Comments on: The ethics of astro-turfing: sleazy or smart business?

By: biggerpicture

biggerpicture — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:48:10 +0000

true – knowing how to spell in today’s world is werth nuthing

By: BogusStrawman

BogusStrawman — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:05:25 +0000

Um, zerode, astroturf is a brand of fake grass, hence its use in this context.

I’ve been watching Microsoft’s astroturfers on slashdot, the computer tech website, for years and often wonder, how does one sign up? How do they get paid? By the comment? Are they on a retainer? How many responses to their trolling? Do they coordinate their attacks? Do they have campaigns?

This would be a good article I think, to delve into this murky world.

By: bigpicture

bigpicture — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:00:17 +0000

Oh! Oh! the grammar police, off topic as usual, contributing nothing.

By: J

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:08:09 +0000

Rein in. It’s a horse, not a king.

By: Tim Landers

Tim Landers — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 06:42:45 +0000

I think you should be able to shill all you want as long as you publicly reveal who’s paying your bills.

By: zerode

zerode — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:08:47 +0000

I agree that the practice of paying for positive (or negative) blog posts, reviews, comments, etc., is a bad practice, but I worry about the way the term “astro-turfing” has been taken over to describe this business practice. Originally, the term came out of a political context, where it was used to describe fake “grassroots” campaigns and movements. Using it in this business practice has a certain kind of logic but it tends to water down the term, and in its original context it was important.