Sunday, October 01, 2017

Government Paid Trolls and Shills On-Line?

A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.

Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson are ZIONIST Shills - MSM & Alternative Media Zionist Controlled
Published on May 18, 2017

Alex Jones 100% Zionist Controlled Gatekeeper - Just More Evidence (2017)
Published on Jan 5, 2017

The Controlled Opposition of Steven Crowder & Paul Joseph Watson
Sean M. Madden
Published on May 22, 2016
Piers Morgan Is A Professional Troll - Stop Feeding Him
Dani Di Placido
September 22, 2017
Piers Morgan attends the National Television Awards on January 25, 2017 in London
Piers Morgan was trending on Twitter yesterday. This is never a good thing. When Piers Morgan is trending, it means that he’s said something deliberately inflammatory under the guise of starting a discussion. And sometimes he actually makes a decent point, but it’s always wrapped up in a crude, offensive layer, intended to inflame the tempers of Twitter’s army of the perpetually outraged. He’s really good at it.
Saying something controversial, that goes against the grain of public opinion, isn’t inherently a bad thing - far from it. We should read articles that we disagree with, and challenge ourselves with opinions that make us uncomfortable. Both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of shouting down the opposition and refusing to listen.
Morgan likes to criticise left-wing outrage, and he certainly should; there’s a lot to criticise. There’s just so much boiling, acidic outrage out there, spilling onto our screens and infuriating just about everyone, all the time. But instead of making a carefully considered argument to deflate the online anger, Morgan trolls. He annoys people who wouldn’t normally even have an opinion, and pushes them into joining a side. He deliberately divides people, because it’s in his interest to do so.
He’s a bit like Pennywise the clown from the movie It, except he gathers his strength from anger rather than fear. He expertly takes the form of whatever is likely to annoy liberals the most, and watches with glee as they tantrum, devouring the attention and growing ever stronger. The only way to defeat Pennywise is to control your fear - perhaps we should learn to control our temper.
Yesterday, Morgan pointed out the hypocrisy of white sorority sisters being criticised for singing along to popular music lyrics, and he’s absolutely right. You can argue the lyrics to Kanye West’s “Gold Digger” are racist, if you like, but the song was a huge success, and is undeniably a part of pop culture. You can’t decree that only certain members of the public are allowed to sing along - pop culture belongs to everyone. So, yes, the Twitter outrage was ridiculous, as per usual.
But instead of appealing to the outraged, trying to make them see sense, Morgan gleefully peppered his article with the n-word, like a schoolboy who just learned how to draw a penis, and is busily decorating school textbooks.
He knew what was going to happen. He knew that he wasn’t changing anyone's mind - he was just sparking fury like he always does, setting Twitter alight with controversy and watching with delight as his name rose in the trending charts.
Piers Morgan is a professional troll, like Katie Hopkins. He’s been playing the game for years, and he’s gotten really good at it. When I was younger, I used to compulsively read his weekly column, and become unfailingly incensed at his smug, celebrity-worshipping face. I would be infuriated, every single time. And yet, when the Mail on Sunday arrived, I would flick straight to his section. Until I asked myself, what on earth are you doing? Why do you love/hate reading this guy’s opinion? Because I wanted to annoy myself, really; there was no other answer. To provoke an emotional reaction, get my heart beating, blood flowing, adrenaline pumping. 
Anger is weirdly addictive. So is self-righteousness. Nowhere is this more apparent than Twitter, the home of the smug and self-satisfied. On Twitter, everybody you disagree with is a racist Nazi, or a screeching Thought Police agent. In real life, you’ll find that most people are nothing like either of these things. On Twitter, everybody is. Apparently.
Trolls like Morgan expertly surf the waves of outrage, and profit immensely from dividing the public. They push us into hating each other, even more than we already do. And we rise to it every single time. We love it - we love the white-hot anger, we love labeling the other side as ignorant, brainwashed fools, because it reinforces our worldview. We all like to feel intelligent and morally right, and the easiest way to do so is to condemn the opposition.
Well, life isn’t that simple, as much as we’d love it to be. We don’t live in some kind of Tolkienesque fantasy land, where every bad guy is a hideous monster. The world is a complex place, and nobody can claim to fully understand it. Like Jon Snow, we all know nothing, but sadly, we don’t know that.  
Our opinions should be subject to change, based on the evidence around us, instead of hardening into an impenetrable shell. And most people are happy to change their opinion, provided with a reasonable counter-argument. But obnoxious trolls like Morgan harden our shells, like coarse sand irritating an oyster. And they certainly don’t produce pearls - they produce ulcers, filled with hot, angry pus.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go scroll through Morgan’s Twitter timeline; I need to get my heart rate going.

Follow me on Facebook or Twitter
A journalist’s view: Fighting back against the troll army
By Staff Writers
June 29, 2017
In the past decade, more than 800 journalists have been killed in the course of their work according to UNESCO, while hundreds more have been assaulted, imprisoned or harassed.
The nature of the threat is changing as the virtual world spills into the physical. The experiences of Filipino journalist Maria Ressa show how reporters now face targeted online harassment campaigns designed to discredit and silence them.
Maria Ressa is a former CNN war correspondent but none of her experiences in the field prepared her for the destructive campaign of gendered online harassment that’s been directed at her since the election of President Rodrigo Duterte in 2016.
“I’ve been called ugly, a dog, a snake, threatened with rape and murder,” she says. How many times has she received online death threats? She’s lost count. “Gosh, there have been so many!”
A journalist with more than 30 years experience, Ressa is the founding CEO and executive editor of the social media-powered news organisation Rappler, based in the Philippines.
In addition to being threatened with rape and murder, she’s been the subject of hashtag campaigns like #ArrestMariaRessa and #BringHerToTheSenate, designed to whip online mobs into attack mode, discredit both Ressa and Rappler, and chill their reporting.
Every journalist in the country reporting independently on the Duterte presidency is subjected to rampant and highly coordinated online abuse, she says. Especially if they’re female.
“It began a spiral of silence. Anyone who was critical or asked questions about extrajudicial killings was attacked, brutally attacked. The women got it worst,” she says. “And we’ve realised that the system is set up to silence dissent – designed to make journalists docile. We’re not supposed to be asking hard questions, and we’re certainly not supposed to be critical.”
Maria Ressa. Martin San Diego, Rappler, author provided
This onslaught represents a real threat to the psychological, digital, and even physical safety of journalists, she adds. But she refuses to be cowed by online armies of “super trolls”, whom she believes are part of a campaign to destabilise democracy in the Philippines.
She admits that the constant attacks do make her think twice about doing stories that will be lightning rods for attacks. “But then I go and do the story even harder! I just refuse to let intimidation win.”
Investigative journalism as a fightback weapon
Her response to the threats includes investigative reporting on the intertwined problems of online harassment, disinformation and misinformation. She believes in “throwing sunlight” on the abusers.
But after Rappler published a feature series mapping the corrosive impacts of organised political “trolling” on the Philippines in October 2016, the onslaught of abuse and threats of violence escalated dramatically.
The series deployed “big data” analysis techniques to establish that a “sock puppet network” of 26 fake Facebook accounts was influencing nearly three million other Philippines-based accounts. Behind the “sock puppets” were three “super trolls”, as Ressa describes them.
Their aim was to seed misinformation and foment targeted attacks. “They would plant messages within groups, inflaming the groups who would then become a mob to attack the target,” she says.
In the days following publication of the Rappler series titled Propaganda War: Weaponising the Internet, she received on average 90 hate messages an hour. Among these was what she describes as the first “credible death threat” against her.
The messages continued for months. “It happened so fast and at such frequency, I didn’t realise how unnatural it was”, she says. The effect was to mute the seriousness of the threats in her mind initially. “I really struggled with what’s real, what’s not. How do I respond, should I respond?” These are familiar questions for journalists and editors struggling to combat the impacts of online harassment.
But speaking up and speaking out brings protection through awareness, Ressa believes.
Asking loyal audiences to help
In early 2017, Ressa received another threat that stunned her. It was the kind of threat that women journalists are increasingly familiar with internationally: a call for her to be gang-raped and murdered. A young man wrote on Rappler’s Facebook page:
I want Maria Ressa to be raped repeatedly to death, I would be so happy if that happens when martial law is declared, it would bring joy to my heart.
Ressa responded like a digital journalist who understands the power of audiences. She asked her online communities to assist in identifying the threat-maker, who was using a Facebook account in a fake name. They came through. With her supporters’ help, Ressa was able to identify the man as a 22-year-old university student. When his university learned of his activities, he was forced to call Ressa and apologise.
Then, in the middle of an online storm triggered by a deliberately misleading report on a fake news site that misquoted Ressa, active and former members of the Philippines military piled on with abuse and threats.
Again, she activated her own online communities in response, and one “netizen” wrote an open letter to the chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, General Eduardo Ano, asking him to intervene.
This activation of her networks worked. General Ano was upset by the incident, ordered an investigation and issued an official apology: “We publicly apologise to Miss Maria Ressa for the emotional pain, anxiety, and humiliation those irresponsible comments and unkind remarks might have caused her,” he wrote.
Tightening security, online and off
As Ressa began to realise, online threats to harm a journalist, or incitement of others to harm a journalist, must be taken seriously. They can’t just be dealt with by blocking, muting, reporting, deleting and ignoring because, “You don’t know when it will jump out from the virtual world and sneak into the physical world.”
In response, Ressa decided to upgrade security in Rappler’s newsrooms and provide protection for the journalists facing the worst of the online attacks, adding that:
It’s crossed the line where I do worry about safety. When you have people getting killed every night in the drug war and you have these online threats, you have no choice as a responsible corporation but to increase security for the people who work for you.
In parallel, she strengthened digital safety defences. But while providing psychological support, she hasn’t removed her journalists from reporting duty, nor has she sent them out of the country.
And she’s keeping her legal options open. The sheer number of attacks means that it’s not possible to follow through on each one, Ressa says. But Rappler is recording every online threat and storing the data for possible future legal action.
“We’ve put in place protocols for how we deal with online threats”, she says. “We’re looking at potential ways to hold the offenders accountable. This impunity that exists shouldn’t be this way. We need solutions.”
Calling the platforms to account
Ressa’s public Facebook page is the target of about 2,000 “ugly” comments every day, she explains.
“The propaganda machine uses it to incite anger and then we have to deal with real people who believe this stuff. So that takes a lot of time”, she says. “It’s like playing whack-a-mole.”
She rejects the idea that the onus is on journalists to police the platforms by constantly reporting problems: “Block, mute, report … when you get so many of these it just takes up so much time. There’s not enough time in the day. We also have jobs to do.”
While she recognises the enormity of the challenge confronting Facebook, Ressa is adamant that the only way forward is for the social media giant to take responsibility for the problem and accept its role as a news publisher.
So she has begun publicly advocating for Facebook to step up. She’s also gone directly to the company with data demonstrating the size of the problem.
In the immediate short term, “the only group that has the power to restore some sense of order and civility is Facebook… To not do anything is an abdication of responsibility.”
Emotional and psychological impacts
Women journalists are often told to “toughen up” or “grow a thicker skin”, and that’s a common response to those who experience gendered online harassment. But the cumulative effect of constant derision – frequently received via the intimate device of a mobile phone – must be recognised, Ressa says, not just because the damage includes well-documented impacts on emotional and psychological well-being, but also censorship and erosion of trust:
They attack your physicality, your sexuality. When you are denigrated, and stripped of dignity in this way, how can you maintain your credibility? All of these things work together for a single purpose and that’s to prevent journalists from doing their jobs.
She’s been shocked at the level of the attacks and offered counselling and support to affected Rappler journalists, along with the social media team on the frontline of the battle, because: “I don’t want our people going home with this.”
Ressa also seeks to support others who are suffering online abuse but may not be as empowered as Rappler staff.
“We come together to help each other through it. We know what’s going on – it’s being done to intimidate us. We galvanise each other. And I think we’ll get through it,” she says. “I’m an optimist and I think we’re being forged by fire and we’ll emerge stronger.”
This is an edited extract from An Attack On One Is An Attack On All: Successful initiatives to protect journalists and combat impunitypublished by UNESCO and launched at a UN conference in Geneva today.

Julie Posetti, is a Journalism Research Fellow at the University of Wollongong/Digital Editorial Capability Lead, Fairfax Media, University of Wollongong


The Secret Life of Gov. Paid Trolls
The Alex Jones Channel
Published on Oct 16, 2014

How the Government Manipulates Your Thoughts Online
Published on Feb 26, 2014
Special Ops Target Social Media - Spotting And Shutting Down Government Paid Trolls And Shills
By Susan Duclos
March 20, 2015
Social media, public video platforms and Alternative News websites are under a massive multi-pronged attack as evidenced by the new "net neutrality" bill, the fact that government agencies have been given the power to "flag" YouTube videos in order to have them taken down, and  revelations by whistleblower Edward Snowden that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse," using paid government trolls to visit forums, comment sections and social media platforms.
We see this attack is now coming from yet another front, our US military is being used, as reported by Washington Times in an article from March 18, 2015, titled "Sprecial Ops Targets Social Media," which states the following:
U.S. special operations forces, elite commandos engaged in high-risk operations around the world, are adding a new focus to their portfolio of activities: social media and other unconventional information warfare threats.
“Social media is another component of unconventional strategies, and the security environment in general, that is playing a central role in recruiting individuals to causes,” Army Gen. Joseph L. Votel, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, said Wednesday in prepared testimony to the House Armed Services Committee.
In one of the slides provided at The Intercept, we see the methods utilized by these government agencies in order manipulate the information flow, shown below.
Via WMD:
He warned that the “most disturbing confirmation provided in the newly publicized intelligence documents is that spy agencies in Western nations with free speech guarantees have been given carte blanche authority from political leadership to target private individuals and organizations deemed uncooperative with the will of the state with ruthless online reputation-destruction efforts.”
How To Spot A Paid Shill, Government Troll
While there will always be people that simply disagree with a point of view of a post on Facebook, Twitter or other platforms, or in the comment sections of Alternative News websites or YouTube, which is a good thing because it brings about debate, opens up the discussion and no one wants a bunch of puppets that cannot think for themselves, there are clear indicators of a "troll" or "shill" and those paid by the government to disrupt, distract or otherwise manipulate a thread.
Trolls/shills will usually be the first person to comment on a thread with a direct attack without contributing anything to the discussion or addressing the main topic. They will attack the original poster and/or writer, they will attack others commenting, they will attack the subject itself... they do this in order to attempt to stop others from reading, discussing, or debating the issue and to derail the conversation.
Government trolls/shills will rarely provide any links that address the material provided, they will avoid any and all data presented at all costs.
The trolls/shills will lie, name call and ridicule anybody that is addressing the article/post material in order to harrass them into no longer commenting, therefore shutting down the debate, the discussion and the thread.
Another clear indicator of a troll/shill are repetitive key phrases, such as "fear porn," or labeling those discussing the actual issues as "conspiracy theorist," or telling them to go get a "tin foil hat," again without ever address the person's comment or the material provided.
How To Shut Down A Paid Government Troll/Shill
Many reading this might have heard the expression "don't feed the trolls," but that is not always the best way to go. Calling them out by forcing them to address the issue, pointing out their obvious avoidance of the issue itself and/or insisting, as ANP does, on civility on a thread, often shuts them down and forces them to crawl away with their tails between their legs after screaming you are against free speech.
The number one way to shut down a government 
paid troll/shill is information, linking to supporting evidence, continue discussing the issue itself and to not allow them to distract, manipulate or otherwise derail the discussion.
Jimmy Kimmel Is a Hilarious, Mean Corporate Shill
The late-night host is reaching new heights of popularity—but some of his tactics may end up damaging his relationship with his audience
Hampton Stevens
Nov. 8, 2011 
In an age when the audience for late-night talk shows has been slipping steadily, Kimmel's ratings are on the rise. The host of ABC's Jimmy Kimmel Live! has seen his viewership tick up over the last 12 months, jumping from about 1.7 to 1.8 million viewers from this same time in 2010. Last week, the late-night host even landed the very plum gig of headliner at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner.
Also last week? Jimmy Kimmel made some children cry. On purpose. The incident captures the essence of everything that's good and bad about his show.
Halloween week, Kimmel issued a "YouTube Challenge" to viewers. He asked parents to tell their kids, "I ate all your Halloween candy," record their reactions, and submit the clips to his show via the giant video-sharing site. Hundreds of Kimmel viewers—each one clearly a potential Parent of the Year candidate—did just that. They told their children a mean-spirited lie. They recorded the fits of rage and despair that predictably followed. Then these latter-day Cliff and Clair Huxtables submitted the video evidence of their own bad parenting skills to a talk show in hopes of getting their kids' psychic meltdown broadcast on national TV.
That is some top-notch nurturing, Kimmel fans. What's next? Waking the kids on Christmas morning to tell them Santa died in a sleigh crash?
Two days later, while introducing the montage of traumatized kids, Kimmel seemed a little sheepish, cringing at how mean the prank had turned out.
"We didn't know there would be so much crying," he said. They aired the clip nevertheless, though, which immediately went viral, had 10 million hits by Friday, and spread around the globe over the weekend. Compelling, but not rewarding, both hilarious and unsettling, the video is a strange mix of charming, old school, kids-say-the-darnedest-things comedy, and a genuinely loutish display of cruelty in the service of cheap laughs. The clip—in the innovative use of new media, for its weird mix of humor and the guilty-pleasure appeal—is emblematic of Kimmel's show. Jimmy Kimmel Live!—which is broadcast, not for nothing, on tape-delay—can simultaneously feel smart and stupid, sweet and boorish, viral and corporate, innovative yet retrograde.
Also See:

What's With David Icke, Alex Jones, and Jordan Maxwell?

18 January 2017

Charlatan, Charlatan, Where Do You Roam?

25 December 2015

Is Glenn Beck a Shill?

03 September 2010