https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nola.com/news/article_33443...
Astroturfing is incredibly common, it's part of many public relations firms standard services. In person actors are obviously more expensive than their online equivalent but it's all just viewed as a tool for a campaign.
Even if the original topic was only tangentially related it will get changed. A post with puppy photos can turn into a climate change discussion because "nuclear power is so green".
It's so common now that it's uncanny.
If I had to guess at any motivation other than a lot of people actually liking nuclear power, it would probably be that nuclear power is one of the few controversies where a reasonably intelligent person can easily grasp a series of basic arguments and then virtue-signal about being more scientifically literate than the unwashed masses. It's basically the same social dynamic that used to motivate the type of people who argued with creationists and climate change deniers.
It's also the Generically Dumbest Conspiracy Theory On The Internet to say "everybody who disagrees with me is a paid shill". People on the internet tend to hold and express opinions because it's an emotionally compelling thing to do, not because they're being paid off by Westinghouse or George Soros or whoever. It's literally an accusation you're making without evidence--I could just as easily suggest that maybe YOU'RE a shill for the photovoltaic industry? ;)
But if this happens frequently on a wide range of topics, on a regular basis it gets to a point where a rational person has to question the validity of the information source.
Edit: clarity
It's really hard not to point out when people start talking about better solar and battery storage that we could be solving this problem right now with tech we already have. Instead our solution to climate change keeps being pushed out into the nebulous future because people refuse to look at the obvious solution.
The IV generation plants people keep talking about didn't happen in time. With the current pace, we're at least ten years from commercial roll out, and at that point there's no market left for something that needs to run 24/7 to be competitive. Wind turbines and solar are falling in price YoY.
I'm afraid even your "We could dramatically cut ... now" is hyperbole. Nuclear power plants take many years to plan and build.
“People are stupid” is not a valid reason for not choosing a technology. It’s just something that needs to be overcome. Do you realize how complex and out of grasp a basic SCADA controller is to normal people? A modern turbofan? Yet people entrust their lives to these things every day wi the no issue.
> incredible strides PV and wind turbines have made in the past decades.
PV and wind absolutely do not matter. They cannot provide stable base load. Solar enthusiasts bury their heads in the sand when it comes to base load and hand wave about batteries, pumped storage, etc when in reality they are just signing civilization up for more gas turbine plants and coal while virtue signaling that they care about the environment.
Not to mention that many of the delays and drawbacks of nuclear power are precisely due to the antinuclear movement itself, which imposes barriers and regulations instead of the subsidies that renewables have received.
Please stop spreading misinformation: While we've failed our planned reduction goals, we did in fact reduce fossil fuel usage.
https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-sources&p...
https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/38...
Meanwhile the renewables are being choked by increasing regulatory burdens (which the coal lobby lobbied for) and fake news (pushed by the coal lobby) to prevent even those who pass the burden from building anything. In Bavaria the area where wind turbines can still be built is less than a percent of the total area of the state, the coal lobby meanwhile is building a new coal plant (they got a permit to build one and politics is unwilling to revoke it).
Renewables could have easily replaced a large part of nuclear if not for the coal lobby.
Yes, there are new coal powered plants being build, but mostly to replace inefficient older ones. There might be an argument that a new NPP would have been a better solution, but it wouldn't have worked out economically. Maybe with taxes on carbon dioxides if that would have been implemented.
I think subsidies for renewables are a far better investment compared to NPP.
Is this an unreasonable assumption considering the topic here?
This entire topic is based on proof of this.
Even here on HN, there's occasionally jokes like "cool, how long before they shut it down" on Google's products as an example. There's nothing wrong with this comment but it has the patterns you also ascribed to trolls.
Who benefits? Are there any major initiatives in the nuclear industry? Are any new plants starting to be built?
All I've seen is a bunch of plants that have horrible cost overruns and no fixed time line for being finished.
That doesn't sound like something that you'd want to raise public awareness about if you were in the nuclear industry.
So who does this kind of campaign benefit if not the nuclear industry? It doesn't seem to benefit the oil and gas industry who are without a doubt the masters and originators of propaganda in this market. It doesn't benefit solar and wind generators -- so who?
-----
Pro-Troll Filter: (first draft)
1. Is the commenter able to rationally discuss the downsides of their position?
NO? Possibly a pro-troll or an irrational comment.
2. Is the commenter willing to admit past errors in implementing of their ideal solution, and also consider the same errors could occur again? (ie, no true Scotsman logical fallacy)
NO? Possibly a pro-troll or an irrational comment.
3. Is the commenter willing to look at and/or discuss real data, even if it contradicts their position?
NO? Possibly a pro-troll or an irrational comment.
4. Does the commenter devolve into ad hominem attacks?
YES? Possibly a pro-troll or an irrational comment.
----
Irrationality note:
People have bad days and can act irrationally at any time. But I have found that when someone is unable/unwilling to admit error tries to support an idea based on limited information will devolve into irrational comments when challenged with counter arguments/questions. Not sure how this will help with pro-troll filtering, but it's more data to consider.
Only fanboys dig in and defend a subject with senseless arguments once they become emotional.
If you’re trying to come up with a filter, decide: do you want to filter out trolls or just people that are fans of topics that hurt your feelings? Right now it just looks like a filter for any conversation with a human you disagree with.
Yes, they do. They want their followers to behave irrationally, so they lead with it. A group of well considered and thoughtful people can change their mind with new evidence and information.
A pro-troll doesn't want that, they want blind devoted followers that repeat a message blindly, loudly and often.
If anyone is going to have a script and long list of references to draw from, wouldn’t it be the paid shill? Provided by their employer?
It seems more likely to me that most people are just an emotional wreck and don’t perform well in debate.
This is why they use irrationality as a weapon.
An [x] shill making poor arguments the those on the fence is going to do less good for their employers than a shill making the strongest possible case for [x].
If anything, you'd assume the 'irrational' nuclear shills are actually being paid by natural gas and renewables interests, and vice-versa, to make the other side seem obnoxious and crazy.
Republicans: (fox news) Illegals are taking over America and stealing your jobs!
Democrats: (cnn) Conservatives are hate filled racists who hate equality!
The same thing is happening online because this works with the masses.
Couldn't it be fossil fuel groups who benefit. They know there are groups who fight for green energy who are very strongly against nuclear and that by pushing for nuclear, it creates internal conflict which reduces the pressure being put on existing fossil fuels. It is also an easier target to focus on with propaganda. Nuclear has a certain level of fear in our social psyche that doesn't exist with other green energy which makes for easier propaganda.
The best thing for fossil fuels in the current climate is to keep everyone against nuclear. A solar/wind future without the fantasy breakthrough in cheap storage is actually just a solar/wind + fossils base-load future. Anti-nuclear == pro-fossils in any solution that doesn’t involve significant blackouts.
It's unfortunate that I mentioned "nuclear" without adding other industries to buffer that one. No one takes issue with me listing the "medical industry" as paying for trolls, not sure why so many care about nuclear over the medical industry here...
My counter argument here is simple:
1. You have outlined a pattern of behavior that in your opinion indicates that someone is a paid shill.
2. However you yourself have engaged in the exact pattern of behavior you describe.
3. Therefore we are left with two options:
A: Your theory is correct, and you are a paid shill for renewables.
B: You are not a paid shill, and hence the pattern of behavior you describe is not actually strong evidence of shilling.
Which one is it?
"I don't think it's just government, but also likely industries as well. I've seen what could only be trolling for support of multiple industries."
Since this was my intent to state in the first place, do you disagree with this because you think it's impossible? Or because you think it's unlikely? Or some other reason?
The original post demonstrated proof that governments pay trolls, do you believe the only customers for these businesses are governments?
I'd say it's almost a forgone conclusion that it's happening.
Edit: From 2015
https://curiousmatic.com/professional-trolls/
Link in the article to Monsanto trolling:
https://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-and-others-caught-paying...
A glow in the dark Shrek I suppose.
with the internet comes a lot of freedom and this is part of the price of having it because you can bet there is a politician waiting in the wings who will ask you to let them muzzle someone to protect you all the while another politician may be selling your right to speak.
For example home owners that do not want a nuclear reactor in their backyard are not likely candidates for troll farms, but huge energy companies (or whomever) are.
As for nuclear NIMBYs, sure, individually they don't have the money (I'm a nuclear YIMBY, and I don't have it either). But there's plenty of organizations with money and influence, campaigning against nuclear - e.g. fossil fuel industry, Greenpeace. So I'm going to back the GP - everyone does that.
It's the vastness of comments that I find as evidence of something wrong, not specific posts.
If you believe all pro-nuclear-energy people are extremist environmental nuts, or all anti-nuclear-energy are anti-science luddites, then you've got a lot of people who are going to be easy to manipulate, since they won't ever entertain any argument from the other side.
This is crucial. I think it makes sense to recognize how, since the invention of speech, there have been those who accrue power by hiring professional trolls.