Skip to main content

Uptick in Troll Chatter

Everybody asks me, "Have things finally settled down for you?"

They never settle down, the hassles just take on different forms.  I've been watching daily defamation for years now, and long enough to note when there is a curious and concerning uptick in troll chatter. 



Dozens of sock puppets, likely representing one single person, follow mentions of me online and then write nasty comments in the comments sections. Usually this happens a few times a week, but over the last week activity is high. 



Somewhat flattering? 

The fact that someone has a job to follow me and my mentions around the internet is oddly creepy.  Ena Valikov has been doing it for years. This could be her, but I suspect it isn't.  I have some good guesses.

The main vehicle appears to be Disqus and Google Alerts.  When I post or something is posted about me on a Disqus-enabled website he/she must get an alert, because there always is a multi-sock puppet convergence right after. 




Why this is a problem

We have been making a lot of progress in science communication. We have been getting closer to mastering messaging. We are recruiting new, effective voices, and changing hearts and minds on a daily basis. 

Most of all, we've been able to neutralize the hostile attacks on science and scientists, and even their most crafted messages just don't matter.  The messages of fear are stale and never come true. They have been exposed as industry insiders, financed to misinform. The public does not trust activist claims.  

We have earned that trust  

On the other hand, scientists are gaining credibility and visibility.  The average science enthusiast is pushing back, and fighting to correct what used to be unopposed false information. 

Scientists are communicating well and making a difference.  We are getting a wider audience.  

Backed into a corner

I've been a bit on alert about this because the major organizations opposing crop biotech are getting desperate.  Like a crazed badger backed into a corner, they are getting more desperate. 

As we've seen, they are not interested in facts, but simply putting information into the public space to erode trust in public scientists. 

This is particularly a problem because it appears as though they are manufacturing new narratives.  One said, "We know all about the prostitutes."  I'm taking that as a warning shot at the next claims they will make. 



They post on websites that feature my work, even in the comments section of my own podcast.  The great irony here is that they refer to protecting developing-world consumers from potent carcinogens as "propaganda"



Cut and Paste Attacks

I know this is one person, maybe two.  How?  Because when I block certain trolls other ones show up. I've shown how these coordinated troll infestations happened before.  

They also cut/paste from their own text.  Not only are they wrong and evil, they are lazy. 




A google search of their claims shows that their rants are cut and pasted from other troll accounts, supporting the hypothesis that these are really just one person. 


Forward.

Now is not the time to dial it down. Now is the time to increase our good work and take the highest road we can take in communicating science.  Recruit new voices.  Write daily.  Their ship is sinking and showing scary hints of desperation.  

Science communicators and science enthusiasts are shifting this conversation.  Continue to win the trust of people that are simply concerned about their food. 

Popular posts from this blog

Scientific American Destroys Public Trust in Science

This is a sad epitaph, parting words to an old friend that is now gone, leaving in a puff of bitter betrayal. 
When I was a kid it was common for my mom to buy me a magazine if I was sick and home from school.  I didn't want MAD Magazine or comic books.  I preferred Scientific American
The once stalwart publication held a unique spot at the science-public interface, bringing us interesting and diverse stories of scientific interest, long before the internet made such content instantly accessible.  It was our trusted pipeline to the new edges of scientific discovery, from the mantle of the earth to the reaches of space, and every critter in between.
But like so much of our trusted traditional science media, Scientific American has traded its credibility for the glitz of post-truth non-scientific beliefs and the profits of clickbait.The problem is that when a trusted source publishes false information (or worse, when it hijacked by activists) it destroys trust in science, trust in s…

Chipotle's Ag-vertising to Fix their Anti-Ag Image

After years of anti-farmer rhetoric, disgusting anti-agriculture videos, and trashing farmer seed choice, Chipotle now seems to have found a love for the American farmer that is as warm and inviting as the gooey core of a steak burrito.  Their new "Cultivate the Future of Farming" campaign raises awareness of the hardship being experienced in agriculture, and then offers their thoughts and some seed grants in order to reverse it. 

But are they solving a problem that they were instrumental in creating? 

The crisis in agriculture is real, with farmers suffering from low prices, astronomical costs, and strangling regulation.  Farmer suicides are a barometer of the crisis.  Farms, from commodity crops to dairies, are going out of business daily. It is good to see a company raising awareness. 


From Chipotle's website- The "challenge is real" and "It's a hard living"-- and companies like Chipotle were central in creating those problems. 

However, Chipotle&#…

Mangling Reality and Targeting Scientists

Welcome to 2019, and one thing that remains constant is that scientists engaging the public will continue to be targeted for harassment and attempted reputation harm.  

The good news is that it is not working as well as it used to.  People are disgusted by their tactics, and only a handful of true-believers acknowledge their sites as credible. 

But for those on the fence I thought it might be nice to post how a website like SourceWatch uses a Wikipedia-mimic interface to spread false and/or misleading information about public scientists. 

Don't get me wrong, this is not crying victim.  I'm actually is screaming empowerment.  I spent the time to correct the record, something anyone can check.  Please look into their allegations and mine, and see who has it right. 

This is published by the Center for Media and Democracy.  Sadly, such pages actually threaten democracy by providing a forum for false information that makes evidence-based decisions in policy issues more challenging.  It…