challenge was to substantiate "hate" on McAdams website...

not the character assassination from JFK CT types.

[Octafish]

37. OK. McAdams' BLOG (website) is full of Right Wing Hate

Your "challenge"? The guy's own words are full of hate for liberals, women, minorities, gays.

Marquette Warrior

McAdams' own words show he is rightwinger. Is that enough for lonenut types?

[SDuderstadt]

38. I'm not interested in whether McAdams is liberal, moderate or conservative...

I asked you to point to specific examples of hate. Where are they?

[Octafish]

40. McAdams: ''Sonia Sotomayor - Quota Queen''

It's right on his website.

Scroll down a bit for more hits, including:

Women’s Lib Hasn’t Created Happiness

“Pro-Choice” Nazis: No Free Choice on Birth Control

Cheney on the War on Terror -- Uncut and Uncensored

Israel & the Palestinians: The Chimera of a “Two State Solution”

Not enough hate? Try these from the McAdams archives:

Yet More Bogus “Global Warming” Data

Yet More Gay Fascism on Marriage

Detroit’s Union Problem

Need more examples? His rightwing politics are not the question, although why you'd find cause to defend him is odd considering this is DU, not Amazing Randi's JREF Forum.

The facts show McAdams' WEBSITE is full of hate.

C H A R A C T E R C O U N T S

[Marksbrother]

43. Shouldn't links to his web site be banned here as a "hate site"?

Why would someone cite John McAdams favorably, when discussing ANY topic?

[SDuderstadt]

46. Why don't you take it up with DU?

Good luck in convincing them that his site is a "hate" site.

[SDuderstadt]

45. I don't think the things you cite amount to hate...

that's far too much of a stretch.

[Octafish]

50. Hate isn't like pornography, where a supreme court justice knows it when he sees it.

Most everybody should be able to tell from his writings: That fellah is full of hate for liberals, progressives, democrats and Democrats.

President Kennedy was a Democrat. So, McAdams' feelings should be taken into account when weighing his interpretation of the assassination of President Kennedy.

Maybe we should take a poll. DUers can tour McAdams' websites and vote up-or-down. Heh.

[Marksbrother]

53. Great idea.

To me, McAdams' disinformation/propaganda is exceeded only by the manner in which he treats people who disagree with
the lone nut theory. He uses the very same techniques that most other right-wing disinfo agents use: insults, ridicule,
taking things out of context, refusing to acknowledge or stipulate legitimate facts, evasion of questions, censoring of
comments that challenge his viewpoint, focus on trivia, demand of proof which requires evidence that is withheld by the Government,
bullying etc.

[SDuderstadt]

55. Vincent Bugliosi is a liberal Democrat...

who authored a book making the case for the prosecution of W for murder and who reaches most of the same conclusions as McAdams. I don't think McAdams political leanings are a disqualifier in an evidence-based examination of the JFK assassination. Beyond that, I believe that McAdams evidence is far more compelling than the vast majority of the JFK assassination CT's.

While I am disappointed by McAdams' conservative positions, I hardly see anything that amounts to ''hate''. I think it's a little silly to throw that label around.

[Marksbrother]

58. Oh, he's a hater all right. Dishonest, too.

It's very interesting that your source for talking points/insults is a right-wing disinformation agent. Who recommended him to you?

[SDuderstadt]

60. You're calling Vincent Bugliosi a "right-wing disinformation agent"???

You're kidding, right?

[OnTheOtherHand]

61. prolly still referring to McAdams

The meta is getting waaaaaay too thick around here.

[SDuderstadt]

65. Jesus...

how is anything you cited "hate"? By that token, nearly all of DU is liberal "hate", dude. I don't know about you, but I don't think of myself as a "liberal hater" by strongly opposing RWers and pillorying them in the process.

[Marksbrother]

42. Agreed. That's the essence of the issue about him.

Deception is the essence of lying, and Mr. McAdams meets that test with banners waving.

[Marksbrother]

41. Very, very good, Octafish.

You have a great sense of ironic humor. Congratulations and thanks.

[Octafish]

52. Hiya, Marksbrother!

You are most welcome. Thank you for the kind words.

And a hearty, if belated, welcome to DU!

PS: Have you seen this?

Poppy Bush brought up JFK Assassination and ''Conspiracy Theorists'' at Ford Funeral

I think it's most revealing. I don't know Prof. McAdams' thoughts on it.

[Marksbrother]

54. Thanks for the welcome. And yes, I have seen the information

about Poppy at Ford's funeral. I know a good deal about Poppy's background, his visit to Dallas in '63, and his involvement in the silent coup that removed President Nixon from office.

I don't follow Mr. McAdams, so I don't know his thoughts about it, either. My guess is that he would either dismiss it ("goofy")
or else ignore it while simultaneously questioning the patriotism of anyone who might ask him for his views on the subject of
Poppy and his early involvement with The Company.

[SDuderstadt]

57. Oh, jesus...

Now Nixon was removed from office in a ''silent coup''? Is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy that even YOU won't embrace it?

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

47. oh, brother

Not being widely known outside its narrow area of research the ICPSR may not register with most people, but if you are familiar with intelligence and covert action, you will recognize that some of their "classes" deal in "nation building" concept, which is what the interventionists call it when they set up a puppet government through subversion of the existing institutions of said nation.

Mmmph.

Folks can head over to ICPSR.org and judge for themselves.

I don't know much about John McAdams; he may be worthy of a far more credible critique than that one.

[Marksbrother]

48. Sing it.

If you think that disinformation agents like McAdams are credible, then why not just say so? No need to spin and dance.

[OnTheOtherHand]

62. :eyes:

You're pretty much a hooray-for-our-side kinda guy, huh?

[Octafish]

51. Some Comments on John McAdams' Kennedy Assassination Home Page

From Michael T. Griffith:

SOME COMMENTS ON JOHN MCADAMS’ KENNEDY ASSASSINATION HOME PAGE

Michael T. Griffith
2001 @All Rights Reserved
Revised and Expanded on 1/27/02

From time to time visitors to my JFK web page ask me about John McAdams’ Kennedy Assassination Home Page. In this article I will respond to some of the claims that are presented on McAdams’ site. It is my contention that most of McAdams’ claims are wrong and that in some cases McAdams presents information that is badly outdated.

John McAdams is a university professor who believes strongly that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, shot President Kennedy. McAdams doesn’t believe a conspiracy of any kind was involved. McAdams believes the Warren Commission (WC) was correct in all its essential conclusions.

In McAdams’ opinion, anyone who defends the conspiracy position is a “conspiracy buff.” McAdams frequently refers to those who reject the lone-gunman theory as “buffs.” McAdams even applies this label to experts who speak about aspects of the assassination that involve their field of expertise. For example, when McAdams learned that a professor of neuroscience at a Canadian university rejected the lone-gunman view that Kennedy’s backward head snap was the result of a neuromuscular reaction, he opined that the professor was either a “buff” or had been spoon fed erroneous information by a critic of the lone-gunman theory.

CONTINUED...

http://hidhist.wordpress.com/assassination/jfk/some-comments-on-john-mcadams-kennedy-assassination-home-page/

Sounds like a model citizen for those interested in smearing people with opposing views. Most un-democratic.

[SDuderstadt]

56. Dude...the same kind of behavior...

originates here from people who take issue with those of us who don't buy their goofy 9/11 or JFK assassination CT's. I have been accused of ''working for the people who killed JFK'' and ''supporting Bushco''. I hardly think boorish behavior is the sole province of people like McAdams.

[OnTheOtherHand]

63. hell, I've been smeared a lot worse than that

Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. "Buff"? Yeah, pretty inflammatory stuff.

But as for the content of Griffith's critique, I'll reserve judgment. I don't know very much about Jack Ruby.

[SDuderstadt]

70. Hargrove is an even more pathetic writer than...

you are, dude. Yu can believe all of his bullshit you want.

Let us know when you're ready to make that citizen's arrest, dude.

[Ohio Joe]

22. Alert... It is your friend

In the years I've been here, I've only had to use it a few times but the mods have always been very responsive.

[rhymeandreason]

23. I'm surprised that more reporting hasn't been done on this subject.

We know about astroturfing and that there are companies like Netvocates and the Rendon Group who specialize in infiltrating and subverting public discussion but the Hartmann item is strictly anecdotal and unsubstantiated. Furthermore, ten cents a post is a ridiculously low figure. Professional sophists with a thorough knowledge of the subject matter and highly developed rhetorical skills are surely getting much more. That there are exhaustive efforts to manipulate public opinion by any means is generally accepted; why isn't there more specific and factual information on these insidious and dishonest practices?

http://www.rendon.com/

The Man Who Sold the War
Meet John Rendon, Bush's general in the propaganda war

JAMES BAMFORDPosted Nov 17, 2005 4:25 PM

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/8798997/the_man_who_sold_the_war/

[BeFree]

39. Well

If there are any here (greatly doubt that) the payees are not getting their money's worth.

[defendandprotect]

49. Unfortunately, let me be the first to confirm that criticism of Obama stems only from his policies .

Give up the rightwing approach to demonizing liberals.


And wake up -- !!!

[Benedictine_09876]

66. Technomania hires conservative posters/chatters

People are getting paid to post on liberal and other boards and forums to push the right wing pov. One company in particular, Technomania, used to advertise very blatantly that you could hire their people to make board postings and chat on a pro-conservative pov. Issues would be: arguing against climate change theories, arguing for a specific politician or policy or against others, etc etc.

There are multiple other PR companies out there performing this service. I know of only right wing companies- no liberal ones. This is a very large and growing business model- selling disinformation. Right now some of the hot button topics that are being hired out to pro-conservative posters and chatters are Health Care, Climate Change, abortion, TARP, Tea parties, and believe it or not- people being hired to argue for the re-opening of horse slaughter plants in the US.

They understand that it is public perception that counts- not truth or facts- and that the more public perception SEEMS to be on your side, the more influence you have. It is important that DU'ers go out onto major commentary boards and forums(nytimes, cbs, nbc, cnn, etc) and don't just hang out here preaching to the choir. Sometimes it is just a vast wasteland out there of liberal bashers and pro-conservative viewpoints because the progressives are all hanging out on friendly forums such as this one.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

68. I think you might want to review

the DU rules, dude

[lovepg]

69. I can't respond your on ignore but you have to sleep sometime damn it!

[MrMickeysMom]

71. kick