So there's direct shills and then second-hand shills who have already had their opinion changed and are now out to spread the message (like a virus). Obviously there will be a lot of second-hand shills as we are all exposed to so much mind control (like ads). But it seems very reasonable to me that Voat is already crawling with direct shills.
view the rest of the comments →
frankenmine ago
No, shills may also provide services for money-equivalent or intangible benefits. Corrupt SJW powermods belong to the latter group, for instance. They provide services for the illusion of control in their otherwise useless and worthless lives.
ColoradoJustice ago
Not in the classic definition of the word.
Though I understand how power can be a form of payment as well, but the key element for a shill is to "pretend to be an outsider" while actually being "paid" to participate. A moderator is clearly assigned for all to see, so there is little deception going on in terms of the uneven relationship.
The word "shill" has been used by the conspiracy community to falsely accuse anyone they don't want to have any reasonable discussion with.
That's my problem with the term, it's supposed to be an insult, but really is just a thought-ending cliche.
frankenmine ago
A moderator pretending to impartially carry out janitorial duties while secretly pushing some agenda (SJW ideology, or TPP censorship, or something else) in exchange for the illusion of control would certainly qualify for the classic definition of shilling.
ColoradoJustice ago
By the very nature that they are moderators their relationship with the corporation is not impartial.
This isn't "classic shilling" by any sense of the term; though I can see how it bleeds into it when moderators are "bought with power" by certain interests. I'd like to see specifically how this was done, evidence of it.
Personally, I feel the term "shill" has been overused by the internet community and has become a thought-terminating cliche for anyone that they disagree with.
frankenmine ago
Your feelings are wrong.