Paper seems flawed right out of the gate. The abstract claims 4 known categories of participants, but does not mention bots or shill accounts. Only one mention of shill in the entire paper, and it's a quote from a user. And the quote seems to discredit the existence of actual paid shills.
“When we call you a paid shill its because we dont be-lieve you can be this stupid on your own so you should take itas a complement”
And I now realize that the only text worth reading is the last sentence of the conclusion:
"An actionable definition of “conspiracistcommunity” would grant better understanding of the move-ment, and better strategies to counter it"
Says it all right there folks. No wonder they don't bring up propaganda and Astroturfing. The whole point of the paper is to promote counter intelligence.
Lets consider my comment to be the submission statement, shall we u/Archivist/? Unless you object to that for some reason?
So not four? You seem caught up on such a superficial detail, when the most important thing I stated was reflected in this concluding quote:
""An actionable definition of “conspiracistcommunity” would grant better understanding of the move-ment, andbetter strategies to counter it"
Did you bother reading the conclusion? To be honest, it doesn't even seem you managed to get to the end of my reply, let alone to the actual conclusion of that paper.
"Just take the data for what it is and extrapolate from what you can."
I did, and it's flawed by it's premise, which isn't included in it's abstract.
Paper seems flawed right out of the gate. The abstract claims 4 known categories of participants, but does not mention bots or shill accounts. Only one mention of shill in the entire paper, and it's a quote from a user. And the quote seems to discredit the existence of actual paid shills.
And I now realize that the only text worth reading is the last sentence of the conclusion:
Says it all right there folks. No wonder they don't bring up propaganda and Astroturfing. The whole point of the paper is to promote counter intelligence.
Lets consider my comment to be the submission statement, shall we u/Archivist/? Unless you object to that for some reason?
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't double check my facts.
So not four? You seem caught up on such a superficial detail, when the most important thing I stated was reflected in this concluding quote:
Did you bother reading the conclusion? To be honest, it doesn't even seem you managed to get to the end of my reply, let alone to the actual conclusion of that paper.
I did, and it's flawed by it's premise, which isn't included in it's abstract.