Kinds of Trolls
Typical trolls: These are people who troll for the fun of it. Perhaps they get their jollies out of contradicting others on social media. Perhaps they enjoy arguments with people they disagree with. Perhaps their personal ideology compels them to find people to contradict, like a vegan in a meat-eaters group (yes, I’ve seen this).
Spammers: Spammers are robots or people that leave messages in social media. They post click bait to spread malware or to bring traffic to a website or a product that they are trying to promote. Most often spammers never engage in the discussion, though their comments are designed to look like they are actually interacting with your content: “Hey great post! Thanks for the help.” Or, “Sorry you don’t know how to write. I could give you some pointers to make your website better.” Our spam filter discards hundreds of these messages everyday, but a few manage to get through
Condors: One type of troll is a real person who is dropping by to let people know that he’s got a book for sale or he’s available for business. At Isaac Brock we get compliance condors who are essentially fishing for business. We have had cases where readers here at Isaac Brock have engaged the services of such an expert, only to inform us later that they felt ill-served. So generally, we have mixed feelings about people from the compliance industry: in some cases, they may share arcane knowledge that might be useful for the purposes of this blog. On the other hand, we cannot vouch for their services, and we recognize in some cases these people are able to get what amounts to free advertising at Brock. We have never received a penny from a condor in the form of payment, commission or kickback. The same was not true at the Expat Forum, where compliance condors had to pay to play. At the Expat Forum, however, the condors began to control the agenda, and the forum moderators removed several threads with thousands of comments. Isaac Brock, by contrast, has never received any funding from advertisers, and we only rarely censor comments, and we almost never remove posts.
Astroturfers: The main distinction between the typical troll and the astroturfer is the lack of transparency. Astroturfers troll with a hidden agenda. So for example, a pharmaceutical company may pay an astroturfer to visit social media to defend their products. At Isaac Brock Society we have had cases of astroturfers–one confirmed case, but only because the condor who posted with a second identity lacked the sophistication to use a second IP address for his alter ego. The alter ego of this compliance condor came on to reprimand Petros for his hostility against the condor in an attempt to generate sympathy for himself. Those were in the early days of the Isaac Brock Society. From that day forward, we have been suspicious about astroturfing and have tried to learn more about the phenomenon.
Modus Operandi of trolls especially astroturfers
The astroturfer doesn’t have to use anything approaching a real argument and it is perhaps counter-productive to engage the main points of the original post. It suffices to sow discord and doubt. Sometimes, an astroturfer can take a know-it-all approach while always resting on conventional opinion, attempting to discredit the author through accusations of extremism, lack of knowledge or expertise, or mental instability (such as accusing the author of anger). Because the astroturfer sometimes relies on conventional wisdom, an air of paternalism will replace actual rational debate.
Astroturfers also use multiple identities because one of their main goals is to make it look like their views arise from the grass roots. Hence the name astroturf–it is a fake grass roots movement. Indeed, Adam Bienkov writes:
As reported by the Guardian, some big companies now use sophisticated “persona management software” to create armies of virtual astroturfers, complete with fake IP addresses, non-political interests and online histories. Authentic-looking profiles are generated automatically and developed for months or years before being brought into use for a political or corporate campaign. As the software improves, these astroturf armies will become increasingly difficult to spot, and the future of open debate online could become increasingly perilous.
Who might be astroturfing at Isaac Brock?
Since we do not require that people provide a real name or even a real e-mail address, it is absurdly easy for an astroturfer to assume an alias, create a persona, and begin to post comments. We allow this because it permits people who are intimidated by the IRS to feel the courage to comment. But it isn’t paranoid to believe that astroturfers are also coming to Isaac Brock to sow discord and doubt. We are a true grass roots movement which is challenging the triumvirate of government, finance, and compliance industries. In my own posts in particular, especially by setting down Petros Principles, I have questioned the legitimacy of the triumvirate. Hence, it is in their financial interests to monitor and even astroturf at Isaac Brock Society. We are talking about industries with very deep pockets.
Conclusion
We must always be on our guard. Astroturfers do not reveal their conflicts of interest. Since astroturfers may go to elaborate lengths to create fake identities, we must be suspicious of those who challenge the core of our approach–especially when it is a first time poster (though there may even be some who have been with us for a long time). We should be sophisticated when using social media and never allow astroturfers to sway our opinions.
In my view the burden of proof is on the person who has the alias. I am suspicious of anyone who comes onto this blog for the first time just to contradict me. Therefore, if someone talks like a condor, the burden of proof is on them to prove that they are not one–at least for me. Obviously others have shown that they think that they can trust anyone who comes onto Isaac Brock to contradict Petros–and that Petros shouldn’t expect such people to have to prove themselves. However, anyone who wishes to attack me should at least be as transparent as I am–my blogging alias is a thin veneer over a real person.
“According to the Daily Beast, a pro-Clinton SuperPAC called “Correct the Record” has spent $1 million “pushing back against” Bernie Sanders supporters on social media, “addressing” thousands of people on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and Instagram. What this amounts to in practice is creating hundreds of fake accounts, which then place campaign propaganda all over the web as if it came from ordinary supporters.”
“This group is spending a fortune unofficially intervening in social media conversations, without other users knowing that the messages are being funded by a SuperPAC”
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/04/if-you-want-solid-evidence-that-clinton-is-corrupting-the-political-process-here-it-is
@Walt, I am not paranoid.
@Patricia, I like it when I know something about the various commenters–and when I can put names, faces and stories together. Apart from a few people from the old days, I cannot do that with that many commenters today. While generally speaking your suggested approach would increase the quality of the conversation, I do not think that it would solve the issue of astroturfing. Why? because any troll can create a persona. I would think that many condors would be quite adept at creating composite sketches of affected persons, each with their own unique story. The only problem would be keeping each of these personas consistently in character.
@Oscar
We also have to be aware that we don`t become too paranoid. But that will depend on one`s situation.
A cousin of mine renounced last year and he is on holiday in California right now as I write. No problem, but he paid his back taxes with gritted teeth even if he hasn’t heard the end of it yet. He also needed somebody to help him with the taxes- an accountant- because he couldn’t have done it himself. He has been living in Europe since he was 6 years old. I don`t know how much it has cost him because we don`t talk about those kind of intimacies, but seems he has enough left to take his family on holiday. He told me his daughters asked to see America and where he grew up as a child.
If I had renounced without complying I don`t think I would travel there (or anywhere). So maybe in that case – paranoia is warranted. That is the very tragic price of hiding in this whole mess. But the problems which come up when one resists CBT are what are being discussed here extensively! It might be one of the major reasons- and definitely the major concern- that is discussed here.
But thankfully also topics of interest are the progress of the court challenges and the general news on tax reforms and what is going on at the IRS. It is good to be up to date and informed of all the changes in the system.
But I am saying all this with the knowledge that there are people here between a rock and a hard place, and for whom non-compliance is an existential issue. There are all sorts of people here looking for information. I heard a lot of conversations about swiss bankers being unable to travel because they were all under the looking glass for aiding tax evasion. The discussion disclosed that it was a lot harder for a young man to be shut up in Switzerland like a jail and unable to travel than for somebody who is older. And as we know- it is harder for those with family ties in America to no longer travel there.
How did we get here? It is all so tragic. America considers all expats to be tax evaders because of a law that nobody knew about or was never enforced since the 1860s. In that sense- all expats ARE tax evaders according to homelanders and US law. My take on it however is: whose fault is that? A government who never enforced a law? Or those who neither knew about it nor felt the need to comply if nobody was being forced to? IS it a crime to not comply with a law that was never enforced? I honestly think the government- instead of turning into some kind of rabid vengeful pitbull – should take some of the responsibility for the way things turn out. Do you? I don`t think I have read any debate on this angle of the situation?
@Patricia
Sorry to misinterpret your post. I’ve been following this blog for years but I have always been wary of engaging in the conversation (@Petros: perhaps that’s why I felt sympathy for Jay, that’s the only relation we have). Filling out my taxes was a nightmare every year as the rules always seemed to change, even though I have limited means and never owed anything. One year I noticed that the reporting requirements had gotten crazy. I looked into it online and found, among other things, the article about you in the WSJ which confirmed my worst fears, and helped me get over my denial.
Though I really have nothing to hide and complied with the law, I knew that once I started accumulating any savings and a pension (not to mention the consequences of the signature authority rules), I would be forced to choose between compliance and sacrificing the rights I thought were guaranteed to me by the US constitution. When I realized I could choose between a country that offered freedom, opportunity and security and one that ignored my rights (FATCA was not the first time, either), the choice became clear.
@Polly
I don’t see the US government taking responsibility for this. Not even through the judiciary, though I really think they need to for the good of their people and their economy. I don’t think anything will really change until the burden of compliance to an insane tax code and financial isolation become too much to bare.
I really hope the litigation in Canada is successful, it seems like our best hope, even for those of us outside of that country. Perhaps the independence Brexit allows for the financial system will lead to something similar in the UK where there are also a large number of US persons.
@Patricia,
“I don’t understand why US laws would be irrelevant given our situation. If one doesn’t want to read a post because it’s about US law, it could simply be skipped like any other post.”
I do skip them. Why are they irrelevant to me? Unless they are FATCA, I’ve renounced, so I don’t feel I must keep up on US law, since I don’t live there. Further, this mess has made me quite anti-American. Even further, as a Canadian, I feel a constant, unwanted barrage of Americanness fired at me. I recently went on vacation in the UK, and the lack of American influence around me was wonderful and eye-opening. It’s quite suffocating here at home.
For example, I arrived home to discover CTV News running each US political convention as wall to wall, multi-night prime time coverage.
@TheMom, I’m feeling you, though unlike you I have not renounced so technically still am a US citizen. But I am not and have never been ‘American’. I could care less what stupid laws USA has, CBT included (even though it affects me). I just want Canada to stand up for me and for all Canadians. All this US talk and focus on defeating US CBT makes me feel sometimes like I really am just a US person abiding in Canada.
Would Isaac Brock give a shit about US law?
Isaac Brock was a man of vision who could see war coming. There are many ways to fight a war and there are many ways to avoid war. The CBT lawsuit is a great way to stop the problem at its source.
For those interested in seeing meltdown of someone I suspected might be a democrat party operative, see: https://www.facebook.com/groups/citizenshiptaxation/permalink/1109802652442815/
@Petros,, Isaac Brock would have supported a CBT lawsuit no doubt. But in my opinion he would not have taken it on himself. He would have focused on the bigger problem – US extraterritorialism. He would have left CBT for the Americans to fight and focused on strengthening the Canadian defense for the next US assault that we all know is coming.
And just to stay on topic with this post, I thought I would mention that my Canadian centric viewpoint which I have often presented here has earned me the designation of ‘troll’ by at least one Brocker in the past.
The problem with condors is that they gain from this situation and have no desire to see the laws change or real reform. Any new reporting requirement is a chance for more business as it might trap more tax payers into needing professional help. There are a few trustworthy ones but most see it as an opportunity for business recruitment. In all aspects of business, people want more consumers, clients and yes some unscrupulous people from any aspect of business/trade/occupation might even disrupt efforts for change to retain their business sources.
I remember trying to read some of the publications to see if I could file myself and while I was reading, I was thinking that this is completely insane and how was it possible that these rules even still existed and that people were actually abiding by them (except most people aren’t filing). And these laws don’t just affect the US person but their families.
Once it became clear the level of compliance needed, my whole motivation to file was to renounce. It was never to maintain compliance because I knew what the consequences of that would mean with life control, invasion of privacy and leading a life of a second class citizen here. I saw myself having bigger problems being in the system rather than out of the system.
I don’t understand why US laws would be irrelevant given our situation.
neither do I.
i am a canadian citizen resident in canada
as far as i am concerned the only laws that apply to me are CANADIAN laws
uncle sam can kiss my a$$
The *real Canadian, Isaac Brock*, was not born in the U.S. and didn’t have children born outside the U.S. who would be affected by U.S. CBT and its extra-territoriality into other countries and their citizens.
I don’t at all consider myself an American after my second and official departure from U.S. citizenship in 2012, now with a CLN I could (if necessary) present to my local Canadian *foreign financial institutions*. I don’t consider my Canadian-born and raised in Canada son a U.S. citizen (though he was born to two U.S. parents before they became Canadian citizens in 1975 and were warned we would thereby be losing our U.S. citizenship, accepting it as fact). The Canadian *foreign* (to the U.S.) accounts that I hold on his behalf, though, are identified in the U.S. tax and FBAR paperwork in which I extradited myself from a country I have no relationship to other than that of my siblings (and other relatives) who were born in and continue to reside there. As I see it, if there were no U.S. CBT, my son would not be entrapped into U.S. citizenship and its consequences, unable to renounce because of lack of requisite mental capacity. He would just be a citizen of another country who could not be fleeced by what I feel is legal theft from U.S. Person citizens of other countries and those countries themselves. There is nothing to give me confidence that Canada or its government can or have the will to do for those they define *U.S. citizens who happen to abide in Canada*. Thus, the Canadian litigation for our rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and perhaps my children’s right to benefit fully from any estate I leave when I pass on, none of it going to what I consider a foreign country’s tax regime. I feel that it is to my family’s benefit that U.S. CBT be also be part of past EXCEPTIONAL U.S. history, thus I am for the litigation against U.S. CBT. Fight it and kill it on all fronts, in any way, to leave it all behind so many good people affected can be rid of the stigma and consequences of U.S. CBT.
I don’t know what Sir Isaac Brock would fight for should he and/or his spouse and their children be affected by U.S. CBT, but I would like to believe he would fight the injustice on all fronts.
@Oscar. I am more comfortable using a pseudonym here, but to believe it makes me anywhere near anonymous is pure fallacy. The same computers that we use to send these missives can be easily employed to identify almost anyone here. There are many here who make no secret here of their identities, but I have accidentally stumbled across the identities of some who wish to remain anonymous, with no intention of doing so, simply by their comments on other forums. I have every faith that IBS will protect people’s privacy, but people tend to betray themselves as I have done on many occasions.
I have followed Isaac Brock since the story of my hubbie’s imprisonment was reported on this website. I would like to remind everyone that just because somebody is paranoid that doesn’t mean that there isn’t someone else out there trying to hurt him or her.
Thanks for your comment, *Mrs. Claus*.
…a premise we’ve followed at this site since its beginning.
The Canadians are more vociferous in this forum because a) we live right across the 49th Parallel from the assholes who did this to us without even a fence to protect our side of the border. Not to mention the Frozen Alaskans wanting to invade from the NorthWest. If the USA decided to call in their bluff? Who do you think would get invaded first? Us Canadians. We’re on the front line here. The rest of you have the Pond and the Pacific to shield you. They’d have to get in their boats to come over and invade. Meanwhile; what the hell’s with the Mexicans. They should be up in arms too. They’re along the southern border. Oh, yeah. Trump’s saying that if he gets in, that he’ll build a wall.
Isaac Brock Society:
“Liberty and justice for all United States persons abroad”
@Bubblebustin, we wrote the taglines and the about post in Dec 2011. If I wrote those things today, there might be a change in wording, since US Person is a USA-centric definition. For example, in my Petros Principles, I write: “Petros Principles are guidelines that have helped him and others deal with the United States’ world-wide tax invasion.”
@Petros
I see. Would that include providing a platform for the ADCT lawsuit?
@BB: The best way to stop an invasion is at its source.
Too late now but perhaps a better name for this site would have been ‘US person’s Abroad Society.’ I think Isaac Brock would have agreed.