Leifer
Senior Member.
This may not technically be considered a "conspiracy", per se **
....but read on.....
In social media, I (and many) have seen an ever-increasing amount of claims that "shills" are prevalent, and are wide-spread......and that they (shills) often appear on social media because of some financial association to dispel various claims and/or uncovered "truths"......
.......when in the realm of controversial ideas expressed across the net.
"Shill".....general definition, but many instances.....
The "conspiracy" I am noting and describing here, is perhaps more specific, where someone on a public chat type media, is too easily "labeled" a shill, simply because they disagree with a controversial idea or topic -- and little or no evidence is given to back-up the accusatory claim of actually being labeled a "shill".
It is commonly overlooked that the individual's "voice", is more than likely -- simply an individual's personal opinion.
Instead, a large interactive social chat media claim (response) is, "Who do you work for ?".....or, in essence....'you don't agree with me or the topic and it's opinion, therefore you must have ulterior motives.'
I think this accusation has gone beyond a "knee-jerk" defensive posture, into an actual belief.
** Has this method of accusation become a mysterious new belief ? Has this common accusation (often a weak defensive ploy), fed a life into the notion that it is indeed true ? Where is the evidence for this ?
Is the suggestion of pervasive "shilling", creating a new imaginary political and covert enemy ?
Doesn't this accusation fall right in line with (and definition of) any other conspiracy theory ??....where gossip can eventually become a claim or belief of "public knowledge" ?
....but read on.....
In social media, I (and many) have seen an ever-increasing amount of claims that "shills" are prevalent, and are wide-spread......and that they (shills) often appear on social media because of some financial association to dispel various claims and/or uncovered "truths"......
.......when in the realm of controversial ideas expressed across the net.
"Shill".....general definition, but many instances.....
It is commonly overlooked that the individual's "voice", is more than likely -- simply an individual's personal opinion.
Instead, a large interactive social chat media claim (response) is, "Who do you work for ?".....or, in essence....'you don't agree with me or the topic and it's opinion, therefore you must have ulterior motives.'
I think this accusation has gone beyond a "knee-jerk" defensive posture, into an actual belief.
** Has this method of accusation become a mysterious new belief ? Has this common accusation (often a weak defensive ploy), fed a life into the notion that it is indeed true ? Where is the evidence for this ?
Is the suggestion of pervasive "shilling", creating a new imaginary political and covert enemy ?
Doesn't this accusation fall right in line with (and definition of) any other conspiracy theory ??....where gossip can eventually become a claim or belief of "public knowledge" ?
Last edited: