Monsanto accused of hiring army of trolls to silence online dissent – court papers

Well if you don't like comments and you have plenty of that beautiful money, hire trolls to counter negative comments. This is what Monsanto is being accused of doing.

Biotech giant Monsanto is being accused of hiring, through third parties, an army of Internet trolls to counter negative comments, while citing positive “ghost-written” pseudo-scientific reports which downplay the potential risks of their products.

www.rt.com...

The "let nothing go" program is Monsanto's little honey of a pro Monsanto army of trolls to post positive comments, defend Monsanto and above all appear to have no connection to the industry. Not even Face book is safe from the army of trolls.

“Monsanto even started the aptly-named ‘Let Nothing Go’ program to leave nothing, not even Facebook comments, unanswered; through a series of third parties, it employs individuals who appear to have no connection to the industry, who in turn post positive comments on news articles and Facebook posts, defending Monsanto, its chemicals, and GMOs,” the document reads.

A batch of emails used as court evidence who were written by Monsanto executives telling "ghost writers" to write articles then have "independent scientists" just sign the study. Wow, I bet they get a huge $100.000 fine and that will show'em.

The accusations are backed by a batch of emails, used in court as evidence, which were written by some Monsanto executives, instructing the staff to “ghost-write” articles and then have some “independent scientists” just sign their names under the “study” in order to reduce costs.

a reply to: seasonal

Corporate sponsored trolling has been a thing for a long time... So has government sponsored trolling. US, Russian, British, Israeli, Chinese and Turkish agencies have been using these tactics for a long time. Look no further than the GCHQ JTRIG leaks for confirmation of this.

Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the Internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums.

The Guardian NSA files
Yes There Are Paid Government Trolls Online

I doubt if there is even a law on the books that can be used to charge Monsanto. If deception is done right in this country it is not illegal. Let the buyer beware is part of our social life here in America. Now if Monsanto themselves published those articles, they can get into trouble. Monsanto has some very good lawyers, I doubt if anyone there has anything to worry about, they have been deceiving everyone for many years and bullying everyone who says anything against them.

I suppose I will attract a Troll, lets see if this article is true.

It was so much nicer when the trolls stayed below the bridge.

a reply to: AnonyMason

According to the story it goes a tad farther than paid positive comments in Redbook's story about what is on your produce.

Looks the the super hero executives may have been having articles "ghost" written and then having scientists "just signed" them.


Smells like a good old fashioned Tobacco corps style control the story to me. I wonder if any of those scientists are connected to "signing off" and saying all those GMO's and herbicides are safe?

a reply to: seasonal

In my mind they (the scientists) would be by default should they endorse or sign off on anything containing glyphosate.

Monsanto can label things however they want... biased, unbiased, slanted, unfair. The bottom line for readers should be that they have an active campaign against people who speak out against them. That in and of itself should warrant hesitation to use their products OR at the very least some hesitation when reading anything they have to say in regards to the safety of such products.

a reply to: seasonal

You have to spell it Monsant0. Thats a zero at the end, so that they can't find your thread.

a reply to: seasonal

I'm not defending Monsanto, I don't like what they stand for, but this tactic is also called reputation management. Government backed or not, companies do this all the time.

Knowing Monsanto though, they probably tilt the counter-attacks so much as to make it obvious that the counter-reviews are paid for. You don't need a study to prove what's obvious.

BTW, trolls do it for the fun of it. The people Monsanto hired are not trolls, just internet writers who know a good paying gig when they see one.

a reply to: D8Tee

Yeah but then neither can people looking for "balanced" conversations about Monsanto.
It's a double edged sword and not worth the self inflicted damage.

a reply to: seasonal

Looks the the super hero executives may have been having articles "ghost" written and then having scientists "just signed" them

Utter bs.

The email clearly states that yes, some parts would be ghost written, but then they would edited and signed.

That's a far cry from just signing them off...

a reply to: Chadwickus

This appears to be list of the unsealed court documents, not sure what it includes.

Link

Are you familiar with the story?

Have a link to the email?

This does not seem very above the board.
I guess it depends on what their edits were?
Are you in favor of corporations taking this route?

New details of the company's counterattack came to light this week. Internal company emails, released as part of a lawsuit against the company, show how Monsanto recruited outside scientists to co-author reports defending the safety of glyphosate, sold under the brand name Roundup. Monsanto executive William Heydens proposed that the company "ghost-write" one paper. In an email, Heydens wrote that "we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak." Heydens wrote that this is how Monsanto had "handled" an earlier paper on glyphosate's safety.

The emails also offer hints of a friendly relationship between Monsanto and a senior regulator at the Environmental Protection Agency, Jess Rowland. The EPA was already doing its own assessment of glyphosate's health risks, but after the U.N. report appeared, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention apparently was considering launching its own study.

In late April, 2015, Rowland called a regulatory expert at Monsanto, Daniel Jenkins, to ask who at the CDC was working on the glyphosate study. Jenkins reported on the conversation in an email to his colleagues. He wrote that Rowland "told me no coordination is going on and he wanted to establish some saying 'If I can kill this I should get a medal."

In a separate email in September, 2015, Jenkins wrote that "Jess will be retiring from EPA in ~5—6 months and could be useful as we move forward with ongoing glyphosate defense." Rowland has since retired from the EPA.

a reply to: D8Tee

The RT article links to the email discussing the ghost writing...

usrtk.org... (pdf)

What's not above board?

Many companies do this, is it only an issue because monsanto?

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: D8Tee

The RT article links to the email discussing the ghost writing...

usrtk.org... (pdf)

What's not above board?

Many companies do this, is it only an issue because monsanto?

O.K. I wasn't aware many companies do this.

If they did nothing wrong then there should be no issues.

I hope they get this straightened out, we lose Roundup and I can almost guarantee it will be replaced with something more toxic.

Just a little info for you :

Monsant0 were purchased by Bayer.

Google what Bayer made during WW2.

Warmest

Lags

originally posted by: Lagomorphe
Just a little info for you :

Monsant0 were purchased by Bayer.

Google what Bayer made during WW2.

Warmest

Lags

Aspirin?

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Lagomorphe
Just a little info for you :

Monsant0 were purchased by Bayer.

Google what Bayer made during WW2.

Warmest

Lags

Aspirin?

This might give you further insight : www.zmescience.com...

Warmest

Lags

But
But
But Monsanto are a beautiful company, they invented rainbows and butterflys and they have a stable of magical unicorns

It cant be monsanto, they are nice

www.globalresearch.ca...

It doesn't matter if other companies follow this practice, it's still deception. If they want to defend themselves, they shouldn't pretend to have unbiased third parties do it for them and on their dime.

They do this because they know their word means shquat.

a reply to: seasonal

I can think of at least one ATS member...who either likes Monsanto like beer....or is being...errr..subsidized.

edit:

I hesitate to name names.

Bugger... I have just been fired! 😀😀😀😀a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

originally posted by: Planet teleX
It doesn't matter if other companies follow this practice, it's still deception. If they want to defend themselves, they shouldn't pretend to have unbiased third parties do it for them and on their dime.

They do this because they know their word means shquat.

Exactly, those other companies(who cannot be named-might bring tooooo much attention) aren't exactly loved by the public either for valid reasons.