What is your definition of a shill?

I know it's a dirty word here at ATS, and I'm no fan of it either but it seems to fit in this case.

But before I go accusing someone of it, I want to know if I'm right.

If someone posts articles almost exclusively from the same website 30-40 times out of 50 threads, is this grounds enough to assume them to be a shill?

PS: Mods, by accusing, I mean bring to your attention in a PM.

reply to post by AlphaHawk

But before I go accusing someone of it, I want to know if I'm right.

Ooooo interesting , I wonder who that is .
A shill is someone who covertly operates on behalf of someone or something like a government or company .

reply to post by AlphaHawk


A shill must have an agenda.

However having an agenda is not against the T&Cs nor is it that uncommon.

I have an agenda to get people to think in broader circles. I am a shill for consciousness.

I do not get payed for that in money, but the cost of me posting is less than the investment plus interest gained.

I'd say a shill would have to be proven directly tied to some group deemed unfit for the public to hear from. Maybe Army psyops, maybe CIA, maybe something like that. I'm sure there are Obama shills and Bush shills..

Like I say though. I am a consciousness shill. I am payed by no one but myself to be this way. I feel it as a duty. In that way I am sure many others feel it is there duty to defend or attack certain ideals.

It's a hard thing to judge really, as we are all shills for our own well being which can be corrupted at any moment.

reply to post by gortex


Or a website to gain hits?

I hope I'm not out of line with this thread, but I think it's poor form if I'm right.

hmm. Don't have much personal experience with shills, but in whoever it is' defense, maybe they just usually get their news from that site and have found it to be a good source?... But maybe they work for the site and are trying to get more visitors by spreading the view of that site. Doesn't necessarily have to be completely negative i'd suppose.

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by gortex

 

Or a website to gain hits?

I hope I'm not out of line with this thread, but I think it's poor form if I'm right.

One member I noticed had a name that said basically "check out (website)" This particular website is seen as even below propaganda. Not sure it's even allowed to be linked anymore due to it's gross inaccuracy. I don't think this is who you are talking about, but believe me, whoever you are talking about cannot be named.

I've noticed another member who seems to be getting payed by youtube based on clicks. Another member who was new just came out and said as much (probably not reading the rules of ATS)..

We can not go on witch hunts.

I've noticed certain people that site certain sources over and over again. I watch them. That's as far as I can go with that.

This member ..www.abovetopsecret.com...

I could give you four perfect examples .... but I don't think the mods would appreciate me naming ATS members. Seriously ... there are four that I have seen who have certain agendas. One of them, I'm sure, works for a foreign government. The difference between someone giving a different opinion and being a shill is pretty obvious. You get a flavor for it by reading the posts and the history.

reply to post by the2ofusr1


Excuse me...WTF???

Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by the2ofusr1

 

Excuse me...WTF???

It's a trick. Anyone that clicks the link takes them to their own page. It is always good for a laugh..

reply to post by Flatcoat


Don't Panic! That leads back to the profile of whoever clicks on it.
WHen I click on it ... I see my profile.
It's a standard ATS joke.

First time I saw it I got all because I didn't know it was like that for everyone.

Lol....Ok...my masters will be pleased..

A Shill is an opportunist a liar and a heel .

something that holds a clam

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
I know it's a dirty word here at ATS, and I'm no fan of it either but it seems to fit in this case.

But before I go accusing someone of it, I want to know if I'm right.

If someone posts articles almost exclusively from the same website 30-40 times out of 50 threads, is this grounds enough to assume them to be a shill?

PS: Mods, by accusing, I mean bring to your attention in a PM.

I think that we have to be careful because there are members of ATS here who have a particular interest for only one type of subject and will systematically use the same website day in and day out when creating new threads.

This could be due either to lack of credible information in other websites or article links or the fact that the poster trusts and has complete and utter faith in that particular website and doesn't want to go anywhere else... BUT... on the other hand... you never know... they could also be there to promote the website too... You never know!

What i tend to do when in doubt, is also check the posts by that poster to other threads written by other members concerning subjects that the member may be susceptible to answer to and see if his/her posts systematically mention that website too... if this is the case i generally don't waste my time responding.

Also, i am careful to observe if that poster refuses critical/constructive debate and opinions from other posters on his/her thread.

Warmest respects

Rodinus

reply to post by AlphaHawk

If someone posts articles almost exclusively from the same website 30-40 times out of 50 threads, is this grounds enough to assume them to be a shill?

It really depends on the source website.

I use the same site for my threads more often than not because I know it to be reliable. There are some less than reputable sources but that really depends on your belief. Some people will swear by the Huffington post while others will be quick to dismiss it.

And honestly the definition if shill is murky and is in the mind of the beholder. If you don't believe in chemtrails, you're labelled a shill by default. But if you believe in UFO's you're widely accepted, even though you could be a paid pretender to gather info. The real problem is the anonymity of the internet, you really can't tell who has a belief or an agenda anymore.

I think(according to the new online term) anyone that does not agree with your point is a shill.

If you say something positive about government.. you are a shill.

If you disagree with Anti-Vaccine crowd.. you are a shill..

etc etc