The “author” is citing a study. Idk why you’d indict the study because the media that is making you aware of the existence of said study is behind a paywall. Bizarre reasoning.
Hmmm, not necessarily all that bizarre. The title on the Lenny link states that 15% of ALL Reddit content is corporate trolls trying to sway public opinion - now that this gentleperson has kindly provided the link to a non-paywall version, I can see that this is 2 studies, one from 2018 and one from 2020, one of which states that 15% of the top 100 subreddits may have experienced corporate trolls and/or bots posting content at some point, but they don’t say how much.
Huge difference between the title and the substance of the article, they buried the lede in a somewhat clever way. Chances are the author (and editor) are well aware that most of their audience doesn’t have an account, and aren’t going to create an account - therefore, by posting a misleading title (or letting others exaggerate the claims in the title through links on other platforms) they can reach a far larger audience, and sway public opinion more effectively, by burying the actual context behind the paywall.
I mean, I don’t know that that is what’s happening, but it makes a lot of sense and kind of rhymes with the whole point of the article, so yeah - I don’t trust their motives either, and I can definitely see the logic behind distrusting paywalls on principle.
The “author” is citing a study. Idk why you’d indict the study because the media that is making you aware of the existence of said study is behind a paywall. Bizarre reasoning.
Hmmm, not necessarily all that bizarre. The title on the Lenny link states that 15% of ALL Reddit content is corporate trolls trying to sway public opinion - now that this gentleperson has kindly provided the link to a non-paywall version, I can see that this is 2 studies, one from 2018 and one from 2020, one of which states that 15% of the top 100 subreddits may have experienced corporate trolls and/or bots posting content at some point, but they don’t say how much.
Huge difference between the title and the substance of the article, they buried the lede in a somewhat clever way. Chances are the author (and editor) are well aware that most of their audience doesn’t have an account, and aren’t going to create an account - therefore, by posting a misleading title (or letting others exaggerate the claims in the title through links on other platforms) they can reach a far larger audience, and sway public opinion more effectively, by burying the actual context behind the paywall.
I mean, I don’t know that that is what’s happening, but it makes a lot of sense and kind of rhymes with the whole point of the article, so yeah - I don’t trust their motives either, and I can definitely see the logic behind distrusting paywalls on principle.