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.
Oops, ignore extraneous ‘ in Person’s
the Maple Sandbox site fits more with Isaac Brock, and like Canadians is known for it’s quiet politeness.
Damn, I cannot stop with the extraneous ‘s
@Petros re: “@BB: The best way to stop an invasion is at its source”,
Canada doesn’t have a CBT problem. Canada has a US problem.
Late to the party here, but whatever.
I think of all the places online where you’d want to encourage anonymity, this is one of them. There are lots of folks like myself who are cheerfully “non-willfully” non-compliant and should take at least minimal precautions to hide their identity, though of course it’s ridiculous to imagine IRS agents having the time to snoop through forum comments.
To the main point, as a long-time occasional lurker, I’ve noticed this place tending ever-so-gradually towards a slightly paranoid echo chamber. Recent posts have reinforced this feeling.
I’m not sure what the complaints are about expat forum. It seems to me you get a good range of advice there: here’s your full-compliance option, here’s your partial-compliance option, here’s your non-compliance option, all with pros and cons laid out. Boring debates about the rights and wrongs of US CBT are kept to a minimum.
Myself, I don’t give a rat’s ass about the ideological and philosophical questions. I don’t care about my “human rights” – I want practical advice. Who cares if lying to your bank is unethical – it works. I have zero interest in attempting to change US law, which seems like a pointless waste of energy. I’m not even sure that the lawsuit is a good idea – partly because we might be worse off without the IGA, partly because it’s so easy to avoid the whole problem by not being truthful and side-stepping FATCA. Consider non-compliance a form of private civil disobedience, it will make you feel good about yourself.
As a Canadian living in Canada, at least for now, one is well protected. If you don’t have US assets or income, you can ignore this completely. It’s not difficult. The best service that forums like this can do is to inform people of the realities, reduce the panic, and encourage them to make a slow, considered decision about the extent and degree of compliance that best suits their situation. US citizens in countries with more aggressive and vigilant banks face more complex problems than us lucky Canadians, and may need to take action.
“Myself, I don’t give a rat’s ass about the ideological and philosophical questions. I don’t care about my “human rights” – I want practical advice.”
I think one of my chief roles in this whole USA tax invasion is to affirm people in their sense of having been violated.
Like it or not, the persecutors in this battle are themselve moralizers. So the propagandists and demagogues are busy at work moralizing, and perhaps they would like to come and have a real debate with me?
Well said, Polly and Nononymous. There is indeed a tone of stridency and petulance creeping into this site that wasn’t there a few years ago. I think Polly’s remarks may be fueled by worry that Petros will simply start removing comments he deems to be from trolls, astroturfers, etc.—which could easily lead to the stifling of unpopular views.
Nononymous questions the usefulness of the IGA lawsuit, and I agree with her/him. Brockers have rarely acknowledged one good thing that has happened: namely, that (with very few exceptions), our access to Canadian banks has been unaffected by FATCA. The banks have not tried to turf us out, as has happened in other countries. But what if the lawsuit succeeds? CBT and FATCA will still be there, but now each bank will have to cut its own deal with the IRS (in fact, that’s how the FATCA law was originally written). Will these deals just be copies of the old IGA? Or maybe they will make RRSPs and TFSAs reportable? Perhaps the added burden will push some banks into really trying to get rid of us; recall that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms binds only the government, not private corporations.
Early on, I hoped that the huge expense of complying with FATCA, along with legal actions such as the IGA lawsuit and the US-based anti-FATCA lawsuit, might spark worldwide resistance against this extraterritorial law. But that plainly has not happened. FFI’s the world over have lined up to comply, and the OECD has created a “common reporting standard” clearly inspired by FATCA. A victory in the IGA lawsuit is not going to change any of this.
So I think the IGA lawsuit needs a hard look and a re-evaluation. I despise FATCA as much as anyone on this site, but will a victory leave us better off, or worse off? Might it not be better to respond to FATCA by “sidestepping” it, to use Nononymous’ well-chosen word?
I hardly think that there is anything petulant about my original post. But as regards the USA world-wide tax invasion, this website has always been anti-establishment–because the USA is a major rights violator.
I am in favour of equal protection under the law and the Charter protected freedoms of all inhabitants of Canada, things which the IGA violates. I do not believe that we should throw out our freedoms just to have nice relations with the serial human rights abuser at our Southern border.
@Richard: you seem perfectly incapable with actually engaging the content of the original post, and you come here and apparently illustrate how it works.
@ Petros Commenters consistently go off topic here. What’s so suspicious about that? It doesn’t make Richard an astroturfer.
@Richard, Hi there! Welcome to Brock! I assume you are new here as your alias does not sound familiar. Just so you know, we do not take responsibility for any negative effect to your mental health while visiting. Have fun and stay safe!
The majority here are in favour of the IGA lawsuit. Richard begins his (consistently) anti-lawsuit comments by insulting the original post, and misrepresenting the historic tone of Isaac Brock.
Besides, Richard suggested that I was going to start to stifle debate by removing comments I disagree with. Au contraire, I am just explaining my push back at what seemed to me to be troll. That too is part of the debate. We regularly allow trolls and astroturfers to comment and we never censor their comments for that reason–at least that is the current policy. So in this, he has again misrepresented the website.
@Richard,
“So I think the IGA lawsuit needs a hard look and a re-evaluation. I despise FATCA as much as anyone on this site, but will a victory leave us better off, or worse off?”
If the Charter challenge is successful, and the Cdn government turning over our financial information to the US is found to be a violation of the Charter, then it is the same for banks. The banks can work it out from there, and exert pressure on the Canadian government again to do it right this time. I don’t believe Canadian banks can deny a Canadian an account.
@Richard, with regard to your statement that TheMom quoted, I think you need to look at the bigger picture and think not only about the potential for harm of a subset of Canadians deemed ‘US persons’, but also the precedent that is being set here for all Canadians. This is a historical fight with very important impacts to the rights and freedoms of our children and grandchildren. So maybe we will be worse off without an IGA for a period of time. Part of the price we may have to pay to win the battle in the end.
Also, the IGA lawsuit, if successful, will set a worldwide precedent. Other Commonwealth jurisdictions in particular will be able to cite the case as a strong precedent for challenging the IGAs their countries signed with the bully nation.
1) Petros:
a) My comments were indeed off-topic from your post, but not off-topic from Polly’s and Nononymous’ replies to it.
b) I’m glad to hear that you are not contemplating censorship of comments. It seemed to me that your remarks about trolls and astroturfers might be laying the groundwork for such censorship, and I think that’s what Polly responded to.
c) I know that the majority of Brockers favor the IGA lawsuit—that’s why it seemed useful to post counter-arguments. Mass conformity would make for a dull website.
d) I did not “insult” your post!
2) The Mom:
As far as I can determine, the Charter does not apply to banks or other private corporations. But you are right that current regulations require a bank to open an account for a Canadian. Let’s hope it stays that way.
3) BlackKat and Barbara:
I understand and respect your arguments for the lawsuit based on principle and precedent. BlackKat has some especially good thoughts about short-term pain for long-term gain, and also about the precedent this sets for Canada’s future treatment of all its citizens, not just US persons.
But I don’t see how a win would set a worldwide precedent, since only Canada has the Charter of Rights. And as for principle, this craziness has been going on for six years now, and almost the whole world has agreed to comply with FATCA. Will these countries, seeing a lawsuit victory in Canada, suddenly understand how wrong FATCA is and reverse their policies, bringing it to a grinding halt? I don’t think so. Greed and fear prevail over principle almost every time.
Summary: Real food for thought in the replies, except from Petros, who seems to be in a really, really bad mood these days.
@Richard, I am in a great mood.
So the tone of stridency and petulance is not me and I need not feel insulted? Great. I shall carry on.
I do agree that not having disagreement at this blog would be boring.
@Richard, re; “…Perhaps the added burden will push some banks into really trying to get rid of us; recall that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms binds only the government, not private corporations. ….”
I think it is more complex than that. I don’t think that distinction lets banks off the hook re violations of human/civil rights in Canada. There is also the The Canadian Human Rights Act:
Banks are federally regulated organizations. See this list;
“….The Canadian Human Rights Act protects employees and customers of federally
regulated organizations, namely:
·
Federal government departments, agencies, and Crown corporations
·
Canada Post and other courier companies
·
Chartered banks
·
Airlines
·
Television and radio stations
·
Interprovincial communications and telephone companies
·
Interprovincial buses, railways, and trucking companies
·
Other federally regulated industries, such as certain mining operations”…….
pg. 1
and, see ex. of prohibitions on service providers;
“DISCRIMINATION IN SERVICES
This section gives examples of discrimination when a person has requested goods,
services, facilities or accommodation ordinarily available to the general public. This
discrimination may involve a straight denial of the service, unfair treatment when
providing the service, or a rule that effectively denies the service to individuals or
groups of people.”……… pg. 15
Source:
RACE, COLOUR, NATIONAL OR ETHNIC ORIGIN; ANTI-DISCRIMINATION CASEBOOK
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/HR21-56-2001E.pdf
The FATCA IGA purports to provide the banks with legislated cover overriding other Canadian legislation. However, banks are discriminating if they deny service to accountholders on the basis of national origin/nationality.
And, then there is also the Bank Act, which I think would not allow Canadian banks to close/deny the basic accounts of Canadian residents and citizens on the basis of a foreign law even if they were deemed ‘recalcitrant’ as per US FATCA.
See;
‘Access to Basic Banking Services Regulations’
SOR/2003-184
BANK ACT
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-2003-184/page-1.html
@Richard, glad we’ve given you some food for thought. Another thing to consider about the ‘do nothing solution’ with respect to the Canadian IGA is the ‘give them an inch take a mile’ effect. Although the IGA seems less harsh than ‘FATCA pure’, by allowing USA access to personal information of Canadians deemed ‘US persons’ we have effectively opened Pandora’s box. What might USA attempt to do with that informations future? And will Canada stand up and say ‘no’ when USA tries to use the information in ways that are harmful to those Canadians deemed US persons?
Oops…. Should have typed, “What might USA attempt to do with that information in future?”
Richard, further to my comment above;
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/cibc-slapped-with-discrimination-complaint-over-closing-iranian-s-bank-account-1.3036679
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/07/20/iraniancanadian_bank_account_closures_may_violate_charter_rights.html
One thing I’ve learned since this whole Us person hunt started is that those who decide the future of our country are dumber than me and it scares the shit out of me.
@ BlackKat…ditto, me too! I am very scared for Canada and the US these days! Even though I am no longer a US citizen, I still have family in the US. I don’t understand US politics, but watch CNN. What a circus!
Well, both Petros and Bubblebustin’ know that I’m not a troll or astroturfer – since both of them are Facebook friends. ~evil grin~ That I’m 100% human,,,
People who are long-time Brockers (I’m one of the first Brockers who jumped on board, after Petros got booted from the ExpatForum) know my story – to keep it short for those who aren’t familiar…(my wife is affected by FATCA), I’m the 100% Canadian; born and bred in the family. My kids are affected by the birth-clause – however whether they’re found or not will depend on how close our proximity is to the US consulate (which is pretty much in the same category as Mordor to us). People may say that I have an absolute irrational hatred for the United States, but is it surprising after what they did? I don’t put up with apologists, nor do I put up with those who would make excuses for the party that put the teeth on FATCA and CHOSE to do so.
If a condor is identified, I will NOT make him/her comfortable. You all can play nice, but my fangs are out, and my venom sacs are full.