It's a recent trend in many niche (but maybe somehow influential ?) social networks like HN or some subreddits. Controversial big players are having more and more supportive comments, despite previously being famous for dubious proven activities.

It wasn't like that at the beginning. I tend to put my tinfoil hat on when I think about what could have caused it.

I chalk it up to the fact that Silicon Valley companies have now reached the scale where they have reached the same level of public scrutiny and manufactured disdain by the media. I worked at a tech company in the valley that has gotten a lot of negative attention. Some criticism was deserved but a lot of stuff was blown completely out of proportion to the point where people believed outright falsehoods and these people would fuel the fire of negative criticism of the company I worked for. Being on the inside, I could see how much was well deserved criticism and how much were lies.

With that in mind, I think Monsanto deserves criticism, but I also maintain as healthy a skepticism of the of the critics claim of danger as monsantos claim of safety.

Because of this I've often found myself trying to explore the contrarian side if I feel one side has become excessively hyperbolic.

With all that said, I'm sure I'm not alone in having this experience and that others explore this contrarian angle for the same reason.

I would also add that in this thread, I find seeing strong arguments on both sides refreshing. It provides a broad range of aspects to consider for and against its usage and challenges me to do my own research to determine the veracity of the claims on both sides.

This is exactly it, for me. Having grown up in farm country, I know that Monsanto is just one of many similar players in the game, yet only Monsanto gets the criticism. Apple bore the brunt of media narratives on Chinese working conditions, but a small amount of poking shows a whole host of tech companies with identical or worse practices.

It's a symbol of an entire industry, and the disconnect between the media narrative and the reality is large.

People are uncomfortable with how little they know about their food sources, just as they are uncomfortable about how technology is changing their lives. This sells a good story. There's some truth to parts of the narrative, but at the end of the day if there's a bunch of articles on that narrative, the most accurate one is not likely to be the most read, the most read will be the one with the largest reach by its headline hook and the one that prompts people to share it the most.

No tinfoil required, there are now companies you can pay that will "manage" social network comment sections in your favor.

There are also private detectives for hire. Even so, you individually are probably not being stalked.

I'd hold on to the tinfoil just in case.

Well, tinfoil new spring collection aside, you can't really compare:

- the value of one average joe data;

- against the value of a well orchestrated PR campaign on a site that experts, investors and intellectuals use as an information hub.

If you are skilled enough to maintain a good reputation of a client on HN, this is quite a good thing to manage IMO.

And here I am, posting comments for upvotes while maybe I could pay for it. I should step up my game.

Thank you! Finally, someone that can think critically. And I had to scroll down through a lot of shillery for this. Wake up people!

Being a "hacker" also means looking at nitty gritty details and looking past shitty coverage by non-experts written for non-experts.

Monsanto has its fair share of ethical concerns but the ones that people always accuse it of are generally absolute BS. It's as if someone said "oh obviously never use insertion sort because it's n^2" - no, there's a reason timsort cuts over to insertion sort at n=5.