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.
Save some venom for anyone from the Canadian Bankers Association who might try to cause trouble here too, the Animal.
As the spouse of a reluctant US person, I have contemplated writing my MP (and other MPs) some of whom have indicated a willingness to listen to concerns regarding the IGA and FATCA. Up until recently I’d have been comfortable pointing to this site as a source for some relatively informed commentary and background information regarding these issues, simply to enable communicating an “executive summary” of the issue without having to write a book.
It looks like I have to write a book.
The Isaac Brock Society web site is no longer useful to anyone sensible actually looking to solve either the specific or the general problem. It has jumped the shark, as they say.
In fact, it seems to have become an offshoot of the loonier fringes of the US political system. I’d hate to have to ask an intelligent but uninformed legislator (of any political persuasion) to wade through this drek in search of information and ideas. It does not cast our cause in a good light to see these kinds of postings.
It’s a shame, really. I’ve been visiting here for years, and almost always found it useful and credible. It is now neither.
@Mr Physiks: thanks for your commentary consisting of insults and no substance.
Well lets just HOPE that the Charter Challenge gets us somewhere. There are injustices going on. Even TAS admits to it. Many people have talked about it. Many letters have been written. No answer. No reaction. One gets brushed off like a nuisance. So at the very least, one can hope that something like a law suit will have some sort of impact.
@mr phyzix
I think that you are overreacting. All the good information is still here. Just because an upcoming US election has resulted in some people expressing various political opinions is no reason to give up on Isaac Brock. But if you must, direct your MP to Maple Sandbox, which also is full of good information.
I have written letters to MP’s. They have done nothing and it is quite clear that they will continue to do nothing. The power of the USA and the Canadian banks is too strong. But don’t stop trying. Continue to be a thorn in their side. We all should.
When I was first learning (late 2013 to early-mid 2014) about how this insanity affected me, I did a lot of reading on Isaac Brock and Maple Sandbox. I found early (ex. 2011-12) important helpful posts on Isaac Brock that were written by Petros. He has played a crucial role in elucidating the injustice and human rights violations of FATCA & US CBT.
@mr physix – “k.
The Isaac Brock Society web site is no longer useful to anyone sensible actually looking to solve either the specific or the general problem. It has jumped the shark, as they say.
In fact, it seems to have become an offshoot of the loonier fringes of the US political system. I’d hate to have to ask an intelligent but uninformed legislator (of any political persuasion) to wade through this drek in search of information and ideas. It does not cast our cause in a good light to see these kinds of postings.”
Couldn’t agree more. In another thread, murder is being openly advocated.
I’m out.
@Petros
After all you have done for the people here, I am really sorry to read some of these posts which are so “black or white” against you here. I would like to acknowledge all the good you have done and are doing, even with the few paltry items I have criticised of late.
@Iota, “Couldn’t agree more. In another thread, murder is being openly advocated. I’m out.”
Could you please point to me to a thread where I have openly advocated murder. I have never done that. I mentioned a Clinton strategist who advocated the murder of Julian Assange. I think that it is wrong for the USA Homelanders to advocate the murder of people who are exposing how their government is criminal.
@Mr A. Thanks for your comment. Those who come here and summarily dismiss 4 years of hard work are indeed not making a sober assessment of the impact of this website.
Not by you. It was a comment in the thread “Is Hillary Clinton guilty etc”. The comment has since been removed, wisely, so I presume whoever removed it had no difficulty finding it.
Returning to the exit.
@Iota
It does make your comment about openly advocating violence seem ridiculous if the comment was censored at a site where censorship rarely ever happens.
I would remind you that anyone can initially make uncensored comments at this website. That is a fact stated in the original post. That means to suggest that Isaac Brock is advocating open murder because of comment that will be censored is irresponsible.
The better course is to report the comment to the comments editor, Pacifica (using her email address at isaacbrocksociety dot ca).
@iota
You have been a very informative and helpful contributor to this site and are fully entitled to give your assessment of any situation.
I believe some here have become less tolerant of other viewpoints as we have moved away from the original purpose of Brock into a more combative political sphere. I respect Petros and all he has done but I do believe the move into US political discussion/ satire serves no purpose and is only serving to fracture us.
We have already lost George, Blackcat and now Iota and many others have echoed the call to please stay on the original purpose of Brock.
Brock has helped many carve a path through this quagmire but I notice fewer and fewer people are asking those questions now.
@heidi
The problem is that there is no consensus on what the “original purpose” of Brock is.
I’d like to see Brock as a platform for the ADCT legal effort to restore Residency-Based Taxation, as it was for the ADCS lawsuit, but there is significant push back against this for reasons I can’t quite understand if the forum welcomes people who identify as Americans.
The ADCS lawsuit did not make Brock, I would say Brock helped make the ADCS lawsuit.
@BB, But there was consensus at the beginning what this website is about, and I think, for my part, that I have remained true to that original purpose, both as to the intent and the tone:
@petros
I believe Thomas Jefferson said (some like), ‘you don’t need an army if you control the finances.’
bubblebustin, I agree with your observation…
And, though Brock is a site birthed in Canada (as it could have been any other country who has persons affected by extra-territorial US CBT), it was, as Petros points out, envisioned from the start to be a resource for helping effect liberty and justice for ALL United States persons abroad (no matter the country in which they may reside) and however US CBT may affect them and their families.
I, for one, am very grateful for the help this Brock site has given for helping fund the ADCS lawsuit and for how that lawsuit may affect, as well, US-deemed US Persons in other countries. If and how, of course, is yet to be determined — a marathon, not a sprint.
This site is not a place I would recommend fellow Canadians (particularly non-US tainted ones) visit in order to better understand the US FATCA attack on Canadians. Anyone reading here will quickly come to the same conclusion that our Canadian politicians have come to – that we are Americans abiding in Canada and our problem is with the US government not with the Canadian government.
I agree with BB that this site should be used to promote and raise funds for the CBT lawsuit. It fits here. The name of the site is misleading for those of us who identify solely as Canadian, but the reality of the site definitely meshes with CBT lawsuit promotion.
The name of this website is perfect. All the more so because James Fallows disapproved:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/the-fatca-menace/250763/
Even the name of the Canadian lawsuit was inspired perhaps by the claim that FATCA causes the loss of sovereignty, as stated in our About post.
What does a Canadian fight to be seen solely as a Canadian living in Canada have to do with “changing mainstream American opinion”?
Ditto for the Australians, Germans, etc, etc. If you want to be seen as just Australian, German, etc, etc, then your fight is at home in Australia, Germany, etc, etc. Obviously there are many people here with a foot in two countries – their fight is with two governments.
petros, I have no problem with the name Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty which is driving the Canadian FATCA IGA lawsuit. That makes perfect sense. Ditto the Alliance for the Defeat of Citizenship based taxation which is driving the US CBT lawsuit.
I also agree with both Bb and Calgary that ADCS arose from Brock and not the other way around. anyone who has been here long enough knows the history and that is just a fact of history not an opinion.
Sir Isaac Brock was a Brit abiding in Canada, in fact sent to defend Britian in Canada.
Most Canadians when they think of Sir Isaac Brock do not think of someone standing up for the rights of US persons living outside USA.