Shills like to hide in the shadows. If we shine light on them, they can't do their work effectively.
We've been bombarded by them - even /v/protectvoat feels sorry for us.
I've compiled a list of people who seem like shills. Feel free to @ people in the comments and I will check them out.
If your name is on here it's because you look like you've engaged in activity that could include but is not limited to: COINTEL shit, forum sliding, trying to incite people to get mad/violent/go do dumb things, posting empty incoherent and/or poorly sourced posts, demotivating sub members, asking for personal info, spamming etc.
Feel free to petition to have your name removed, I will review your post history and CCP and can potentially remove it if you don't look like a shill.
ps. you're loved and you don't have to do this. There is a fulfilling life for you out there.
@pizzaboy101
@anonymousj
@Canarycbradio
@GRRRR
@bernitdown
@morojax
@Galvarian
@pestoland
@qwerty33
@Kwijibo
@DarrinOren
@shinethelight
@CocoaIntelGuy
@sm0keRings
@shabsoasis
@comet101
@Hanshan
@pizzaslut101
@st_r
view the rest of the comments →
rationalconspiracist ago
This never ends well. Counter the message, don't attack the messenger. Even if you know they're a shill, it's just a losing strategy. They can simply change accounts if you out them and the only thing wasted was your time, but if you debunk their narrative then what? This simply leads to the community turning in on itself, personal attacks, etc instead of focusing on actual debate.
kingkongwaswrong ago
you might be right, but let's see how it goes.
rationalconspiracist ago
On a conspiracy site I frequented, when I first started out I did what you're doing. I outed a few prominent shills. Bunch of people covered for them, many more got tired of hearing about it. In the end, it simply hurt my reputation and when I finally proved they were shill accounts, they promptly abandoned them and made new accounts. Lots of time wasted, nothing accomplished, and their narrative still dominated. I think they actually want you to engage them on a personal level, because they have no personal stake in anything. The only way they can lose is through logical debate.
I also noticed something else that you'll want to watch out for. The current thinking in how to "deradicalize" someone or change their point of view, is that you never disagree with them. Disagreeing with someone further radicalizes and alienates them. To change someone's mind, you actually agree with them, but in a way that's so over the top it almost satirizes their point of view. This causes the person to actually take a step back and re-evaluate their own views in response. Wouldn't want to become one of those nuts right?
In my opinion, shills use this tactic to change people's minds. They're more effective when they agree with you in a mocking, over-the-top manner than when they argue with you.
dustygozangas ago
we could always correct their records. come up with a playbook or something like that.