Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

2

tnstaec wrote

They are crazy active on Reddit. Anytime someone is critical of GMO or Monsanto they'll get downvoted hard and users will pop out of nowhere to smear them.

1

sudo wrote (edited )

So it's just an accusation?

Edit: "it has become common practice on the news aggregation site Reddit to write ‘Monsant0’ when discussing the company in a bad light so that it is not indexed on a search engine", meaning, "one person on /r/conspiracy (lol) said to change the o to a 0". Quality journalism, folks.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

I used to follow the Monsanto shills around and expose them all over reddit. I got 10 of them banned from r/@ and r/s. Whenever anyone uttered the word 'Monsanto', the same r/GMOTruths shills piled in to badmouth anyone saying anything slightly negative about their employer.

When it was confirmed that Monsanto was paying shills a couple months back, they made their sub private.

2

sudo wrote (edited )

Can you link me to the source that confirmed Monsanto is paying people to shill for them? This is sounding a lot like the people who accuse us of working for George Soros, because nobody could actually care enough about social issues to go to a protest without being paid for it.

Edit: No response. Until you can back up your claims with evidence, I'm calling bullshit.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

Didn't see the message until just now.

https://www.rt.com/usa/386858-monsanto-hired-trolls-court/

alt:

https://leakofnations.com/monsanto-accused-in-court-of-conducting-an-army-of-shills-to-crackdown-on-negative-online-comments-monsanto-shills-roundup-cancer-link-monsanto-ghostwrite-scientific-articles/

No idea how you can read the court papers they're quoting.

The day that report came out, this sub went private:

https://www.reddit.com/r/gmotruths

It was filled with users that spent hours everyday of the week going around reddit defending Monsanto and viciously badmouthing the 'organic' industry. I can link you to a full list of the shills if you want, I trolled them for years. There was also a sub for organic industry shills but there were only 2 people on it.

2

sudo wrote

No idea how you can read the court papers they're quoting.

Yeah, that's the problem. I read through this one that RT linked to, and it says they provided their evidence in the David Heering deposition, which I can't find any transcripts of. I'm not familiar with law, but if the plaintiff is allowed to present their evidence for Monsanto's alleged shill program outside of court, they should do so, so we can see if what they're saying is true. If they are unable to fulfill their burden of proof, for whatever reason, then there is no reason to believe their claims.

As for your second point, I saw that sub a few times before it went private. There was nothing there to suggest that they were being paid by Monsanto. They might have been, or they might have been scientifically-minded people on a crusade against misinformation. Calling them shills is an unfalsifiable statement - there is no way for them to prove that they are not shills (and they should not have to - the burden of proof lies with the claim-maker). Furthermore, the null hypothesis states that the "default" hypothesis must be that there is no link between elements A and B - in this case, that there is no link between /r/GMOtruths and Monsanto's payroll. If you want to prove that there is, then you must supply sufficient evidence to disprove that hypothesis - i.e. that they must be shills, not just that they seem like they are. If you, or whoever is making the claim, can't do that, then there's no reason to believe them.

The burden of proof allows us to differentiate between conspiracy theories and valid theories.

0

EdgyIndividualistBuffoon wrote

Why would a group of people spend years trolling the web looking for any mention of the word 'Monsanto', spending hours defending said corporation if they weren't paid to do so? Who would be that passionate about an agricultural company?

The whole "It's not true unless I see a smoking gun" thing doesn't work when we're talking about corporate propaganda, which is entirely legal. It's unlikely they're going to release their corporate secrets to the public, but anyone that's been around these shills can see they're not doing it as a hobby.

1

sudo wrote

Dunno, why would anyone spend hours going to leftist protests unless they were paid by George Soros? Oh right, because people actually care about those things.

What they're passionate about isn't Monsanto, they're passionate about preventing the spread of scientific misinformation and conspiracy theories. Glyphosate being bad for humans is a conspiracy theory, so they are trying to dissuade people from believing in it. Monsanto happens to be the largest seller of it, so the conspiracies gravitated towards "Monsanto is trying to poison all of us with Roundup." So they debunk these theories, not necessarily because they like Monsanto, but because conspiracy theories are harmful. I don't like Monsanto - they're an evil capitalist corporation like any other. But that's the worst I can say about them.

It's not "It's not true unless I see a smoking gun," it's "It could be true, but there's no reason to believe so without evidence." You should apply this to any factual claim of importance.

anyone that's been around these shills can see they're not doing it as a hobby.

I've been around some "shills," and they most certainly could be doing it as a hobby. I did it as a hobby, but for ancient aliens and flat earth conspiracy theories, not GMOs. I was called a shill numerous times, but I know myself not to be. So, unless you have damning evidence that these people are being paid by Monsanto, there's no reason to believe they are, because the null hypothesis could be true (and, in my opinion, is).

1

EdgyIndividualistBuffoon wrote (edited )

Glyphosate being bad for humans is a conspiracy theory

Now you're literally spreading corporate propaganda:

http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i27/California-list-glyphosate-carcinogen.html

It takes a lot for government to take action like that against the hand that feeds them.

1

sudo wrote

As the article said, some studies said it was carcinogenic, and others said it wasn't, so there is no consensus; thus there is not enough evidence to disprove the null hypothesis (no link between Roundup and cancer). California is well known by now to be overly strict regarding what products must be labeled as carcinogenic, such that "X contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer" has become a joke. If you'll look here, you'll see that California can immediately list anything the IARC determines as carcinogenic under its Proposition 65, so California listing it isn't further proof that it's carcinogenic. As stated before, the IARC came to one conclusion, the WHO came to another, etc. There is no consensus.