Ah yeah, when something doesn’t conform to your narrative, it surely is an astroturf. All coming from accounts that are many years old and have thousands of karma points that leave meaningful posts on all types of topics. But the second they post about Waymo in a positive light, that instantly means astroturfing and not their true opinion based on their lived experiences.
Realistically, there are a lot of Googlers and Xooglers on Hacker News.
One of the messages in this thread is literally stating they have special knowledge of the behinds the scene workings of Waymo.
I work in the AV space and I honestly don't think there's much of a competitive mentality between the companies in the space, but at the same time there is a tendency of people to psudeo-astroturf these brands: where they know someone working at the company and take great personal pride because "I know so and so who works on self-driving cars!"
Astroturfing isn't "I have worked here and am therefore biased when expressing support for the product", it's (to quote Wikipedia) "the practice of hiding the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious, or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from, and is supported by, grassroots participants."
If they explicitly disclose their internal knowledge or affiliation, it's not astroturfing. If they used to work for the company but are now unaffiliated, it's not astroturfing. If the company isn't knowledgeable or supporting of the effort, it's not astroturfing. etc.
> They have partial relationships that they don't feel the need to disclose.
Well, that's your assumption. I would preface that with "probably", since we don't know this for a fact.
> Most of them did not mention any relationship: hence the "psuedo-astroturfing"
Side note: I think you mean "quasi-", not "pseudo-". [1]
But, more to your intended point: the point I'm getting at is that that you're really stretching the definition of astroturfing here, even with the weasel wording added on it.
Astroturfing is a central campaign coordinated by a vendor in a manner as to appear decentralized. It's really an accusation against the central entity rather than as the pawns they're using in the process. So quasi-astroturfing might be a situation where (say) the vendor doesn't actually organize the campaign, but pays an advertiser who internally organizes the campaign without the knowledge of the vendor. The vendor might overlook signs that this is happening, without directly supporting it. Or they might not realize it at all. That's something that would be close to astroturfing, but not exactly it.
However, people advocating for a product due to their genuine personal opinions in a way that's clearly uncoordinated and unsupported by the vendor is not remotely "astroturfing" in any sense. It's a biased expression of opinions, with a potential conflict of interest (if they're still affiliated with that vendor).
All of which I think matters not only because words matter, but also particularly because this site's rules treat astroturfing differently from "someone is biased on the internet", and the admins very much don't want accusations of astroturfing without evidence.
[1] Pseudo- means fake, like how pseudoscience is fake science. Pseudo-astroturfing would be fake astroturfing, or the faking of fake grassroots support. Meaning you'd be accusing people of being real grassroots supporters who are pretending to be fake ones, which would make for a funny accusation.
When you're indirectly related to the brand and that's affecting your eagerness, it's something akin to astroturfing in why astroturfing is looked down on: ie. you're biased
But it doesn't have the malice/intent of astroturfing.
> One of the messages in this thread is literally stating they have special knowledge of the behinds the scene workings of Waymo.
I may have hinted as such (being an ex-Googler), and I know this thread has gotten kinda buried but I wanted to address the implication anyway.
When I left Google I sold all of my stock. My investment portfolio is independently managed and I do not advise any specific positions except for the exclusion of my current and former employers. I do not stand to gain financially from any company in the AV space.
Thank you. Contrary to other replies, you do not have to be employed directly by [Institution] expressly for the purposes of covertly pushing an agenda to be guilty of astroturfing.
What's important is the existence or appearance of a conflict of interest, particularly if you're not disclosing your connection. Having a friend who works for Google who might be upset at criticism counts. Being a former employee with stock counts. Having any kind of monetary or professional interest in FSD companies succeeding counts.
If someone is presenting their statements as that of a person who is not involved, and they actually are, their behavior is duplicitous, and justifiably characterized as astroturfing.
It's justifiably characterized as biased. We lose a useful term for distinguishing normal bias from marketing or PR instigated efforts. That's the point of the term astroturfing. It's useful in that regard. Or I suppose, if it's definition has truly shifted, was useful.
Can a stand-alone complex be an astroturf? I think so, if the social conditions that create the behavior stem from a single entity that stands to benefit.
The point of astroturfing (in comparison to the term it derives from, grassroots) is that it's not people coming together to support a policy, it's people with a vested interest in an entity taking cues from that entity to act in their interests in such a way that it appears as the former. The definition never shifted, the tactics just became less obvious. I would be less suspicious if more comments were complaining or giving measured thoughts, but they weren't.
If I may really stretch the metaphor, I'd say individuals with vested interests are more like sod. They really hold those opinions, and are motivated to express them, but do so "unnaturally". Vs commercial efforts that are entirely fake and are therefore astroturf :D
Bias exists. But by removing the financial incentive from the definition of astroturfing, you make it useless when it comes to distinguishing from bias. Otherwise you turn it into "how many degrees of separation can I find to Waymos" and it gets infinitely tenuous.
I would agree that Waymo employees or shareholders shouldn't be commenting here without disclosing their affiliation. But that's a relatively small class: Googlers (and, increasingly tenuous, Xooglers) don't get paid by Waymo and don't get exposure to it through their GSUs. You can make the claim that Waymo's success adds to Google's brand prestige and has knock-on effects, and maybe that's true to some limited extent. But comparing that to being directly paid by the company to spread propaganda is quite the reach.
>What's important is the existence or appearance of a conflict of interest, particularly if you're not disclosing your connection. Having a friend who works for Google who might be upset at criticism counts. Being a former employee with stock counts. Having any kind of monetary or professional interest in FSD companies succeeding counts.
I feel kinda the same way about Waymo like I did about Apple as a relatively early adopter. The experience is genuinely magical, and there’s a massive gulf between Cruise and Waymo’s capabilities.
A sufficiently good product may produce customer reviews that are indistinguishable from astroturfing.
"unable to move and blocking traffic" is not a new failure mode for cars. I get that it's particularly infuriating to be blocked by a car that is, mechanically, in good shape, but I don't find the story particularly damning. I've blocked traffic that long waiting for a tow truck.
The case he described is different in that, apparently, the vehicles in question lock all of their wheels and can't be accessed, even by law enforcement. A special tow has to be called in. It's a design decision made to protect the company at the expense of the public.
