Proof for the theory of fake posters?

Community Leader
Registered: 10-01-2010
Proof for the theory of fake posters?
2
Thu, 11-24-2011 - 10:26am

It's been said in the past that formula companies may be using fake posters to skew the debate - and I always wondered, if they would really do that?

From: "Fake forum comments are 'eroding' trust in the web"

Fake posters can "poison" debate and make people unsure about who they can trust, the study suggests.

Some firms have created tens of thousands of fake accounts to flood chat forums and skew debate.

The researchers say there are reliable ways to spot fakes and urge websites to do more to police users.

The researchers from Canada and China say paying people to post comments is an "interesting strategy in business marketing" but it is not a benign activity.

"Paid posters may create a significant negative effect on the online communities, since the information from paid posters is usually not trustworthy," they wrote.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15869683

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-20-2008
Thu, 11-24-2011 - 6:29pm
I was aware that this sort of thing was going on on some review sites such as Yelp!, where there have been some businesses that where caught red-handed posting fake reviews in favor of their own products so I figured the idea of a formula company PR firms doing it something similar was not a big stretch. This article would seem to support my theory as plausible.

There is just something about the a lot of the types of comments coming from formula-feeders/formula-defenders on every BF article posted to news sites, blogs, and other online publications that strike me as a bit odd to all just be coming actually FF'ing moms. A lot of the anti-BF/anti-lactivisism comments all seems to follow a certain theme pushing certain myths about BF'ing and lactivisim that are beneficial keeping long term BF rates low. Unfortunately, becuase people don't realize that the comments they are reading about BF'ing from supposed FF'rs may not be genuine they are more likely to doubt the few lactivist who dare to try and correct these myths as goes against everything they've been reading in all these anti-lactivism/anti-BF'ing articles and article comments they've been reading all over the web. Of course there is also the fact that those that did not, do not, or will not BF have a bias in favor of the false message the formula co's are spreading as it's telling them what they want to hear. I'm sure the PR firms realize that if you can convince FF moms that they are truly under siege by lactivist and such, then you can get them to act defensively and close themselves off to hearing what the lactivists and medical experts have to say. Their using the "us vs them" style of propaganda. What we need is to get more stories out their from moms who were victims of BF myths and a lack of info and support on BF'ing but who later realized how they were let down and took steps to correct the issue the next time. Once people start hearing about how better preparation for BF'ing and better support afterwards, especially from an IBCLC, really can make a huge difference then those women who really wanted to BF but "failed" at it might realize that certain commonly held beliefs about FF'ing expressed by many FF'rs on the internet about BF'ing and BF support may be either wrong and or not the whole picture. We have to counter the idea that some have that success as BF'ing is more about luck then anything else.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-13-2008
Fri, 11-25-2011 - 6:10am

I at times visit an Australian website devoted to healthy food choices.