This comment breaks the HN guidelines by insinuating astroturfing or shilling without evidence. Please don't do that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Opposing views aren't evidence of astroturfing. The overwhelming majority of the time, it's simply users with different opinions than yours. The internet tendency to imagine brigaders under the bed is worse than the thing it's imagining. I've posted a ton about this if anyone wants more: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....

Real abuse exists; if you think you're seeing some, you should tell us at [email protected]. We ban astroturf accounts when we find them, but it's much rarer than the epidemic claim that it simply must be happening because no one could possibly post X in good faith. (Hint: yes they could and yes they do.)

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17136276 and marked it off-topic.

So, you really took my post and ran with it, and it's not the first time this has happened. I see you didn't copypaste that text and you actually typed it out, so just to state it clearly, I did not say it must be some kind of astroturfing, and I did not say some astroturfing must be happening because no one could possibly post X in good faith. I stated I've noticed strongly pro-PRC posts which are also anonymous, and I find it interesting. You took my use of the word "brigaded" to assume that I implied an astroturfing context and that is not the case. I suppose in the same spirit of this thread, you're saying that brigading can only happen in an astroturfing context, which is as much a toxic idea as accusations of astroturfing in the first place. Also, I do not have faith in anyone's ability to detect any kind of astroturfing but the lowest-hanging fruit. It does happen as stated here, but having worked in some shitty companies in my time, it's basically impossible to detect (let alone prevent) if it's done with really any amount sophistication.

I take your point that you didn't explicitly say all those things—I meant more that they are the kinds of things that come up routinely in this category. But your comment did point in the direction that the guidelines ask you not to go, and your reply here confirms it.

Dark insinuations about "pro-PRC" comments (or pro-whatever, or anti-whatever) are very much part of this genre. One of the most striking and dismaying phenomena we observe as moderators is that people are far, far, you'd-be-amazed-how-far too to quick to interpret differing opinions as evidence of bad faith on the internet. It poisons the well, and we're not allowing that here.

Unless you're talking about something specific and have at least a bit of evidence to back it up, subthreads like this are unsubstantive and off topic.

I've noticed this occurring with greater frequency then it used to. It seems any mainstream or close to mainstream article about China will have several clearly Google Translated (or equivalent) comments about how innovative China is in buzzword technology or industry

you are worried too much. Hacker News has not that big impact which get the attention of 50 cents

Doesn't it though, isn't this a forum hosted by one of the most influential funds out there.

That depends on what you mean by "big impact". In terms of raw view count, no, but in terms of prestige and influence, maybe. For example, I've noticed that the comments section for The Economist is one of the places most overrun by 50 Cent-ers; The Economist isn't very popular but has readership among a lot of elites in both government and industry, which is presumably why it's targeted so heavily. The same thing might be happening here.

Somewhat off topic: I've noticed that, as a non-subscriber, I can no longer comment on Economist articles. Is it just me, or has that happened to everyone?

Given how bad the comment sections were getting, I can't blame The Economist if they closed comments to all non-subscribers. It's a way to deal with the astro-turfers, the trolls, the off-topic rants, and other garbage. And if you want to do it badly enough to pay, well, at least The Economist got paid...

Cearly translated means you’re hearing a real Chinese person.

Pro-PRC shilling is a pervasive phenomenon - see the 50-Cent Party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

So I'll comment on this using an anonymous account.

The reason I do so is because the general atmosphere (not just in HN) seems to be very anti-China. I'm afraid if I say anything that defends China, that I will be harmed in my professional life.

In the company of others, I've learned to keep my opinions to myself.

Thanks for your post. This makes a lot of sense, as I've done this myself for other topics for the same reason. The account I normally post from grew out of a situation just like that. It makes perfect sense and could really account for a lot of that.