Pro-Clinton Super PAC Caught Spending $1 Million On Social Media Trolls (usuncut.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from US Uncut: A Super PAC headed by a longtime Clinton operative is spending $1 million to hire online trolls to "correct" Bernie Sanders' supporters on social media. Correct The Record (CTR), which is operated by Clinton attack dog and new owner of Blue Nation Review David Brock, launched a new initiative this week called "Barrier Breakers 2016" for the purpose of debating supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders -- or "Bernie Bros," as they're referred to in Correct the Record's press official release -- on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and other social media platforms. The "Barrier Breakers" will also publicly thank Hillary Clinton's superdelegates and fans for supporting her campaign. The paid trolls are professional communicators, coming from public relations and media backgrounds. "The task force staff's backgrounds are as diverse as the community they will be engaging with and include former reporters, bloggers, public affairs specialists, designers, Ready for Hillary alumni, and Hillary super fans who have led groups similar to those with which the task force will organize," CTR stated.

Comments

Even better...

[Type44Q]

Even better if the trolls themselves could be outed, especially the higher-profile ones...

Re:Even better...

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like you need corrected!

Hillary Clinton fought to tie the minimum wage to future increases in congressional salaries. Hillary Clinton repeatedly introduced the Standing with Minimum Wage Earners Act to bind future salary increases for Congress to mandatory increases in the federal minimum wage. Under the provisions of the legislation, the federal minimum wage would be “automatically increased” by “a percentage equal to the percentage by which the annual rate of pay for Members of Congress increased for such year” Speaking to the importance of her bill, Senator Clinton said, “We can no longer stand by and regularly give ourselves a pay increase while denying a minimum wage increase to help the more than 7 million men and women working hard across this nation. At a time when working families are struggling to put food on the table, it’s critically important that we here in Washington do something. If Members of Congress need an annual cost of living adjustment, then certainly the lowest-paid members of our society do too.”

Re:Even better...

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like the 'pro trolls' and sycophant ass-kissers have /. on their todo list as well.

Maybe a good start to be corrected is where did the six billion dollars that are missing from Hillary's State Department go? And why where favors given to foreign governments who gave to the Bill and Hillary so-called charity. You know, the charity that gives almost nothing to charities. Huh-uh.

Re:Even better...

[painandgreed]

And yet she doesn't support the $15/hr minimum wage.

And yet, that is still a better argument to vote for Hillary than any of her supporters gave at the caucus I attended. I was actually wanting to hear some good, reasoned arguments for Hillary as I can't find any on the internet. Instead, I got "Hillary as president would be empowering for women" multiple times. Now, some of those were pretty good speeches and I wouldn't ignore that as something like a tiebreaker, but as another (naturalized) caucus goer stated, "That's what I thought when I voted for Maggie in the 80's".

Re: Even better...

[CajunArson]

It's not Hillary's fault that Gwyneth Paltrow needs to eat a damn sandwich!

Re:Even better...

[king neckbeard]

People talk about congressional salaries all the time, and while they may seem pretty nice to us peons, they are nominal in the context of campaign finance and the revolving door. The Clinton's made over $150 million in speaking fees. A Senator's salary is about $176,000.

It doesn't matter what party you vote for

[PrescriptionWarning]

All Super PACs are terrible and need to be outlawed, they are just ridiculous.

Re:It doesn't matter what party you vote for

[KermodeBear]

There does need to be some kind of reform when it comes to campaigns and financing and all of that, but it is very difficult to do. See, we have this thing called the First Amendment. Finding the right set of rules that respect the First Amendment, and yet helps prevent money from completely dominating an election cycle, is not an easy thing.

That said...

I would like to note that Bernie Sanders (note that I am not endorsing him) doesn't have a war chest even close to what Clinton has, and if it weren't for the super delegate system, he would be very close to winning the nomination. Or what about Trump (also not endorsing him)? Sure, he's rich, but he hasn't spent much money at all on ads or these kinds of organizations - he doesn't need to, he gets more free news coverage than anyone else, by far.

So it seems that money isn't everything if you have a popular message. Maybe we don't need these rules and laws which spawn these special organizations after all. Maybe all of these campaign finance laws are just there to stop the outsider types from having as good a chance.

Maybe.

It isn't an easy problem to solve and you'll never make everyone happy.

Re:It doesn't matter what party you vote for

[Rob Y.]

The 'money doesn't always work' argument is a favorite excuse of Republicans - as part of a 'it's not really a problem", "democrats raise money too", and "in any case, what can we do about it" rationalization of a system that they know favors them. And it favors them if only because it pushes all non-money centric issues off of center stage. "Both parties are able to raise lots of money" is part of the problem - not a reason it's not a problem.

Yes, it doesn't always work in high profile contests like Presidential elections, where the media pay enough attention - and can be manipulated into getting your message out for you. And where bad politicians are on such constant display that they're unable to hide their unattractive sides.

But in lower-level elections, money can make a huge difference. Republicans don't control the majority of statehouses by accident - or by popularity. When the public (and the media) are not paying attention, money can easily put you over the top.

Re:It doesn't matter what party you vote for

[Anonymous Coward]

So when the voters choose Democrats, they're doing the right thing, but when they choose Republicans, it's because they're not paying attention or were somehow duped? Got it.

Re:It doesn't matter what party you vote for

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

"The press" in "freedom of speech and the press" isn't just some guy from the 1940s with a "Press" card stuck in his hatband.

It is literaly the freedom to use a printing press -- the mass production of speech for distribution.

Kings of old would regulate or outlaw printing presses as a backdoor method of controlling speech...against them, the people in power.

You are seeking to tromp on the mdern version of this, TV, radio, and now Internet advertising.

You say "too much money!" On what basis? Because some senators whined 15 years ago that they disliked making so many phone calls? This isn't even about that.

This is some nebulous concept of "too much money" severed from any influence via donations to candidates.

The correct response to speech is more speech, not censorship of presses, the mechanical means of mass production of speech.

NO MORE DIVINE RIGHTS OF KINGS!

Re:It doesn't matter what party you vote for

[ShanghaiBill]

helps prevent money from completely dominating an election cycle

Yes, it was disgusting how the Super PACs were able to just buy the Republican nomination for Jeb Bush. Just like they bought the presidency for Mitt Romney. Something must be done, since obviously the voters are too stupid to think for themselves.

Re:It doesn't matter what party you vote for

[Kierthos]

Actually, gerrymandering and the benefits of incumbency help just as much as the money does, if not more.

Re:It doesn't matter what party you vote for

[plover]

Correct. Citizens United isn't the root problem. The real problem is the corruption system that is currently in place works around the normal patterns of bribery. In Congress today, favors are granted long before the bribes are paid. Congressmen give away favors to corporations freely, secure in the knowledge that someone with lots of money will hire them as a lobbyist or consultant after they retire. Because this system is so successful, it encourages extra bonus corruption - if a Congressman grants favors to 10 companies, the chances are pretty good that one of the 10 will hire him. If he grants favors to 100 companies, he can be sure of it.

What we need from Congress is accountability. Keep tabs of votes that favor corporations, organizations, or special interests. After retiring from Congress, keep track of ex-members who go into lobbying or somehow get paid by organizations that received favorable laws while they were in office, and nullify their votes on the legislation after the fact. If the number of nullified votes drops the count below whatever majority was required to pass them, nullify the laws. If you voted in favor of three or more laws that were later nullified through this act, you win a felony corruption charge.

If you're a congressman who wants to retire with confidence in your voting record, you have a couple of safe paths: you can always recuse yourself from the votes that would favor big corporations; or you can retire on a minimum wage job as a fry cook.

Re:It doesn't matter what party you vote for

[quantaman]

There does need to be some kind of reform when it comes to campaigns and financing and all of that, but it is very difficult to do. See, we have this thing called the First Amendment. Finding the right set of rules that respect the First Amendment, and yet helps prevent money from completely dominating an election cycle, is not an easy thing.

Though I heard an interesting claim that it isn't the money during elections but the lobbyists between elections basically volunteering to do all the work who are the real problem.

Though I think the super PACs are still a major issue.

That said...

I would like to note that Bernie Sanders (note that I am not endorsing him) doesn't have a war chest even close to what Clinton has, and if it weren't for the super delegate system, he would be very close to winning the nomination.

Not even close, in fact at this point one of Sanders' campaign managers is arguing that even if Sanders is losing the pledged delegate count that the superdelegates should give him the nomination.

Either way I think Sanders has been out-raising Clinton for a while based on small donations.

Or what about Trump (also not endorsing him)? Sure, he's rich, but he hasn't spent much money at all on ads or these kinds of organizations - he doesn't need to, he gets more free news coverage than anyone else, by far.

So it seems that money isn't everything if you have a popular message. Maybe we don't need these rules and laws which spawn these special organizations after all. Maybe all of these campaign finance laws are just there to stop the outsider types from having as good a chance.

Maybe.

It isn't an easy problem to solve and you'll never make everyone happy.

Trump isn't someone to draw a general rule from, if you want to win elections you need to spend some money if for no other reason than for voters to take you seriously.

In the Presidential election itself I don't think it matters that much since they have such a high profile, but in down ticket races and even primaries I think cash becomes I huge deal.

Sanders basically started his campaign as "not Hillary" and took a few states to build a war chest and a profile. If he had a bunch of cash to establish his presence at the start it might have been a very different campaign.

As for the corrupting influence of money the worst example I've seen was the "Sheldon Adelson primary" of the '12 Republican cycle when all the candidates went to win his support. Not only did Adelson single-handedly keep Newt Gingrich in the race for weeks but all the candidates basically assumed his policy positions. A single donor was able to write the policy of the Republican campaign.

Re:It doesn't matter what party you vote for

[q4Fry]

Pitch it to the Sunlight Foundation. I think they'd give you a grant and a lot of better-structured data to start with.

Re:It doesn't matter what party you vote for

[Hussman32]

I follow your point and agree for the most part in theory. In practice it's a little different.

What I see happening is some agents are using their freedom of speech/the press to suppress others freedom of speech/the press, e.g. if Government Politician A uses influence with Media Corporation X to make sure Hope to Be Government Politician B doesn't have a platform to employ their freedom of speech/the press, then that is an implicit suppression of the freedom of the speech/press by Government Politician A.

Notice I don't point names and parties as it's been happening on both sides for some time.

Re: It doesn't matter what party you vote for

[Grishnakh]

I wouldn't have so much of a problem with people like the Kochs buying political speech if the messages they published were clearly indicated to have been paid for by them.

To tie this back to "freedom of the press", when WaPo publishes some crappy opinion piece, I *know* where it's coming from, and that it's an editorial. It clearly says so when I read it.

If the Kochs want to buy ads on TV, and those ads clearly say "paid for by KochsPAC" or whatever, that's fine.

The problem is when they misrepresent themselves. When some pro-Hillary SuperPAC hires legions of internet shills to post anti-Bernie and pro-Hillary drivel on online forums, posing as regular people (a practice known as "astroturfing"), that's a problem, and IMO should be flatly illegal with huge penalties attached, including automatic disqualification for running for office if any ties can be found between the candidate and the PAC. We have plenty of limits on free speech today: incitements to violence are not legal, for instance, and the same should be true for shilling, because humans are especially vulnerable to it: we give more weight to opinions we think are honest than ones that we know were paid for.

I have no problem with political advertising, as long as it's plainly advertised as such. I do have a problem with shilling, just like any kind of intentional deception and dishonesty.

Re:It doesn't matter what party you vote for

[Bartles]

But in lower-level elections, money can make a huge difference. Republicans don't control the majority of statehouses by accident - or by popularity. When the public (and the media) are not paying attention, money can easily put you over the top.

I think that actually when people aren't distracted by the media and celebrities, and can focus on the real issues, the Republican message actually wins out. That's why they dominate at the state level.

Re: It doesn't matter what party you vote for

[MachineShedFred]

What you call "unreasonable amount of power that smaller states have" is what the founding fathers called "equal representation in a Federal Republic."

Because that's what the United States is - a Republic.

Re:It doesn't matter what party you vote for

[MachineShedFred]

Unfortunately for you, the First Amendment allows for the freedom of association.

Under your proposed changes, the EFF, NRA, Heritage Foundation, NOW, AARP, etc. would also be tossed out - political organizations that existed long before Citizens United. Also, where do you draw the line? Are unions now banned from directing their membership which candidates and issues are important to the unions? How do you draw that line in legal language?

These are just some of the many issues that come about when you start saying that some organizations are allowed to participate in politics, and others are not. Who gets restricted? Who doesn't?

Re:They are doing the same in Brazil

[Anonymous Coward]

The only difference is that Brazilians trolls are really easy to be identified by the stupidity and nonsense of their comments.

So they're actual Hillary supporters then?

History lesson

[m0s3m8n]

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” -Joseph Goebbels

Sadly, the norm

[grasshoppa]

Astroturfing has become something of the norm over the past 5 years; I've seen a huge spike in it on the various forums out there. Everything from MS's products ( Windows 8/10 trolls are somewhat infamous ) to politicians to celebrities.

Welcome to the future. I wanted flying cars, got this.

I want a redo.

Re:Sadly, the norm

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft doesn't have to pay "trolls" to tout Windows 10. It really is better! I switch back from Mac to Windows 10.

Re:Sadly, the norm

[alvinrod]

Then it just becomes a game to control or rig that system as well. Astroturf accounts already tend to build up a large post history that has nothing to do with shilling for a product before they start doing it, so I don't think what you're proposing would solve the problem. Only you as a consumer can take the necessary steps to safeguard yourself from being conned. Anything else is just putting faith in a system that's probably easier to abuse or game than you expect.

Re:Sadly, the norm

[Coisiche]

That would put a monetary value on each account which is related to it's standing within whatever forum, and the money being flung about in the presidential campaign is a lot more than most people would ever see. Do you have a price that you'd sell a social media account for?

Sure, any account purchased like that would quickly lose any credibility but it would have a short window of usefulness.

Re:Sadly, the norm

[grasshoppa]

I normally won't respond to ACs, but this one is interesting so I'm going to use it as a teaching example.

Note the implication that I called out the windows astroturfers because I dislike windows 8/10. Now read my original post; do I ever mention my opinion of windows? This is the tell; the AC is trying to take control of the narrative, framing it in a way to discredit the comment and undermine my position. It also serves to change the nature of the discussion from that of astroturfing to the more familiar "windows 8/10 hate" that is subjective and thus, easily distractable.

Of course, to those of us similarly trained, it's a dead give away to the previously mentioned astroturfing. That they're posting as AC means it's a "hit and run"; they only care about knocking down the point I made, and not actually using their "own" reputation.

Re:Sadly, the norm

[JoeMerchant]

And, this would make astroturfing astronomically more expensive than it is today - which it should be.

Time was, major networks might refuse to air a false, libelous, or overly inflammatory ad (maybe not so much anymore), they acted as a filter for the worst of the misinformation.

Today's social networks seem to rank a step below old yellow journalism in the integrity dimensions.

Re: Sadly, the norm

[Z00L00K]

You forgot Systemd trolls.

So... shills is actually a real thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh* and here I thought that people accusing one another of being a shill in online discussions was just people being dicks.

But I guess it is a real thing - now when someone blindly claims climate change is fake or evolution is a communist plot, or Bernie Sanders wants to destroy America, I will have to consider two alternatives? Either they are just ignorant idiots or they are paid to spread lies. I'm not sure what depresses me more.

Re:So... shills is actually a real thing...

[blackpaw]

We need a "Insightful and depressing" mod :(

Re:So... shills is actually a real thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

As terrible as everything that Trump has said on the campaign trail, the scariest thing this election is the parts of the Democratic party that is being exposed to light this election. I've seen everything from petty vandalism of Trump signs, to jokes about killing Trump being broadly accepted, to employees of the largest communication platform on the planet say maybe they should be manipulating the discussion, to this. Trump sounds like a terrible president, but I've got no clue what he will be like in office given his political history. Clinton looks like a big bag of everything terrible about both parties and the whole @#!$ process, and no one has any interest in convincing me otherwise. Just that she's just not Trump('s rhetoric) and I'd be any number of shameful things to vote for him.

Re:So... shills is actually a real thing...

[tom229]

Hillary is far and away the worst choice in the entire race. She has a very public track record of lies, corruption, and elitism. She is closely followed by Ted Cruz for the same reasons. It's astonishing to me that more people simply don't pay attention to the past.

Re: So... shills is actually a real thing...

[Z00L00K]

Personally I think that Cruz is worse than Hillary, but this is the weakest field for at least a century, maybe ever.

Re: Only $1 million?

[Altus]

This is why we need to raise the minimum wage. Professional trolls need to be able to feed their families too and it should cost people more to spread (mis)information on the internet.

Mmmmm not quite...

[DumbSwede]

Easy way to get mod points, but just because Rush Limbaugh said it, doesn't make it true.

Goebbels actually thought propaganda should be truthful.
It is perhaps comforting to thinking of the Nazis as evil in every way, but the true evil comes from how they trusted the system in which they worked without question.

Fake Quotations

Re:Mmmmm not quite...

[DNS-and-BIND]

Yeah I hear you on the fake Hitler quotes. Why do people feel the need to make things up, when the real words are far more damning than any propaganda?

"True socialism is the welfare of all the people, and not of one class at the expense of others. Therefore we oppose class warfare."

"I, on the other hand, have been striving for twenty years with a minimum of intervention and without destroying our production, to arrive at a new Socialist order in Germany which not only eliminates unemployment but also permits the worker to receive an ever greater share of the fruits of his labor.
The success of this policy of economic and social reconstruction of our people, which by systematically eliminating differences of rank and class, has a true peoples' community as the final aim of the world."

"We have backed the wrong horse in Spain. We would have done better to back the Republicans. They represent the people. We could always have converted these socialists into good National Socialists later. The people around Franco are all reactionary clerics, aristocrats, and moneybags - they've nothing in common with us Nazis at all!"

Re:Mmmmm not quite...

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The true evil was how the system worked. If you care to read up on it, there was no holocaust as such until 1942, which is 9 years after the Nazis got into power.

The holocaust was a direct consequence of how the third Reich was built and ruled. It was based on aggression, fear, intolerance, religious faith in the infallible leader and unquestioning obedience, and from there it could only snowball into utter inhumanity.

Caught?

[SirSlud]

Funny wording there. How are you "caught" via a press release?

Re:Only $1 million?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> Only $1 million?

That was kind of my thought too. On the other hand, that's probably $1M more than her camp thought they'd be spending in the primaries a year ago. (A year ago, I if someone told me that some white guy would run up a 42% vote against the coronation candidate in her "home" state during the Democratic primary I would have either called them nuts or predicted the guy was Cuomo.)

Re: Only $1 million?

[smooth wombat]

These are communications majors who make $10/HR at McDonald's, not senior developers making 150k.

And yet the communication majors will be producing something relatively more worthwhile than the drivel we continually see coming out of these developers.

Re:They are doing the same in Brazil

[lgw]

There is a similar group doing the same thing in Brazil to help in the coup against President Dilma. The only difference is that Brazilians trolls are really easy to be identified by the stupidity and nonsense of their comments.

Well played, sir troll.

For those not following Brazilian politics, Brazil has been plagued by corruption scandals and economic woes, leading to not a literal coup, but a supermajority vote by the Brazilian House to impeach President Dilma Rousseff, which means it moves to the Senate for confirmation, then an actual trial. It's an emotionally charged issue (some representatives actually burst into song during the impeachment proceedings), but being resolved peacefully.

Re: Only $1 million?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> something relatively more worthwhile

Found the English major. Also found why they can't get that job making more than $10/hour.

what about the Bernie Bros, themselves ?

[smenor]

Not to say that real ones don't exist, but I've long been skeptical about the super-misogynistic Bernie Bros and (without getting overly conspiratorial) they've just felt false-flag to me.

Reading this makes me wonder if I wasn't just being silly thinking that.

Regardless of that and whether or not it has anything to do with the story, I follow a few pro-Clinton people who seem to have an almost clinical compulsion to attacking Bernie (ironically typically about how negative he and his supporters are)

Hillary Supporters End Game?

[0100010001010011]

I have to question what Clinton supporters' endgame is. I've heard everything from "Not a true democrat" (It's true, I'm an independent), "Blue no matter what" (um no, I'll evaluate everything in play), to worse. Do they all forget that this is the primary? So you've not only pissed me off and alienated me and you're going to want me to vote for your candidate in November?

Keep it up and wonder why Hillary loses to candidate X in November because of all those "Not real democrats" decided not to deal with the "real" democrat.

Re:They are doing the same in Brazil

[TheDarkMaster]

See my fellow slashdotters?

They are watching all possible forums to post lies if they find someone trying to describe what is happening. Who accuses me of being a troll ignores the detail that the process is happening illegally by not having a justification, under Brazilian law impeachment proceedings can only occur in response to the crimes committed by the President (which did not happen). He also omits to you the fact that Congress is completely corrupt, you may have seen the circus that they did in the lower house vote. Plus, he also omits detail that the judiciary is involved in the coup too.

And as they did in 1964, they also try to say that the coup is a "process within the law." If this were a baseball game, they would have purchased the judge, inspectors and commentators to claim that they are "playing fair".

Insufficent Funds

[T.E.D.]

I like Bernie himself, and even a lot of his proposals. But you could spend $1 Billion, and not even make a good start on correcting all the misconceptions his supporters are tweeting.

Re:They are called opinion influencers on payrolls

[SirSlud]

Using reddit as some kind of indicator is, uh .. well, that's quite a little bubble you're living in.

Re:In other news...

[Immerman]

What makes you think the Democratic party is liberal? More liberal than the Republicans maybe, but over the last few decades liberal values have almost completely vanished from the American political spectrum as Democrats have moved hard to a centrist position, while Republicans have scrambled toward extremism in order to continue to distinguish themselves from the Democrats.

I wonder where they're posting?

[SvnLyrBrto]

I don't really doubt the veracity of the article. But I wonder where these Hillary trolls are posting their astroturf? I sure don't see it on any of my feeds. I get a whole lot of Bernie's supporters trolling me (Presumably for free?) with their Hillary is Satan/Hitler spam than I see attacks on Bernie.

Don't get me wrong, I do plan to vote for the guy, at least in my state's primary. But his "Bros" are really starting to piss me off. And if he doesn't capture the nomination, I certainly won't sit at home and pout with a "I didn't get my way so the country can just BURN. Whaaaaa...) attitude in November like they say they will. Hillary may not be my ideal choice, but she's a damn sight better than Trump or Cruz.

All Discussion Formums are Vulnerable

[catchblue22]

The pseudo-anonymity of discussion forums like Slashdot, Disqus, or any of the other platforms make them fundamentally vulnerable to paid trolling. I usually assume that many of the posts written on hot-button discussions about issues such as politics or global warming are made by paid trolls. There is a percentage of the readership of forums that believes that all of the posts are made by disinterested citizens; that is the market for such paid trolling. Paying posters gives the appearance of legitimacy to the propaganda they put out. If there is a large readership for a particular forum, then paying posters to post is likely to be a relatively inexpensive means of reaching large numbers of readers. Its expense can be reduced by having single posters create posts under different user names, and across different forums. A single poster could create many hundreds of posts per day, reaching tens or hundreds of thousands of readers. I simply don't trust much of what I read on these forums.

Re:All Discussion Formums are Vulnerable

[Grishnakh]

I completely disagree, but with caveats.

The problem with forums like Slashdot is that they allow completely anonymous postings, rather than pseudo-anonymous posting (the "Anonymous Coward"). Anyone can post as AC here, any time. The system tries to limit this to an extent with time delays, but that only helps so much.

Any forum that allows anonymous posting has this problem: paid shills can post there any there's no way to tell they're a shill.

*True* pseudo-anonymous forums are a little different. They require you to have an account, and better ones allow you to see how old that account is. On Slashdot, we can infer this from the UID number: the lower it is, the older the account is. Unfortunately, it doesn't tell you explicitly how old the account it, like some forums do. Over on HackerNews, there's two notifications for this: you can click on a username and see a page that says exactly how old that account is, and also if the account is new (I'm not sure what the threshold is), that username will show up in green in the comment section. With a system like that, you can tell quickly who's more likely to be a shill. Someone with a 6-year-old account is not likely to be a shill for some current political candidate or issue.

On a lot of more general forums (like Disqus forums powering many regular blogs and news sites), there doesn't appear to be any way to tell how old an account is, so those are likely filled with paid shills.

Re:All Discussion Formums are Vulnerable

[catchblue22]

I wouldn't include /. due to the moderation system in place. While still possible to abuse, it would require a coordinated effort to not only post something but to come back with separate accounts to mod that post up and keep it at a high level. Even if it was a paid post, if interesting and factual, why shouldn't it get modded up? Disclaimer: I am not a paid poster for /.

If I ran a PR company that specializes in paid trolling, and I wanted to troll slashdot, I would build up various accounts that could be used for posting comments. Such accounts would have a posting history, and would build up moderation points over time. If I owned, say, one hundred or more accounts, I would be likely to have access to many moderation points. I could have an automated system that would be aware of what accounts had moderation points to spend. I could then have one or two of my paid trolls moderate on, say, global warming discussions, to tilt the moderation in favor of the topic my company wishes to influence. It isn't rocket science. It should be relatively easy. Run a few discrete browsers, or perhaps use virtual machines with different or spoofed IP addresses, and write a system that tracks posts and various accounts, and you would have a fairly powerful workstation that could enable a single person to post to numerous newspapers and other boards, INCLUDING Slashdot. The reason Slashdot and other discussion forums are vulnerable to this is that you do not know who is at the keyboard. You do not know them personally. You do not know what type of a person they are. You do not know their job, or their friends. You don't know their integrity, their trustworthiness. You just have a username, and a message. That is the flaw in this system. And it is unlikely that we can ever fix it.

Re: Only $1 million?

[Altus]

Generally speaking things that are "Funny" are best when they don't include an explanation.