Your other comment was flagkilled because it said something like "Fuck off, JTRIG shills", which as you know is completely unacceptable on HN, regardless of how correct your cause may be. So please don't do that again.
More generally, accusing other users of being astroturfers or shills—when you have no evidence for this other than that their opinion disagrees with yours—is a serious breach of civility that is not allowed here. You can and should and must make your point without stooping to that, if you comment here.
> Your other comment was flagkilled because it said something like "Fuck off, JTRIG shills", which as you know is completely unacceptable on HN, regardless of how correct your cause may be. So please don't do that again.
Fine.
> More generally, accusing other users of being astroturfers or shills—when you have no evidence for this other than that their opinion disagrees with yours—is a serious breach of civility that is not allowed here.
Wasn't trying to direct an accusation at any specific individual, but rather to speak in general that their presence should be anticipated.
As I cannot obtain evidence for this claim without, say, compromising a protected government computer, I don't see what the standard for evidence for cautionary comments should be.
I've moved my comment to not reply to anyone else's. Is that acceptable instead?
> You can and should and must make your point without stooping to that, if you comment here.
My point is simple: Beware of NSA/GCHQ employees and sympathizers that want to sling mud at Assange.
But slinging accusations that people who disagree with you (or who are perhaps grossly uninformed) are NSA/GCHQ trolls doesn't help either. Not only that -- to the extent that they may be monitoring (or actively participating) in this very discussion -- it plays into their hands.
Historically, it's always been a core part of their strategy (and that of their spiritual brothers -- the KGB, Stasi, etc) to sew discord and suspicion among activist communities -- through the very technique of getting people to suspect each other as collaborators. In addition to fomenting a hostile atmosphere generally, and causing well-meaning (but less strident and radicalized) participants to burn out early, or to shy away from participation altogether.
So in terms of furthering their agenda (under the purely hypothetical assumption that they even care about what goes on HN, and/or view this community as a threat) -- you're actually doing precisely what they want you to do.
In general: more civil, less prone to rash judgements and manipulative thinking styles, generally.
And unlike them -- never afraid of the truth (even when it is uncomfortable and quite often troubling). Because in the long run, it will always be on our side.
I'm not sure why this comment is getting downvoted, his previous comment was obviously tongue in cheek and sarciszewski doesn't actually believe that the GP is a JTRIG operative.
Nevertheless he does make a valid point, NSA and GCHQ actively run campaigns to manipulate public opinion and this would probably be one of the prime topics for that.
It isn't valid when it's directed at a specific other user without evidence. That's a personal attack. We can't have a functioning community if people are allowed to do that, so they're not allowed to do that.
Damage to a forum from users running around insinuating others are 'shills' is much greater than from any supposed shills. And you keep doing it - adding links doesn't make it any less baseless or icky.
