Bitcoin Forum

Why should internet trolls be allowed to gang up on people who have a point and spread FUD and misdirection? Why can't we equally use our numbers against them too so that they lose their misdirecting powers? 1 for 1!

Trolls (name your site, reddit, SA, anywhere) get their power from their anonymity and numbers. They succeed in doing what they do because their targets are spread thinly, they remain anonymous, and because they are anonymous they don't need to back up anything they say.

Since we are the ones trying to change the world for the better and they seem to be the uptight assholes with an agenda against innovation, we have to stick together for our causes. Every initiative uses fuel though, and I think money might be a good kind.

This particular campaign is related to an internet community that Bitcoin could be used quite well in given the right understanding of it. Unfortunately, like many places, WIRED magazine's article about how "bitcoin has already failed" and inbred hatred of anything free and open has caused a bias. This means that if anyone mentions "bitcoin", 10 anonymous accounts pop-up calling it a scam and saying that person talking about it is probably trying to sell something etc.

You cannot win an argument if your voice is not as loud as the opponents unfortunately, and as is with society, louder voices win even if they're flat out lying. We need to at least match the voice of detraction. For every 10 fake accounts that cannot defend a point, we need 10 real people willing to argue it. Think of it like a chess game that I want to pay to be played.

There is no "winning" this game, but losing the game because something nocked the pieces off the board or told you to look in another direction while they placed their queen next to your king is cheating. Trolls cheat. They cannot win a real argument, and it takes power-in-numbers to make a troll infested place into a platform where a real debate can take place.

I will update the spots below regarding vacancies in the campaigns. The payment will be decided based off of donations and private investments.

PM me for more information. (Skype users will be given higher priority)

Spots available:

185/200

Current donations/investments to this campaign:

• 20 BTC - Private investment

Donations to this campaign can be made at 1MCYmbrnVYVuBgduTNswoD9YCkXLJj9S73

Am I understanding this right? You want to create a sockpuppet army?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)

Uhh, no.

Ahahahaha. "Trolling for truth?" :) This won't end well.

What, you've never mower astroturf before?  ;)

Sounds like a business plan... Wright & Co. - Digital gamekeepers for all your astrogardening needs.

That article exactly describes what you want to do: Change public perception by posting opposite views to certain persons/articles, be them positive or negative. Just because it's the truth for you, it may be seen as lies by others.
Thanks for confirming.
Also, I subscribe the "This won't end well" statement lol

Umm, no. The crux of sockpuppetry is the use of deception to obscure the source of a message. Organizing a group of people to get a message out is not sockpuppetry. Impersonating a group of people to get a message out is.

Wow. No. A thousand times, "no". What matters is what actually is true.  All claims are not equal, nor does a claim gain any status simply because somoene believes it. Some are *right* and some are *wrong* and that this the difference that matters most.

A person who actually is right should work to spread their ideas, regardless of whether they "may be seen as lies by others". This is because correct information allows people to avoid and minimize harm.

A person who is wrong is not excused by their incorrect statements being "the truth for [them]". Spreading a falsehood will do precisely the same damages whether the spreaders believe the falsehood or not.

What you're doing is equivalent to analyzing whether it is acceptable to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater but ignoring the very important issue of whether the theater actually *is* on fire. Nothing matters more to the analysis and the conclusion.

That will also end well, one way or the other.
They won't die from the fire, they will die from stepping on eachother.
Terrible analogy, Joel, sorry.

I appreciate your opinion that it will end well, but I'm curious why it matters to you if you're not going to be a part of it?

Anything to finally combat the problem of trolling is welcome for me.On most forums I've been on,this isn't such a big problem (as the few trolls who remain get dealt with quickly by the mods) .Why is this the only forum I find, that this is an issue?

It matters because I bet most of the people who will be a part of it will start "de-trolling", like you call it, opposite views about Bitcoin, and honnestly, Bitcoin already has a bad enough image because of that happening in the small scale that it happens today. You bringing it to a bigger scale will hurt Bitcoin more than it will help.

But you guys are free to do whatever the fuck you wish. Be my guest. But the bottom line is that you are no better than the SA goons.
hmmm, maybe you should recruit SA users, they're your men, for sure. And they're already trained.

De-troll at will...

The de-trolling we're talking about isn't for this forum. It's for websites like reddit, etc, where groups of misinformed individuals will spread their FUD at a rate faster than the few supporters can respond to, making it an unfair and bias debate that basically is unapproachable from all sides. By doing this, the detractors think they have "won" by "saving the world" from Bitcoin, when in fact what they're doing is working against the most truest of principles-- the sharing of information. I don't mind Scientologists coming to a forum and talking about their beliefs, because in debating it we get to the point. If 100 people gang up on 1 Scientologist and say "You're a faggot, go to hell stupid bitch. Scientology is gay", then no one will be able to get to the actual argument to learn anything about why it is right/wrong.

Some might think "Yea but Scientology IS gay, and it's a scam!" but a majority of people could say exactly the same thing about absolutely anything you believe in including you personally, and then you'd wish there was a fair debate.

The astroturfing they effectively do causes Bitcoin to look bad even when it hasn't done anything wrong. The only way to handle it is to mow the astroturf. They do it with Bitcoiners, I don't see what we can't do it to them in reverse.

Also, problem with this forum is also one of its greatest experimental benefits: More freedom.

Ok.Nice to clarify that this isn't about the forum (as such) as that would have helped me by responding to what the de-trolling was actually about. I hear many people go on about freedom and frankly I want to know where people draw the line online.In UK it is much clearer where the line is drawn for me and internet sites in Europe. Freedom for me is about expression/freedom from offence.Trolling isn't freedom,it just devalues the efforts of the community by people spreading FUD and then others have to chase after the trolls,everytime.Isn't it time a solution was implemented that strikes a good balance between right to expression/having a quality experience without being in fear of being trolled all the time.

Oh shit.

• https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Public_relations
• Be very, very careful if you are going through with this idea.
• Don't do it like this (http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?173251-Have-you-heard-of-this-new-currency-and-way-of-getting-paid-called-Bitcoins).

If I am curious but uninformed, and I meet a literal army of troll-fighting proselytizing Bitcoiners I'm going to turn really sceptical really fast.

Edited to add: The word "de-trolling" makes me cringe. Set the facts straight, by all means, but never try and fight a troll in a stand up fight.
As the saying (http://www.onelinerz.net/top-100-funny-one-liners/) goes: "Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."

Thanks for the advice elux.Important things to bear in mind. Perceptions can make or break ideas (and currencies).

LOL! I love that

What the heck are you thinking?

FTFY, also I want some.

Sound great Matthew N. Wright, another winning idea!

Upvotes to you good sirs, you win the internet. Epic winnery FTW. Troll fail is fail, luz boat full steam ahead to pwning lamerz.

Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
---Friedrich Nietzsche

I think it can't hurt much to get together and participate in some canvasing, present some good arguments and be there to help Bitcoiners who aren't sure how to argue the points with seasoned economists etc, but I am thinking my original post was a bit off. It comes across like nothing more than being butthurt and nonconstructive. Sorry guys. I think I need a break from the 'puter for a while.

Loving the buttcoins.com website as always.

It's buttcoin.org  >:(

How'd that photo shoot with that one asian chick work out?

Oops! Sorry. I meant to say buttcoins.org but I must be a bit sleepy.

I suppose she's doing fine. Last I heard she's working on a new website.

If you need any other photos of me for the buttcoins.com article let me know!

You're a good sport  ;D

Buttcoin is closed already, didn't you get the memo? It will fade into nothingness in about a week ...

I'm a little squirmy about the idea of organized bitcoin troll-tackling... but then I come across guys like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6s8kz8Y714
(CommonlyKnownAsDom)

That guy needs cluebatting.. but he seems pretty determined to misunderstand and hate on it.

No.

What MNW proposes here is actually a very common practice among various interest groups, political parties etc.

This tactic was perfected by Israeli intelligence, who would organize anti-Palestinian, pro-Israel comment mobs using their Megaphone software.

These days, I suspect that many comments under political and economic articles on major sites are paid for as part of PR or Public Shaping campaigns. Not to mention the articles themselves.

You're describing "astroturfing" which is not at all what I proposed. Sorry for the confusion.

What I'm referring to is that in a one-on-one debate in any forum, website, chatroom, there are usually 10+ detractors causing noise and spreading FUD to keep people from hearing the debate. The solution I believe is to bring in 10+ counter-detractors, kind of like being on someone in basketball. That person is responsible for engaging the troll until the troll is depleted of energy or lies to tell, while the real debate continues. I don't think there is anything unethical or immoral about it, and since we're not intending to influence but rather equalize, I don't think there's anything wrong with it in the slightest.

I'm still not sure whether I am clear on the difference between astroturfing and what you are proposing, but here is how I imagine it working out in the real world:

There would  be an invite-only IRC channel at somewhere like #bitcoin-cluebat that would have 5-10 very experienced members in it. They would be responsible for seeking out and destroying FUD spread on blogs, forums, and the like.
The necessary experience would be a comprehensive knowledge of Bitcoin and its ecosystems, a decent know-how of economics, some programming, and all of them must be well educated in the fine art of diplomacy.

An example situation would be on a blog, where someone has just posted an article that consists of mainly misconceptions. Once discovered, the link would be brought to the attention of the cluebatting team, who would discuss the best method of approach. Then, the first member would make a comment that is designed to educate, but also designed to draw the blogger into conversation. When the blogger responds, the team would evaluate the response and choose the most qualified member to respond to whatever is being discussed at the moment, and a different member would post on the same comment section with another constructive and diplomatically worded bit of information.

From the blogger's perspective, it wouldn't be one ravenous individual bashing him and his hard work, but rather several knowledgeable participants all applying their knowledge to correct his misconceptions. The same could be done on forums, where instead of one person always responding, there would be several that all know the correct answer posting alternately.

This would be a highly effective method of cluebatting even the most harsh detractors.

I would bet the Israeli Intelligence sees what they do as the same.  They are only standing up to those hate-spewing Palestinians...

Of course they do. I didn't say there was anything wrong or immoral about this. Maybe slightly unethical - creating false perception of public consensus - but then, anyone who lets some random comments shape his political views is an idiot anyway and what they think doesn't matter that much.
On the other hand, when it comes to technical and scientific stuff - like Bitcoin - there's absolutely nothing unethical about correcting common misconceptions. In fact, I wish someone knowledgeable commented on that random "Bitcoin is a scam" blog post that made me miss out on early adoption, when I googled Bitcoin in 2010.

Or you could learn your lesson about trusting blogs ;).  In an ideal world, people would know how to think for themselves, but I can see your point about technical and scientific misconceptions vs. politics.

Why did you have to post that link? Now I'm going to have to spend a few hours disproving everything that idiot said.

He is such an idiot and deserves a massive slap across the face for being stupid.

This is a terrible idea. 

I wish I could send you negative Bitcoins.