This board is overrun with shills. How to spot them

#1

I reckon that InfoWars simply doesn’t have the time or the money to hire/recruit moderators, so it’s up to the community to keep the board in its best shape. That involves keeping it attractive to new and current visitors. It’s not going to be attractive if it’s being flooded with schizophrenic nonsense and proven disinformation as was the case with “Mama Potato”. People are going to come here and think “ew”, and leave. Likewise, morale should be a concern. Alex has taken a political position, which is pro-MAGA and pro-Trump. All of his crew and every guest he has on, practically, are pro-Trump. Many believe that the pro-Trump movement is tied in with a battle of good vs evil. For that reason it’ll be discouraging when people here fearmonger about Trump or openly mock him.

What about “muh freespeech”? This board should no-more operate under the strictest observance of “free speech” than Alex’s show does (it doesn’t). He doesn’t have Donna Brazille on or the like because his audience would crucify him for it. Alex would be expected to deny his platform to certain people right?

With that being said, I suggest shills be identified with the following criteria:

  • presents disinformation
  • mocks Alex and Trump
  • presents the idea that they’re in the “inner circle” or secret clique (used for intimidation or an excuse as source of misinformation)
  • is very active, often posting empty thread after empty thread
  • says schizophrenic/incoherent shit

MAGA

7 Likes
#2

Or you could listen to Polonius (Hamlet).
‘To thine own self be true’.

When you walk the walk by commitment more than vacation in it, you learn the experience to recognize the same scars.
They don’t call it the road less travelled for no reason.

2 Likes
#3

So basically, you want the same echo chamber-like control over what’s presented that mainstream social media has, only the other side of the coin? That, in and of itself, is the issue that all of us should be fighting. There’s nothing wrong with someone coming in with a different opinion; give them facts as to why they’re wrong. If they start to make a habit out of it, then we start to look at this stuff. The last thing we should want to be, as a community, is self-righteous and exclusionary.

Alex and the crew have welcomed the other side onto his show. Look at guests like Brad Chadford. He’s even asked specifically for it. It’s the “Donna Brazille or the like” that doesn’t want to be on the show because of the reputation tarnishing that you think Alex and our community supposedly should care about. They want the echo chamber, all while projecting that as our desire. Let’s be above the pettiness that has caused the ideological schism over the past decade.

5 Likes
#4

I for the most part agree. Sometimes I might pop a funny. But I try to stay.on topic. I thinks its okay to debate about Trump though or others but in a respectful manner.

2 Likes
#5

When a person says, “I want moderators,” that person is probably against free speech, generally. There are reasons for that. It’s deep and wide. I got banned for Soph.

3 Likes
#6

@Artsyneva, I want no moderators. There are many reasons for this. It’s very problematic. Long story.

2 Likes
#7

Ya its hard because for the most part to me its about being respectful to others. and just using common since
I dont mind new threads with ideas, it gives people something to debate about.

1 Like
#8

I know what you mean Joey, now with the ignore button that helps. Then we see it did not work with moderators before. And whose going to be the moderator?. So it gets deep. I think though there are some bullies that insult people, but I put two on ignore. That helps.

1 Like
#9

I dont like the flagging system anymore. Because from what I have seen it does not work. Bullies start flagging people then the robot automatically deletes the thread or them.

2 Likes
#10

Assuming the moderators are reasonable, no one would complain of the moderation. But those that want to post stupid shit that any reasonable person would not want to be posted insist on their rights to free speech having no clue what free speech even means.

When you try to get them to have a reasonable conversation and ask simple questions, they refuse to answer and get nasty.

There is a tactic by some in forums to post in a way that distracts and misdirects, basically confuse with clutter and nonsense.

I see it as the same as illegal immigrants entering the US illegally then claim they have a right to be here and demand support.

No, you do not have a right to be here, and the US has no obligation to let anybody in, period.

And No, you do not have “free speech” rights on a message board. If you did, then you strip a company of any of it’s right to own and operate a business while opening the door to those people who have nefarious intentions.

Does anybody think this is a free speech zone? Okay, then go right ahead and allow Antifa, pedophiles, rapists, and all the rest to take up shop here and start posting then watch what happens. You’ll be begging for moderators in no time.

3 Likes
#11

If you want to moderate, there are two main ways to do it, before and after. Let me explain what I mean.

After

The normal way things are moderated is “AFTER.” In other words, the moderating happens after a post, comment, or whatever, is published, entered, sent, etc. Believe it or not, there is another way to do it. Now, the other way is harder. This is the normal way for how Facebook moderates for example.

Before

But it is better to moderate before things are published.

How Before Works

In the Before Method, for example, say, I comment on your website, then you review it and then you publish it if you want. I prefer this style of moderating if you have to have it. But I’d rather have no moderation at all in the first place.

Free For All

I like the freedom to post and comment whatever I want. I believe in it. I believe in it for so many reasons. Moderating can be possibly and excessively subjective. Now, objectivity, AKA Absolute Truth, morality, eternal principles, exists. But too often, people are stuck in limbo of subjectivity. So, it might be misleading, psychologically (not objectively perhaps), to kind of allow people to post and then to try to moderate after the fact. Yes, it is done that way on social networks, after you post, then you might be moderated. People bought into this protocol.

Newspapers

But why not the newspaper module? That’s what they did. Newspapers would do it before and not after. Newspapers decided what would be published and therefore what was not published was moderated out of the newspaper.

Honesty

I would prefer not moderating anything.

Exception

But if you had to, then why not simply let people submit comments, posts. Then let moderators publish them. Then, only the good stuff gets out according to whatever the moderators publish. That takes a lot of work, yes, but it can be better than simply trying to put the toothpaste back into the thing after the fact and there are many reasons for that.

1 Like
#12

My debt of gratitude again I extend towards The Mentor and Humorist extraordinaire.
Sincere Thank you for defining the knowledge I never had words to express.

“Not Always Agreeable Supporter”

Lol lolol

1 Like
#13

@Memeart, I agree. Close the borders to websites. Instead of moderating comments, why not moderate which users are accepted onto the website in the first place by sufficiently screening and vetting each applicant to a website? Then, reward them for posting good stuff. If they post bad stuff, then they get less or no incentives. I prefer no moderating. But if you have to, either moderate which users can join or moderate like newspapers do by reviewing the pending comments before they are published. Moderators can publish whichever comments they want. They can reject the other comments and posts. That is better than rejecting them after they are published. So much better if done before and not after.

@discobot quote

2 Likes
#14

:left_speech_bubble: Intuition is the very force or activity of the soul in its experience through whatever has been the experience of the soul itself. — Henry Reed

#15

I bet he would have on Donna Brazille to talk about the death of Seth Rich, Generally agree, but many put me as SP, just cause some conversation are not totally public, and on deeper parts. Or not your average topic. And many I thought were trolls, like Lev, or Mr Anderson, but they are not, just hard core @Memeart

1 Like
#16

Alex will have an opposing view on from time to time, and he has guests on who disagree with him on all kinds of things. But if he were to have Donna Brazille on as a routine or daily guest, would be stand for it? Fuck no.

We’re the counter-culture, right? There is no such thing as an echo-chamber for us, but there is such a thing as an escape. A place where we don’t have to hear the same shit we’d hear from Vox (“Alex is fat”, “orange man bad”, “9/11 totally went down like the official story says”).

#17

Exactly. “Free speech” has become a buzz word and people don’t realize “free speech” doesn’t technically exist anywhere. These people that talk about free speech wouldn’t be crying “free speech” if they went into say, a football pub in England, cheered the rival team, and consequently got their ass kicked or something.

But I haven’t actually called for moderation because I figure InfoWars has a reason for not having one. I just suggest people watch out for repeated red flags.

1 Like
#18

You really only have your first amendment on your own property while holding your second amendment.

3 Likes
Make A Difference Quotes
#19

@Fubar, hypothetically speaking, Mark Zuckerberg, allegedly, might have said that you also have your first amendment on Facebook as well, assuming that Facebook is a public town square.

2 Likes
#20

If it’s even your own property, as you basically rent it from the government, and they tell you how to live on it. Gotta love town ordinances…

1 Like