How is it established? What proof of any kind do you have that people are being paid to troll in our corner of the internet? Even if agencies had a presence on social media, what advantage do they having coming to HN and trying to convince a bunch of computer nerds that life was better in Syria under Assad?

The Stratfor leaks show the US government contracting out the development of astroturfing software.

NSA and GCHQ document leaks outlining their shilling operations.

You can find plenty of articles in serious sources which contain serious research on Russian astroturfing operations. Based on those, any forum is a target and HN is more influential than most.

I am afraid that burden of proof is still on you. The habit of throwing in an accusation and suggesting that your opponents go and look for proof, became too widespread.

> The habit of throwing in an accusation and suggesting that your opponents go and look for proof, became too widespread.

Generally I agree, but in this case it's very easily found.

you can't be serious.

Not really, if you choose to silently disbelieve that is fine. Expecting anyone else to spend their time and energy on "proving" some thing to someone else, should only happen if there is a pay off.

https://xkcd.com/386/

shitgoose to pm24601: you suck!

pm24601 to shitgoose: why!?

shitgoose to pm24601: go google it yourself!

pm24601 to shitgoose: why should i google why i suck?

shitgoose to pm24601: if you choose to silently disbelieve that is fine. Expecting anyone else to spend their time and energy on "proving" some thing to someone else, should only happen if there is a pay off.

I think Occam's razor is applicable with our discussion. Are the people who are disagreeing with you a paid shill from the government trying to advance a particular agenda, or is it just a person who disagrees with you?

The simplest explanation that fits the facts is that it's a mix of both, as both are solidly established to exist.

Occam's razor doesn't really apply to determining an individual account, as there's no model difference in a particular account being either, given many accounts and each being some.

You should respond based on considering it a superposition of both (and more exotic states, like a non-shill blindly repeating shill points), based on the distribution of likelihood given their speech patterns, background prevalence, etc.

That's really the simplest model which lets you incorporate all the information you know in crafting a response -- not a false dichotomy of making assumptions you know will sometimes be erroneous. (...Which is not what Occam's Razor is about.)