(Note: I am posting this so as not to derail an important Seth Rich thread.)
Something happened today at the Daily Mail. It seems there is an organized effort to sway/falsely reflect their readers’ opinions.
Earlier today, I noticed that something ‘funny’ was going on at the Daily Mail. I replied to a comment on a Seth Rich article and the comment I
replied to suddenly went from 2 to 1180 “green arrows”
(think ’stars’ on ATS) within the time it took me to post my comment and refresh
the page to see my comment.
I wasn’t the only one who noticed this sudden ‘inflation of approval’ either. Another commenter asked if the person was using a 'voting
Anyway, this incident prompted me to spend a good portion of my day skimming the comments, at DM, for others with inflated ‘support.’
It turns out, there are actually several others currently posting at the Daily Mail, with hugely inflated support. And, it also turns out, that many
other people noticed this before I did.
Curiously, these people inflating their green arrows are pro-Hillary/anti-Trump across-the-board.
Here is a running list I’ve made of people inflating their comment support, at the Daily Mail (to see their full green arrow count, you’ll need to
click ‘View All’ on their comment-list):
beckimouse — 24, 000 green arrows for 24 comments in 24 hours.
So, there appears to be a coordinated effort here. It's organized and consistent. It’s sophisticated enough that many commenters seem to be using
the same method of manipulating votes and they are speaking from a similar/common voice (with regard to Hillary and Trump.)
Somehow these people commenting can inflate the support (green arrows) for their comments. Witnessing this unfold, today, reminds me — more than
ever— that the support and sentiment of voters is being manipulated in the media and online.
I am hoping others keep an eye out at their usual online hangouts…because I wonder if this is exactly the kind of nitty gritty dirty-work that
Correct the Record covers.
edit on 17-8-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)