Does it count as astroturfed if a publisher sends a prerelease copy to a media outlet, and the media outlet reviews it? When a PR firm markets a nice story to the media?
So, on /r/television - at least 50%, probably more, of popular posts/comments that advertise a particular show are 'organic', as in made by actual users OR content-agnostic repost bots. Some of those posts are links to news sites publishing PR material, though. And no doubt some posts/comments are explicit 'astroturfing'/advertising, although what the proportion is. You have to keep in mind, hundreds of millions of people watch television, and a solid 5% of those want to discuss that on the internet, and will enthusiastically post/upvote/comment - 'astroturfing' has to either have a lot of volume and subtlety to beat that, or function in a less direct and less "astroturfed" way. The same goes for politics, and the accusations of 'russian bots' or 'liberal bots' - they aren't bots, they are the millions of politics-obsessed normal 100iq people.
My feeling is that there are a ton of people "working" as trend setters, writing early posts on topics trying to set the tone for further engagement.
These "people" are a small minority but since they are aware of when things are released they can be first on the ball, kind of like pre-release copies are sent out to favourably inclined reviewers.
How much of this niche is captured by “influencers”? I get the impression that advertisers try to leverage existing following, maybe openly (sponsorships) or maybe not.
I think these are slightly different things. There are the influencers lending their real name to a product to give the impression that "high status" people are interested/like the product, and then there are the staff/bots etc who are instantly there cheering on various (semi)pseudonymous platforms, trying to give the impression that the masses are positive/excited about the product, that the conversations about the product is positive/excited and that there is a conversation/engagement.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
What percentage do you think of conversation about newly released media is organic/astroturfed/fans trying to drum up interest?
Let's say a relevant thread for a new episode of a tvshow on Reddit.
What about foreign language media?
Does it count as astroturfed if a publisher sends a prerelease copy to a media outlet, and the media outlet reviews it? When a PR firm markets a nice story to the media?
So, on /r/television - at least 50%, probably more, of popular posts/comments that advertise a particular show are 'organic', as in made by actual users OR content-agnostic repost bots. Some of those posts are links to news sites publishing PR material, though. And no doubt some posts/comments are explicit 'astroturfing'/advertising, although what the proportion is. You have to keep in mind, hundreds of millions of people watch television, and a solid 5% of those want to discuss that on the internet, and will enthusiastically post/upvote/comment - 'astroturfing' has to either have a lot of volume and subtlety to beat that, or function in a less direct and less "astroturfed" way. The same goes for politics, and the accusations of 'russian bots' or 'liberal bots' - they aren't bots, they are the millions of politics-obsessed normal 100iq people.
My feeling is that there are a ton of people "working" as trend setters, writing early posts on topics trying to set the tone for further engagement.
These "people" are a small minority but since they are aware of when things are released they can be first on the ball, kind of like pre-release copies are sent out to favourably inclined reviewers.
How much of this niche is captured by “influencers”? I get the impression that advertisers try to leverage existing following, maybe openly (sponsorships) or maybe not.
I think these are slightly different things. There are the influencers lending their real name to a product to give the impression that "high status" people are interested/like the product, and then there are the staff/bots etc who are instantly there cheering on various (semi)pseudonymous platforms, trying to give the impression that the masses are positive/excited about the product, that the conversations about the product is positive/excited and that there is a conversation/engagement.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link