There are a number of users here who honestly believe that criticism of Snowden is the work of NSA agents and paid shills - so of course they feel their accusations are not at all gratuitously negative, but rather warning people not to be duped by the elaborate and subtle government psy-ops at work.

Then again, I can't help but wonder why people bother asking if someone else is a shill, as if they honestly expect an actual shill to admit to it. Probably the same people who think undercover cops actually have to admit who they are if you ask them.

I can see it serving to purposes. 1. It lets 3rd parties know you are suspicious. 2. You may get a revealing denial/non-denial.

That said though I really dislike the atmosphere created by frequent shill accusations. It seems to rapidly create an echo chamber, where minority opinions are dismissed.

I'm not entirely certain those are valuable goals, though.

'3rd parties' who spend any amount of time here are perfectly aware of that a pro government, anti-Snowden point of view won't be popular. I doubt they would turn tail if someone suspected their presence.

And arguably, false positives and arguments about whether or not someone is a shill work in favor of actual shills. Notice how nobody ever seems to accuse the people making those accusations of having ulterior motives, despite the fact that a false flag strategy of deflecting attention to innocent accounts and derailing threads would be a much smarter strategy on their part than sockpuppet accounts making obviously noticeable propagandic statements.

Yet, the parent comment is the one that gets flagged...what?

I fall on the 'Snowden is a hero' side of the fence, but I don't see what got that comment flagged.

I agree that unfounded accusations are unhealthy for discussion, but the nature of the issue at hand involving a state-level power with nigh unlimited resources and the few citizens within the state body attempting to bring attention to this issue would suggest that suspicions of this sort aren't unfounded and aren't necessarily damaging to the discussion itself. Censoring discussion of this kind is probably the most hurtful of all and no comment pointing out the possibility of the level of control at hand should be removed on that account.

I disagree entirely. Accusing someone of shilling doesn't contribute meaningfully unless it can be proved, and proved with damning evidence. Anything else is rhetorical bluster meant to distract and has no place in a discussion.

I didn't say a baseless accusation is legitimate, I said that suggesting such a possibility is legitimate, especially in this case.