Slashdot Mirror
LinuxToday Astroturfing Explained
cigarky sent us Paul Ferris' account (fwiw, Paul is a good guy) of the LinuxToday astroturfing that we mentioned a few weeks ago. Much more explanation about how Executive Editor Kevin Reichard was posting numerous comments under numerous aliases on the LT forums. Even more scary is the editorial war regarding linking outside content. My opinion is that LT's only value was the outside content they linked: until Dave and later Paul left, they were the best url for finding comprehensive Linux news. A real eye-opening piece about "Journalism" and Internet.com. (Note: LT and Internet.com are sorta competitors, although I never really cared much. My opinions are probably skewed somehow because of that ;))
There is a petition going around. The idea is to try and put some pressure on the LT staff to put out some answers. To date it's had little effect. We've had a very hard time getting the normal outlets to take notice of us.
Many of them feel that this story should die.
Other think that it's not really a story, that it's not important.
And still others seem to think that the community needs to be "protected."
It's linked at the bottom of Paul's article, but I'll include it here too.
LT Petition
Myddrin
I was once astroturfed by LinuxGram.
. shtml
2 -2001Feb8.html
2 -08-002-20-NW-SS
http://www.slashdot.org/articles/01/05/01/1936218
I was saying that LinuxGram sometimes posts a lot of Crap. Specifically an interview with Volker Wiegand by Maureen OGara where she took everything he said out of context and misquoted him in several places. I cant find the story on their site right now. But here is a summary from fairfax it.
http://it.mycareer.com.au/breaking/20010208/A2055
Here is a link with Volker Wiegands responce where he says that Maureen OGara deliberately misquoted him. http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-0
When I posted the comment on Slashdot, two people created new Slashdot logins and replied. One was called SuSE_Rulez and the other was called ingenuity7. You can tell they were knew logins because they hadnt posted before or since. And Slashdot gives the UID numbers out consecutively and I checked to see what slashdot UID I would get on that day and it came right after theirs. Also look how ingenuity7 refers to LinuxGram as CSN which is its less well known parent company. To me he seems to know a lot more than normal people do about LinuxGram.
Of course, when I was astroturfed by LinuxGram I was hardly surprised but this story about LinuxToday is disapointing. Other journalists have replied to my face if I disagreed with them and thats the way it should be done.
been suspicious of these so called 'message boards' on news web sites. Seems simple enough, post a news article that doesn't push the particular publishers 'agenda', and then influence public opinion by letting the 'common people' speak out about it.
I also have to wonder about the validity of these emails and message board posts that show up on shows like CNN's 'talkback live' or 'news site'. Not trying to sound like a conspiracy nut, but we know the media massages news to their liking, how are we to know that they dont try to portray joe six-pack as being in favor or against said subject?
this is why it sends shivers up my spine when people talk about 'your one source for news' etc etc...
I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.
I much prefer Linux Weekly New's Daily Page for finding out what's going on in the linux world and their weekly summaries for commentary.
If I want to hear what people are saying about a story, Slashdot is much more useful.
I still check LinuxToday every other day or so to see what stories fell through the cracks at LWN.
I was a big fan of LinuxToday for a few years now, because it was a smaller weblog with far less trolls than our beloved /. (even with their astroturfing) They do moderate the posts, though, which may help account for that. But it always struck me as strange that a bunch of blatantly anti-Linux seemingly blindly-in-love-with-MS posts would consistently make it through.
Since Slashdot first reported on the astroturfing, and especially because I haven't noticed a response from LinuxToday admitting to this, I have lost a good deal of respect for them. It's a shame that Linuxtoday had to resort to posting flames in order to get more visitors to come to their site. It's the same tactic that's often attributed to eWeek and others. If they would at least publically admit on their site that they were astroturfing, then maybe I can respect them again...
Other than these philosophical issues, it is a decent news site if you're interested in some of the noteworthy linux headlines.
make world, not war
What really bites is that the whole system just ignores things like this. One decent guy goes, whoa this is wrong, I'll tell the people in charge, I'm sure they'll do something about it. Haha life ain't like that. The guys in charge probably put him up for it. Do you have to take a ethical zombie test to make it into management these days? I've seen many people take genuine grievences up the corporate ladder, only to get thrown off and swept under the carpet. But one day, one day (and it looks like it's happening now for these guys) the genuine grievence comes back and bites the whole corporation on the a%*e. =)
I also have to wonder about the validity of these emails and message board posts that show up on shows like CNN's 'talkback live' or 'news site'. Not trying to sound like a conspiracy nut, but we know the media massages news to their liking, how are we to know that they dont try to portray joe six-pack as being in favor or against said subject?
This happens in dead-tree publications on a routine basis, so I'd be surprised *not* to see it in online publications that let the admins - as opposed to the users - choose which replies have prominence.
[User-moderated boards have their own problems, as we all know.]
In the publications around here (Toronto, Canada), papers will typically print "letters to the editor" that either a) continue an existing argument amongst readers, or b) provoke a flood of replies. Note that sanity and accuracy are not listed as requirements; they're an incidental side effect. Sometimes.
The purpose of the letters section is the same as any other section of the newspaper (other than ads) - to get people reading and keep people reading. Not to be accurate for accuracy's own sake.
Astroturfing and other message forgery is still illegal, but selective filtering is standard practice.