AIBU to think that there are a huge amount of paid political posters on this forum?

[deeedeee]

50p army indeed? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

It's obvious, but remember to check the parties manifestos and make sure you are voting for the policies you agree with, and not just being influenced by the opinions of others and the politics of inevitability.

It's what makes me think they were a paid troll: Brexit/Trump happened and they bowed out: 'my work here is done'.

it does feel that there are people who are very dedicated, very good at derailing

The main reason threads get derailed, in my opinion, is due to people misrepresenting what someone else has said. Which then leads to I didn't say that, yes you did, etc. I am thinking of one regular and frequent poster here who does this all the time: indeed, she hardly ever puts forward views of her own, preferring just to sabotage others. I don't think she's being paid for it, though.

May be there is and I just have not noticed it. I suppose you need to be on here a lot to see lots of the threads. My general view is most people are genuine. Occasionally you see someone who is probably making it up.

Must be. Mumsnet is predominantly women and women don't worry their pretty little heads about politics - that's man stuff.

Or... real posters are passionate about it?

Cormorant: "I cannot believe that any political professional was paying Claig to do that. He/she had the authentic light of self-inspired mania."

I agree. Claig was posting batshit conspiracy stuff about Ukip, global warming and the curse of the PPE-dominated political system long before the referendum. But I do wonder what has happened to her. (Think it was a her.)

I think the paid political posters are slightly more subtle than that. Obviously we do get genuine political posts on here, but it's also well-known that some organisations do pay people to post political comments on discussion sites. The Guardian's comment pages have been plagued by paid Russian propagandists for a long time (though usually quickly deleted by moderators these days).

Well quite Beyond goodness me as if women can disagree on politics and enjoy a debate! Who would have thought a massive internet site like this has lots of different opinions.

Obviously all those who don't see our dear leader Corbyn as credible, or May as a strong and stable are paid agitators and of course men as women can't be bothering their pretty heads with politics

I always thought claig was a man?

Of course women can and do talk about politics. Nobody has ever accused people on FWR of being paid to post.
But it is the way some posters are commenting and posting that seems off. I get the same spider tingly senses as with a Troll.

Interesting someone mentioned LFN...hadn't seen them post for yonks, and then there they were this morning.

Well there have always been trolls and twats about all issues and the ejection is due so that's just a hot topic doesn't mean these people are paid.

That seems a bit paranoid and why would any party bother? Mumsnet is full of women who clearly have strong opinions on all matters so if they are, and I think it's crap, them they are wasting time and money.

They would bother because it is a very cheap way to try and influence opinion

Na not buying that. Most mumsnetters are quite able to make up their own minds and wouldn't be swayed by random posters.

Now netmums Huns maybe

I think you underestimate how much people are influenced by what others think.

Oh FFS, nobody thinks that women talking about politics is suspicious in itself. What is suspicious is stuff like the small handful of posters pre-EU ref who posted all day every day on that subject and nothing else, stuck to the same lines, with the same very distinctive posting style (always LEAVE in capital letters), and then the day after the vote all mysteriously vanished never to be seen again.

Paid shills on forums and comment sections has been happening for years and years. If you can believe MN get it for commercial products (and they do!) then it shouldn't be such a stretch to think it'll happen for politics as well.

Nope they might say they are but at the ballot box people vote how they choose. They can lie on here and to family and friends.

Bet you some of the the millions who voted UKIP didn't share that with anyone.

People are tribal by nature by the age of 25 and most are middle of the road politically speaking so you saw people voting for Blaire and major. Both pretty centre leaders.

hackmum The same goes for any China articles in the Guardian, and the Guardian is the one mainstream paper that actually does have journalists who can write a balanced and informed article on China, apart from Carrie Gracie on the BBC and Isobel Hilton wherever she can get a piece.. The MO is so predicatable. They have a British username, something like John Smith and speak colloquial English, and they do argue logically but they can't hide their perspective. They are too subtle to get moderated though, The problem is that between them and the obvious 50 centers (I wonder if they have a pay scale?) they drown out any reasoned debate so the writers and any posters who know what they are talking about just give up bothering, which is of course the idea.

I don't understand why given that it is a well developed technique for interfering with public debate anyone would think that the likes of Aaron Banks would NOT make use of it. He has made it clear that it is war and he was and is prepared to fund any effective means of winning it.

I am quite sure that there are cribsheets not just on what to say but how to say it. Paid or not, as soon as someone materialises relying on strawman arguments (arguing against something you didn't say), resorting to personal attacks and insults, and coming out with a certain script repeatedly then evaporating when it is challenged my alarm bells go off and I try to resist rising to it though sometimes they find the right bloody button but then they get to drown out the debate with their crib sheet points. Whether they are paid or just possessed by their own demons as I think was the case with Claig and the one I suspect Kesstrel is referring to (who apparently roams the threads being obnoxious on matters as diverse as child obesity apparently) they are helping normalise some extreme viewpoints and undermine what were up to around a year ago the norms of debate on political issues which generally was a debate of evidenced viewpoints

Possibly 53 but think they are trolls/very committed to a cause but not paid. Anyway it's all speculation

Most mumsnetters are quite able to make up their own minds and wouldn't be swayed by random posters

You think? Constant repetition of negative opinions about a group. Constant misleading information. Keep on doing it enough and you can change people's opinion.

Especially if you have enough people.

It's what the media does. It happens on here as well. We're all susceptible to it.

Well personally it's best to ignore idiots like one yesterday who thought a bf was a hero for getting into fights.

Ignore and don't engage

I hope mumsnetters are more mature and fiesty than that.

You might be right though

Keep on doing it enough and you can change people's opinion.

Indeed. Look at "Safe and Stable".

Dianeabbotts - so if they were just committed to a cause, why did they vanish the day after the vote? Suddenly stopped feeling committed?

strong and stable

Mind you there's just a thread that's saying Gove would have been a better PM than May and she's too soft so you may be right

No you might be right 53 anyone liking Gove must be paid

I would be very surprised if there isn't paid posters on MN. It is a large forum with lots of users so a great way to spread propaganda.

I do think we all need to be aware of that when we read and post here.

I am naturally suspicious but I know I still find it hard to spot a troll. I love reading the politics on MN but I do realise that, as with anything on the internet, it could all be bollocks, and the best thing to do is get information from a range of places and always read critically rather than take things at face value.