UKC

There seems to be quite a bit of this going on at the moment: profiles that aren't necessarily new and sometimes contain a little 'background' colour but are barely used suddenly weighing in with anti-lockdown essays having a pretty consistent message and style. The accounts are usually disarmingly named in the Firstname Lastname format rather than the much more common semi-anonymous style.

Is this a consequence of the hack giving someone access to dormant accounts or has someone been setting up sleeper profiles to eventually burn on the divisive issue de jour, if so who and since when? IIRC it used to be possible to do some kind of check on the IP address associated with an account or set of accounts to see a link or am I confused there?

Has anyone at UKC HQ had a closer look to see what if anything connects them, thought about whether it's desirable and if not how it might be stopped?

It's just creepy, UKC is a small-ish specialist forum with it's own user interface and to a degree it's own language (grades etc) so it's not a task easily automated or even for a total outsider, who has the money and motivation to do this assuming it's going on across the numerous other weird corners of the internet. How do they even find those corners and to what end?

Today's instance https://www.ukclimbing.com/user/profile.php?id=300536

Maybe I am going mad, my post sounds mad.

jk

No you are not going mad.  

6 months ago I'd have said you were mad.

Now I'm certain you're correct.

I took one look at the title of the second post from a member who joined yesterday, with a first post that seemed reasonable, and thought "I bet this is a pro-forma anti-lockdown diatribe", and sure enough...

Let’s ask Julia what grade she thinks 3 Pebble Slab is.

That’ll clear up very quickly whether she’s legit or not...

It's definitely happening.  For a while there was tendency for the accounts to post blank messages and then edit them, but their software seems to have improved. I think they are "part" human, part bot.

The trolls are mostly existing posters, aren't they ?    I thought this one was Postman Pat ?

Not unless he has a new job.

PMP had a go at this under his own username a week or two back but it was in his usual style. He's off down a rabbit hole since brexit for sure but this isn't him.

jk

I've just finished reading This Is Not Propoganda by Peter Pomerantsez.

Yes, what's going on is described in remarkable detail in his book. Employ people, perhaps paid or perhaps just members of a faction to sow seeds of doubt and confusion via social media. Appeal to a lowest common denominator i.e. concern over jobs and at some point bring in authoritative outsiders to further influence opinion. The latterbwould have been that open letter advocating the "let it rip" policy that originated in the US.

The only thing I'm uncertain about is who is behind it. My guess would be the same people who are funding Farage's new party. I don't know who they are but my guess would be rich arseholes who make their money through the stock market and are worried that they'll earn less next year because some of their investments won't do very well...and phuq everyone else.

Anyway here's a review of the book which should be widely read in my view. A good Xmas present perhaps.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/aug/10/this-is-not-propaganda-peter-...

Admin probably have access to it (depends on whether they want to share it) however I would expect any half competent propaganda outfit to use a bunch of vpns to mix things up a bit and prevent them doing it effectively.

Although a niche market it is relatively large and I think it makes sense to target this sort of forum since a)you might find some new victims and b)there is less chance of being lost in everything else.

I think it does make sense to chose a random sports/hobbies and google for the main forums for them and then put some time into targeting them. Remember most of the propaganda factories use a mix of people for targeted work and then just mass automated spamming to fill up stuff like twitter.

It is also probably pretty good for search results as well. If you target the specialist forums anyone searching for it will see it in a lot more places.

You're not mad.  'Julia' is clearly a propagandist, just a slightly more subtle one. I like the touch of posting an innocuous first thread before launching into the anti-lockdown diatribe.

I'm not so sure there's a bot behind it.  One person could quite easily sit behind a computer and do simultaneously this on tens of forums.

I'm disappointed that the thread was locked before Wintertree and I could take 'her' apart

Not mad at all, and pretty blooming obvious bot/paid propaganda merchant hence my reply to "her" (??).

Or, you may be seeing a return of people who previously posted under their real names but, due to the risks posed to one's livelihood and reputation by simply posing contrary viewpoints (in an otherwise narrow bandwidth), have chosen to return under anonymity. Myself included.

Regardless of who ultimately wins the US election, the twist away from what pollsters were being told, is pretty strong evidence (not that more was really necessary) that a substantial segment of society is unwilling to speak their mind. If that's the case in the relatively safe environment of polling, it isn't unimaginable that an even larger number are afraid to do so in public forums.

I'm not sure its helpful to keep assuming that the most likely explanation for the emergence of anonymous dissenting voices is nefarious and conspiratorial actors. Or to keep assuming the cancel-culture plays no role in this and that its impacts don't reach deeper into society than is supporters (or simply those denying its existence) are willing to admit.  

Brexit/Boris/Trump should be wake-up calls. But they seem to keep being seen as proof of conspiracy and underlying evil at work. There are far simpler explanations and ones which point to failings closer to home.

The ending of the new Borat film seems very real now!! 😂

You know if I look at your posts and profile there's nothing there to suggest you take any interest in climbing or walking.

Would you like to take this opportunity to prove my suspicions wrong?

Quite sad that what is the greatest tool for spreading truth is being hijacked by those using it to spread lies.

What is it you want? 

Lies and drivel online to be always be met with "yes, that's lovely, well done for expressing yourself"? Then people wouldn't vote for bad policies?

How's this going to work? If a reply is deemed too critical, will it be censored to make way for the feelings of the poor silenced anti-lockdowners, climate skeptics, Trump supporters? 

This sounds like absolute drivel to me. Or am I now "cancelling" you, putting your reputation at stake, because I said I thought your view made no sense. Sorry if so. Good luck rebuilding your life, and I hope you don't have to turn to the far right as a response to being criticised online.

I have gotten so bored with the whole bollocks

"Masks are killing us"

"Its all fake (tan)"

"Freeeeeeeedoooooommm!!!"

I almost miss Brexit

The thing is, as far as I've seen, every one of these 'new posters' is posting the same opinion.

If it's just people afraid to post 'contrary viewpoints', it's really odd that they're all of the same mind (and all read the Telegraph).

Only a 57 more sleeps to go before we regain total and complete control of the M20. http://daystobrexit.co.uk/

I'm pretty certain I climbed next to Renton at Llanymynech; a good few years ago but still. If Renton is who I think he used to be, he does or at least did climb, and harder than me (although that doesn't take much!).

I'm not sure if Mr Cooke wants to confirm or deny that.

Maybe I have none. Maybe I'm afraid of heights and avoid elevators. Then again, I may spend available weekends jumping from ledges around Lauterbrunnen. Frankly, it shouldn't matter a dime what my interests are, whether I've 'done anything on grit' or whether Three Pebble Slab has any interest to me whatsoever. You are welcome to vanish down whatever wormhole of suspicion you wish to if that helps you avoid having to take seriously alternative viewpoints.

I'm more concerned with the mental block that has developed in a large swathe of the political spectrum who I previously held in high esteem and who, despite their claims to open arms and understanding, have become spectacularly unable to put themselves in the shoes of those they disagree with and understand legitimate reasons for dissent and contrary opinion. Instead preferring conspiracy theories of their own.

Sam Harris, despite his evident hostility to Trump (https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/1322301610719105024?s=20) appears at a late stage to have reached a level of comprehension that in recent years has been washed away from UKC (https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/1323455316554477568?s=20). It's not far off the mark from James Lindsay's observation either (https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1310408147396423681?s=20). 

The utter hostility to alternative opinions on UKC reached a tipping point some time back. Unsurprisingly, fewer and fewer people holding those opinions ventured forth as a result. But rather than the hostility abating, the more minority those voices became the more hostility was heaped on them. Now anyone sticking their head above the parapet gets piled on. It's almost as if, for all the talk of accepting minorities and diversity, the collective mind here is guilty of the very thing they see themselves as fighting against. It has been like watching the online equivalent of the 60s Third Wave experiment.

I'm actually glad you didn't.

If I were working on disinformation or manipulating public opinion, what better training ground for my employees, and to hone the scripts I give the drones to include more plausible (if incorrect) counterarguments, than UKC?

I think the best response is no response, or a polite "it's been done to death, use the search function for a comprehensive rebuttal of your nonsense".

We might well have been 'wrestling with pigs', but I don't think helping them train for the next bout is a particularly good idea.

What risk to your livelihood do you run by posting on here? (assuming that you aren't breaking the terms of your employment contract by doing so)

Whether or not you are genuine matters because people regard an "ordinary" person's views on politics differently and with less scepticism than they regard someone who is affiliated to a party and is intent on changing their views on a particular subject.

If you don't climb and are just here to influence a political issue you are trying to take advantage of people. You are deceiving them. Further you appear to be acting in concert with other posters who are almost certainly bots. That suggests an organised attempt by someone or some group to influence opinion while hiding who they are and what they want.

I genuinely read the thread title as;

Fresh faeces and propaganda posts

If the reasons given for the (now mainstream) 'dissent' weren't so frequently illogical horseshit or didn't quickly boil down to blind unshakable faith in grifters it would be easier to take them seriously. Justifiable anger at the neglect and abuse many have experienced at the hands of successive governments makes people vulnerable to exploitation by demagogues and grifters, I can acknowledge that without having to respect the damaging nonsensical positions and beliefs it leads people to defend.

Was that around the time they gained traction, became mainstream and started tearing our country apart? Inexplicable really.

I don't get why you swapped one anonymous pseudonym for another (presuming from what you say about us somehow threatening your career this isn't your real name either) without changing your hobbyhorse, favoured sources or posting style.

jk

Aww, our new special friend Julia appears to have had her account suspended.  I was hoping we could all guide her to some steep rock faces.....

Exactly this. I'd taken previous threads on propagandist infiltrators with a pinch of salt. What with one thing and another, there's definitely a rather febrile national atmosphere and anyway, new faces pop up, old faces acquire new faces etc, etc. Julia has convinced me otherwise and if even UKC is being targeted then my mind boggles at the resources being chucked at this.

Me too then I'm afraid. On the upside UKC is proving extremely stoney ground and one would hope there's a secret base under some far flung tropical volcano, echoing with the sound of grinding teeth. 

It looks human to me and actually pretty skilful at times, he or she generally keeps up with the conversation (I struggle) and sidesteps the many and often not that obvious pitfalls. A script and a bit of training only go so far, I suspect there is someone with native English, degree level education (sociology/psychology maybe) and a bit of life experience doing this. Presumably also someone with debt, career prospects paused by covid and a future of gnawing shame assuming they're jut taking the paycheck and haven't drunk the koolaid.

It's gotta be expensive, unless I'm missing something UKC isn't worth any real effort as a misinformation megaphone, it suggests to me this is really extensive (or we're just unlucky and it's all one disaffected regular forum user gone wrong). There's no way you can argue that well day in day out on more than a few fronts simultaneously and given the one-off user interface I doubt there is any automation at play unless it's scarily good AI, I can't see it being worth writing a script to scan for replies then interface to the AI response bot for a one-off website like UKC. Maybe for fora built around common commercial platforms, I can see there it would be worth automating to give a bot ready access to dozens of groups.

jk

Bloody foreign trolls coming over here and taking my hard work away from me.

BTW 

Three pebble slab is VS

Very Slabby.

jk

If you get automated mate you could run a dozen threads on a dozen sites simultaneously.

You could be the Leming2000atron bot controller.

Exact same thing happened in March from a mix of brand new accounts and some previously dormant ones.

There was one dormant account posted an anti lockdown essay two weeks ago in a very similar written style to another poster from March and April.  Their post disappeared within half an hour.

I don’t think it’s (all) sad little trolls because the content is to carefully written - if you quantified the amount of “emotional logic” in some of them it’s way higher than normal and used to skirt people around logical flaws and into discussion to engage them.

Today’s post reminds me of the style of some pop up account asking basically “what is a life worth” from the first time round.

I engaged a pop up account a month ago, in one of their replies a phrase they used only existed in one other place on the internet, from an anti-lockdown post made the day before.  I chased down that poster’s likely address via a campaigning letter they wrote over a US political issue (a lot of grass roots letter writing to politicians is orchestrated, ask an Oxfam campaigns manager one day...) and their LinkedIn profile - they were advertising social media marketing services.

You may notice that I switched to that with the pop up ThomasJohn and generally shifted to pretty open and frank views.  We’ve moved in from “don’t feed the trolls” to “don’t train the traitors/foreign enemy”.

Further to the real world evidence as opposed to anti-lockdown/covid's just flu bullshit:

https://emergency-services.news/nhs-moves-to-highest-alert-level/?fbclid=Iw...

I don't need extra bad thoughts put in this furry brain.

There are enough there as the moment.

I have no hostility to alternative opinions.  I may offer my own, with my reasons, and taking no effort to stop or limit the other person, not wanting to.  

I have serious issue with misrepresentation of the data, especially when I think it is deliberate. 

I having nothing but contempt for the pop up accounts and several other consistent sources of misinformation.

Just spotted the topic that you mentioned in your OP.

Good use of cut and paste but made the error of being spotted too soon.

Rooky troll error, especially from a site such as ours with Olympic standard trolls, many of whom are highly educated and can tear a new arse hole of unwary trainee trolls.

Stroppygob? He was malicious enough, I think he's a candidate. Maybe revenge for being banned 3 times. 

On UKC you must be anti-brexit, anti-trump, pro-lockdown, and that we live in the most sexist, most racist times that have ever existed ever. Any deviation away from the accepted viewpoint is met say with being called a c**t [Ask Jon Stewart what he thinks of Brexit supporters] or being accused of having 'blood on your hands' for daring to link to a mainstream newspaper and then being told I must answer to this point or that. [ I will speak about whatever the heck I like thank you]

I have been getting some enjoyment however of whacking up a post and watching the reams and reams of posts that come off it, its good fun living under a bridge

UKC posters may worry about being diverse, but that doesn't seem to include diversity of opinion.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/off_belay/hospitals_are_not_full-727403?v...

Pop up covid poster JoeBlow on 13 October “ A Doctor friend of mine was telling me only the other day that his hospital has been eerily quite since the full lock down started.”

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/off_belay/sage_ignored_by_turkeys-726477?...

A funny turn of phrase that stuck in my mind enough to stand out when skimming through today.  What are the odds of two different pop-up posters both using the exact same odd turn of phrase when both pushing alt-nonsense over Covid?

Oh boy! You’re in trouble now!  

😉

It’s notable that you can give no reasoned support for any of the shit you’ve been posting.  If your life is so bereft of enjoyment that this is the only way you can get your kicks, I feel sorry for you.   Who the f**k in their right mind trolls using minority views that risk public health in a time of clear crisis when and they are clearly incapable of defending the views themselves?

I will repeat my comment that you have taken such umbrage to.

If anyone is influenced in to taking more risks because of their posts, I consider that they will have blood and economic harm on their hands. 
 

Oh dear, I seem to have been insulted on the internet, how on earth will I cope?

Probably by going and trolling on mumsnet.  I’m not putting my opinion out there for you to read.  You clearly don’t have the decency to care.  

Likewise there have been tweets with idential text from multiple authors about how quiet hospitals are.

While being undoubtedly left leaning, you can take any position you like on UKC, with one simple proviso. You'd better have a reasoned argument with some evidence to back it up. If not, tough titty if you get your arse handed to you.

Some sympathy with this actually. I've got history with "robust" debate on here but I'm civil with people up until they become uncivil or straight up lying bastards with me.

So you say, it's even more satisfying to take onboard the wide variety of informed opinion on here and then perhaps reappraising your own opinions.

There's diversity of opinion and there's people shouting Fire! in a theatre cos they're bored with the entertainment.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54802090

Interesting; another indication that ThomasJohn/JoeBlow/AnderewSmith45/Julia Climbs are a genuine malign presence from outside the forum community.

It’s also clear from several posts that the human component is reading all the relevant threads.

Some better countermeasures are needed.  I suggest that any posts from new accounts are rejected if they contain any key words from a list related to the covid crisis, and posts to off belay and the public aren’t allowed until 10 posts (say) make it unscathed on other topics.  This doesn’t stop anyone wanting to talk about climbing, walking, gear etc and raises the barrier to this sort of crap.

Unless of course your pro-brexit for example, then you are basically Hitler's and Stalin's illegitimate lovechild.

If you can point out where I have been uncivil [apart from maybe to the chap who somehow thought as you got older you could expect to live for longer, but that was only after trying to explain it nicely] or lying I will happily say sorry [and wintertree, linking to a maintstream newspaper that points out something you don't like doesn't count]

'Ask Jon Stewart what he thinks of Brexit supporters'

Given where we are, I dearly wish some f*cker would come up with a rationale for Brexit that makes some sort of sense - any sort of sense. 

That would be discrimination since 'he's' self-identified as a member of the Troll community. 

Tbf, if you get kicks out of purposely playing down the potential impact of this pandemic in order to wind people up it's probably time to reevaluate what is going on in your life  

As I said: "You'd better have a reasoned argument with some evidence to back it up."

You obviously missed the part where I said "Some sympathy with this actually." ....You do seem to have considerable difficulty discerning the salient points in a discussion.

Ah but you see, I haven't downplayed anything, merely pointed out where things have been overplayed....

No, now you claim that you’ve been posting to get your kicks from the responses, I’m done engaging with you.  “Fire in a crowded theatre” is spot on to how I see your recent posts.  The most egregious ones tend to be in the pub, the current ones will disappear soon.  I’ll continue sharing my view on posts but I don’t play chess with pidgins. 

Oh I see, sorry, I thought you meant as you sympathise with people getting sweary, and maybe you have done yourself - my bad

Can we just tuck this one away for good? Some departments were quiet because they had to be shut down because other departments were f*cking raging.

If it helps people, try and picture those scenes from films with sinking ships, you know, where there's compartments filling up with water, bulkheads sealed, crew drowning...other side of the porthole in the door, stuffs not so bad.

I didn't see this, but that's actually kind of true.

80-year-olds, for example, have higher average life expectancies than the average for the whole population.

This is because it is no longer possible for them to die before they are eighty.

Do you have any proof to back that fact up?

Too quick to anger. One of the pop-up 'trolls' a couple of weeks back remained almost robotically polite when the thread switched to pretty nasty personal insults and provocation, the Stroppygob of old would have lost his shit in no time treated like that.

jk

So you'll agree we agree that we need to lockdown on the basis that the two most optimistic models (which were horrific enough) seem to be spot on with their projections so far... 

Oops, sorry!

Slim. I spotted that too but couldn't put my finger on the other thread, it's a simple appeal to authority but you're right, it looks scripted. It's the disarming 'just asking' ingenue style that really stands out especially once it starts to jar against the unscripted follow up, competently deploying the sales tools we would previously have associated with brighter conspiracy theorists.

jk

I would agree that when informing members of the public as accurate data as possible should be used.

Maybe open minded rather than diverse. I'm very keen to hear about the economic benefits of brexit, I'd love for Covid to be a storm in a teacup, I'd be delighted to see evidence that the govt is not rife with cronyism but it's never presented. Instead we get easily debunked sound bites and links to articles from people who's expertise lies in their ability to monitise their lack of integrity and exciting the credulous.

That's a fair point, but perhaps he's learned to temper his responses to achieve his aims. It seemed like it in his last incarnation, though I still recognised him after 2 posts. 

I’m very happy to listen to alternative ideas, if the person in question isn’t spouting complete utter mathematical nonsense.

“Julia” clearly doesn’t have a clue what r is, or why it is entirely the wrong graph to look at to see if the data is exponential.  

She doesn’t have the very basic statistical knowledge to interpret the data and so her view is worthless.  

but a 30 year old can expect to live for another 50 years,

a 40 year old can expect to live for another 40 years,

....

a 70 year old can expect to live for another 10 years,

so as you get older you can expect to live for less years, not more.

I think she has a degree in something with no science of any kind, if she had a Psychology degree she would have had to do Stats.  She has good literacy skills, but isn’t numerate enough.   

You will find yourself in the majority, but so what. Take whatever view you want.

Never heard anyone say that, you're just talking bollocks.

I think that Brexit supporters are either disgusting venal people who know full well that it will cause economic damage resulting in avoidable poverty and misery but it will benefit them personally; or they are people who've been manipulated by those guys into supporting a policy which will screw them.

That's a total failure to understand why people promote "diversity". This means treating different people equally who we see as all having equal value, e.g. men and women, black and white, Muslim and Jew, gay or straight, etc. But we don't think everyone should be treated equally, e.g. we don't think a child molester should be treated equally to a volunteer in a food bank. We don't think that a pile of gold has equal value to a pile of shit.

So when it comes political views, or opinions more generally, we don't have any reason to value them equally. We can sort the piles of gold from the piles of shit. Any position that can be defended with good arguments and evidence is welcome and worth serious consideration and discussion. Any positions that are drivel, lies, can't be defended, and will have bad consequences for society are shit. You can't come out with shit, and expect it to get the same response as a good, well supported argument - and this is precisely what you seem to be asking for.

So looking at the examples you cited.

1. Pro-Brexit: economically harmful while we're in the deepest recession in modern times. There are no good arguments to support it. You or anyone else very welcome to provide the arguments so we can see why this opinion isn't shit.

2. Pro-Trump: to take a single action/reason from today. This president has falsely declared victory and made baseless claims of electoral fraud. Any candidate who tries to subvert the electoral process to maintain power is a danger, and supporting them is shit.

3. Anti-lockdown: undermining efforts to control the virus will lead to deaths, illness and worse economic harm than encouraging compliance with lockdown, and those claiming the lockdown is unnecessary are lying about the facts (e.g. "hospitals are will not fill up"). So the opinion is shit.

Take any of these positions, and you will be told that your opinion is shit, because each one causes unnecessary misery for many, many people who have done nothing wrong. Anyone can try to defend their position. If there are good arguments and evidence, great, let's see it. But what makes these opinions shit is that there are no good reasons to support them.

When you join a conversation on an internet forum, you're signing up to the rules of reason: you're expected to explain why you hold your position, to give reasons. If your reasons are shit, people will think your opinion is shit. If you can give good reasons, they'll listen.

You want to play by different rules: you want opinions to be regarded as valid when the reasons given for them are shit. Sorry, that's not how it works.

The telegraph article you initially quoted said the average life expectancy is 81.25.

Do you think this is from birth or today?

No, that's not right - if it was, a ninety year old could expect to be ten years dead.

As you reach older ages, you're one of the survivors; the average is now the average if those who die between your current age and the maximum possible.

Have a 'like' for that phrase alone!

CP did manage to find a wiki definition for life expectancy being the length of time you could expect to live.

He doesn't seem to understand that as he initially posted that average life expectancy is 81.25. Some people (you included) thought he was using the dictionary definition, that is in common usage, of life expectancy from birth.

I find it interesting that they still don't get that.

and to those replying to him

People are talking at cross purposes here.

The others are using "life expectancy" to mean the age at which the person will expect to die (i.e. the number of years in their whole lifetime).

You're using "life expectancy" to mean the number of years the person has left to live from now.

I think if you observe the difference between those two definitions, you might understand each other at last.

(edited hopefully for clarity, otherwise I might better have said nothing!)

but life expectancy is often measured (although not always) in total years as opposed to years remaining.

So at birth I think its currently about 80 for men. However if you reach 65 then it goes up to 84 or so and so on. If you get to 85 then its 90.

Another example would be life expectancy in the middle ages which was in the 30s. However if you got past childhood for men (women had the additional risk of dying in childbirth) you could expect to live considerably longer.  Well aside from the 13th century and the black death.

Ah, it becomes clear!

His later post remains wrong, though, as the decrease in the number of years you can still expect to live does not happen at the same rate as the increase in your own age.

Actually, the UK ONS have a life expectancy calculator here, it illustrates this:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/hea...

A 60 year old male has on average 25 years left

A 70 year old male has on average 16 years left

A 80 year old male has on average 9 years left

A 90 year old male has on average 4 years left

A 100 year old male has on average 2 years left

If I remember correctly. CP was trying to say that the average age of a covid victim was 82 but life expectancy was only 81.25.

Another poster tried to explain what you have just done. I think more or less did something similar a couple of months ago.

At the time this seemed to be a strategy to avoid trying to justify some of the other claims they were making.

OK, I did say I hadn't seen that. (Or maybe I have; I can't remember it, though.)

If he was shooting for average years lost, it isn't a simple calculation to get that from average age of death, as you'd also need to know the distribution of ages and what their life expectancies were. And, critically, you'd also need to know the years lost to those who don't die directly from it - and that's a massive unknown.

Most likely thing is it is an actual climber and site user who's got themselves a few sock puppets to say stuff they don't want to say with their main account or to back up their main account's viewpoint when there's an argument.

But you don't have to go far on UKC to find any number of people  claiming that a self assessment of the risks of transmission during an outing to the hills  is far more valid than any advice or regulation that the government comes up with in its attempt to control the virus.

Do they give good reasons for their opinion? Or are they unable to defend them? (And in any case it does not appear to me that there is any conflict between the government advice and the opinion that an outing to the hills has no material risk of transmission.) 

Of course they give good reasons for their opinion. It usually goes along the lines of "an outing to the hills has no material risk of transmission" and that opinion would be seen as justification by many for breaching the guidelines even if the government was reduced to imposing a 5k limit like in Ireland.

Well let's address that hypothetical if there is a 5k limit then.

If I said their friends came over last year to visit Salisbury Cathedral would that sound unreasonable.

Mike

I really hope we don't have to but am not optimistic.

CP seems to have gone a bit quiet. He did on the previous thread.

From your contributions I get the impression that you understand life expectancy better than me and I'm a retired maths teacher.

 I wonder if CP will be on another thread tomorrow claiming you are

"the chap who somehow thought as you got older you could expect to live for longer, but that was only after trying to explain it nicely"

To be honest, I think they owe another poster (Martin I think) an apology but given their posting history, I doubt that will be forthcoming.

Sorry was down the pub having a final freedom pint supporting my local business - skog is on the money about how life expectancy works.

Trying not to bite, trying not to bite 😁 - were you uncivil, shit I must have missed that. Try harder next time.

Brexit is more than an economic issue - you fully admit that yourself, as I hope you wouldn't describe someone as 'disgusting venal people' simply because they held a differing economic opinion to yours - whatever the reason its clearly triggered some sort of emotional response in you.

A lot of people didn't see the belonging to a trading block set up to benefit free trade at the expense of the country which on the whole was unaccountable to the people, creating ever more laws which we had to abide to, as a good thing. They on the whole knew about the economic impact (unless they are all stupid too in your eyes) but thought, sovereignty of the state was more important, in the same way getting out of a bad relationship may cost you money and effort as you look to move out etc, but it is a needed cost to achieving that.

Your allowed to disagree but calling them disgusting venal people is exactly the point I made earlier - UKC is not tolerant of opposing viewpoints.

Sorry Michael, (I think it was you) I probably was a bit uncivil there. I'm sorry for the offense I caused in that case.

Edit: It was you - my bad, I got the tone wrong in the exchange on the weekend.

The reason I called the Brexiteers disgusting venal people is that they knew full well that it would cause economic hardship for ordinary people and manipulated them with emotional bollocks about "identity", for their own gain.

But that doesn't mean anything. A personal relationship is emotional, so you might lose out financially in order to be happier. A trading relationship is completely different - it's just economic. A country can't gain emotional happiness at the expense of getting poorer - that's complete gibberish.

Farage, Rees-Mogg, Johnson, etc. lied to people so they could knowingly make them poorer so they will gain from their financial interests in deregulation. I think that's good reasons to conclude that they are disgusting, venal people. 

If any of the arguments for Brexit made sense, I'd be tolerant of them, but they don't. They're shit. "It's like a bad relationship" (no reasons why it's bad) - the best you can do? F*cking hell.

Furthermore, I take your point that life expectancy is often refereed to from birth, and that as you get older, as you haven't died you, you should except to hopefully see another day.

I guess I got annoyed as you tried to call my post out on a technicality, or at least that is how I read it, whilst you were also technically wrong on a minor minor point.

Perhaps but I suspect 'she' was toying with you. If you're defending an indefensible pile of crap and you're being squeezed slowly toward having to acknowledge a fundamental mathematical or logical flaw in it it's important to repeatedly misunderstand what you're being asked or told, to answer a slightly different question or pose three of your own in reply. It's standard conspiracy theory sales, we saw it regularly back in the good old days when it was the Jews with their nuclear space lasers what imploded the WTC. Different bunch of people but a similar and refined toolset used to push nonsense to the credulous.

Honestly I'm quite impressed, it's properly slippery to keep that nonsense going semi convincingly without obviously getting tied up in knots assuming it's deliberate. If it's not then she and those before her have been very very lucky not to blunder into traps by directly addressing the 'wrong' questions put to them.

jk

I think Renton's political posts are good. I don't share some of the views at all, but reasoned, well presented and with subtlety. He doesn't fly off the handle nor attack the debater. If he's an agent for some sort of group, sign me up.

I wonder how many may be my sister refugees from Supertopo, it's been long enough now to want some engaging with the climbing world, and like the Taco, these days the climbing content is dwindling and UKC certainly has a higher standard of discourse on some things.

Ah, I knew it was worth reading through all of this thread, so my Dad is 88, I can expect him, on average, to live for about 5 more years. As he has few serious health issues it is probably more, but nothing guaranteed.

Yep, that's about right, I was commenting on the meaningfulness (or lack of) a comparison and we got rather sidetracked nit-picking about whether we'd used exactly the right terminology - typical UKC

No probs, it was frustrating at the time.

As much as I enjoy a good witch hunt/find the intruders/there are infiltrators in our midst thread ... I think a few people on UKC need to learn how to deal with Trolls.

Trolling isn't going go away - its a horrid bi-product of our internet age and it is, unfortunately, here to stay.  Most trolls thrive on peoples inability to deal with them.  

In the absence of more active forum moderation inc a no trolling policy (which is a mind field in its own right) - there are tactics to deal with trolls .

Cardinal rule - DO NOT feed the troll.  Trolls thrive on attention ... minute you bite - they've one.  If you invest your time battling them, tearing them to bits or destroying their argument - they've one.  The very process of arguing with a troll is giving their message oxygen.  When you interact with a troll the UKC pages will see your interaction and drive that forum post up the listings, other people will start to see it and start to engage with the post, if the post is long and winding people won't read it all, they'll jump to the end and just find two people arguing with one another and calling one another names and by that stage many will be unable to pick out who is actually trolling who.  From the outside looking in 50% of people may decide that you start to look like the crazy person swearing and shouting on internet forums and with that - whatever message you were trying to get out is lost and or becomes apparently tainted.

Some of posters on UKC are giving said, apparent, trolls exactly what they're after. 

Suggestions:

1. DO NOT Feed the troll - ignore them.  They need oxygen - don't give it to them.
2. Take the high road.  If you can't ignore them - kill them with unending kindness, politeness and facts backed up with evidence.  
3. Mock them and MOVE on.  Don't mock them then start a battle with them - then they've won.  Just politely mock their post once and then don't engage again with anything they come back with anything.

(Google "how to deal with trolls".  Plenty of pages and all with some variation of the above)

That is all sound advice.  

I think there is a distinction to be made between trolls and what gives every appearance of being a tentacle of an organised social media wide misinformation campaign - it's either that or we have a particularly sad troll who is copying and pasting exact phrases from other sources of misinformation sometimes within a day of their appearance elsewhere.  We're just another forum, and this misinformation is being pumped in system wide.

The problem I have is that some of the threads started over the last 8 months have been immediately well received before much discussion kicks off (judging by the likes) yet when you actually dig in to the claims, they're really quite wrong and the effect of people believing them (inferred from the likes) is potentially very damaging.   

But not what they need.

Like Wintertree, I don't think UKC has a problem with trolls, I think it has a problem with people deliberately spreading misinformation for political purposes that could cause great damage to our society.

Personally I think they're wasting their time on UKC, I don't think this is an audience where you can put out nonsense and get the ideas to stick. It doesn't operate on the mechanism "so and so said it who I like, so I'll believe it" basis. The people who don't believe in controlling coronavirus already read the f*cking Telegraph and think that "the woke" are trying to "cancel" British values - there's no hope for them, their minds are rotten.

I don't think that giving the pop-up accounts a quick haul over the coals is helping them; I mean, it's pretty pointless but I'd rather they wasted some of their time getting absolutely nowhere against a pile-on of intelligent, well-informed people mercilessly ripping them shreds. Seeing false claims exposed as bollocks is satisfying. 

UKC maintains a respectable forum for giving the firing squad treatment to the "alternative views" that cp and renton would rather we "respected".

In general it's good advice but it isn't always clear quite what's what until a thread gets going. It doesn't look like the trolling of old, winding regulars up for sport with sock-puppets. If it is then someone better be having a very good laugh for the blood they'll have on their hands when they're done.

Once it is clear what the thread is about then yes, limited to no further engagement is probably best, not least for the reason Ridge pointed out earlier "don't train the bots".

jk

I preferred the good old days when troll posts were about grade 2 scrambling routes

Um..  this might all be a bit tinfoil hat but..

We don't really know where any individual 'like' or 'dislike' has come from, and we do know that it's only a fairly small minority of registered users who actually post on the forums.  So if a bogus poster is kicking off a discussion with something dodgy and immediately getting a lot of 'likes' it strikes me that it's possible some of the likers are bots too, lending the OP a bit of credibility to boost the signal.

It's definitely a good point, but I'm not 100% sure that's how it works (I don't have any idea how it works, in fact). I doubt that much detailed feedback goes to the boss except "it took me the entire day to get insulted by a bunch of geeks and then I got banned - can you put me back on Facebook tomorrow, or at least just geeing up the Tories on the 4x4 forums?".

I don't disagree.

I think the question that needs to be asked however is "when you rip this guy to bits for talking rubbish about infection rates (as you enjoy doing wintertree ) is the outcome of that to diminish the message .. or .. did the process of tearing that guy to bits inadvertently get his message out there to more people than it otherwise might have?" 

When you tear someone to bits and there's 200+ posts in the thread then it will be top of the UKC forum pages.  That exposes the conversation to many more views than it would otherwise might have received.  More views = inevitably, more poor souls thinking "hmm .. maybe that dude has a point" ... and that's the whole point of trolling .. that's how this works.  Trolls need you to engage them to get their message out there. 

The actual UKC forums page algorithm, just like facebook etc, works by promoting posts that have engagement at the expense of posts that don't.  The algorithm doesn't care whether those posts contain valid or misinformation ... doesn't matter - they promote posts with engagement.

If we want less misinformation on UKC .. we need to let those threads die that contain the misinformation.

I take your point.  One particularly bad post got a blue coloured misinformation “flair” from the site.  More use of that would help to subjectively park those threads.  I’m done engaging with the pop up poster in all their guises other than to call it out as a pop up covid account.  There is no point indeed in feeding the local trolls.

I’m still curious about a couple of dormant accounts that came to life briefly to make formulaic, familiar sounding covid posts against control measures.  I do wonder if some accounts have been compromised and if any more are lined up waiting their time in the muck.

Yes, but I think that needs deliberate moderation - yesterday was a good example of the mods calling it right. I'm not sure relying on users not to engage is going to work as a strategy, because if you just want to keep bumping a thread you can easily do that yourself, or get people to engage by any number of strategies, if all you want is exposure and don't care about actually coming across as convincing.

But like I said, I think trying to influence people's views by starting threads on UKC is a total non-starter. Campaigners would be much better using media where they can attach their message to some pre-existing credibility of an "influencer"... maybe the next thing we'll see is climbing heroes (ones not doing so well now, in need of an income) coming on here with suspiciously right-leaning political messages?

Where do I sign? 😉

See screen shot. They were not that sort of tweet. There were saying that covid was not an issue. don't provide alibi's for people spreading disinformation.

We've assessed your application, and your climbing CV truly exceeded our expectations. Your standing in the community is unquestionable: no serious rock climber would doubt anything that you ever said and I can't stress enough how excited we were initially about potentially bringing you on board.

However, we then reviewed your posting history on UKC, only to discover with great regret that you're the type of analytical, politically astute thinker who consistently sees reality as it actually is and expresses it elegantly and with great humour. I'm afraid we don't see this as compatible with our business objectives of churning out transparently false shit, for money. Since there is a genuine spirit of community on UKC, we feel exposed to the risk that if you suddenly started trotting out the kind of absolute twaddle we pedal, justified by links to the Telegraph, Talk Radio and Spiked Magazine, then the audience reaction would lose alignment with our objectives. The community would most likely turn up at your door in person convinced that you were having a genuine mental health crisis, and this could in turn compromise our operation.

Thank you for your frank and honest reply.

I must say I am disappointed not to be able to turn my hand to disinformation, as it is an artform I have yet to master, and this sounded like an ideal opportunity to learn a new skill while being professionally rewarded for my labours. The only downsides as I see them, are the potential for encouraging the disappearance of numerous individuals down rabbit holes and, of course, the likely blood on my hands from virus deaths of old and maybe younger people, maybe even some close friends, that may be a direct result of my mercenary involvement.

I do wish you success in contracting blatantly transparent and ineffective disinformation conduits in the future.

Where exactly have I provided an alibi? What exactly do you think I meant by - "Can we just tuck this one away for good? Some departments were quiet because they had to be shut down because other departments were f*cking raging."

I understand you were talking about false flag posts, I was simply pointing out the grain of truth such shite has been wrapped around and why it's a fallacy.

It’s just Johnny Mcfish, taking the pish?

Fortunately, when that happened, they got ripped a new one, and went away tail between legs...

Reputation (in my mind at least) took a big hit.

It doesn't look like piss taking (old school trolling) but if it is I hope for their sake it's not someone prone to sleepless introspection once the bodies are counted.

Jk

Possibly; possibly.  But I have every sympathy with people who are sick to the back teeth with this situation and desperately want to understand that there’s a defined way out.  Put another way it’s far easier to sell a positive message than a negative one.  I could well believe silent, registered readers see such a post, click “like” and carry its content forwards with a factual bias.

As you note, far more registered users read than post here.  Long ago that was me when I was picking up useful things for my climbing.  I think it was a thread about keepers on slingdraws having lethal potential that got me to post after some years of reading (in the pre like/dislike days); topologically confusing but true.

Haha. Everyone who disagrees with lockdown is a bot, somehow connected, targeting climbers. Next you'll be demanding recounts and storming your local chippy looking for pedos. I know more climbers who are anti-lockdown than pro-lockdown.  Most are sufficiently educated to have formed their own view, from a wide range of professions, bet they're just secretly the pawns of Russian oligarchs undermining free society. Some Jewish lizardmen are behind it all and James O'Brien is going to save us from their algorithms. 

Or you could just try to understand that other people see things differently because their perception of risk is very subjective and maybe some people just recently joined. Climbing is getting bigger and more diverse, can only be a good thing to dilute some of the loony pish on these forums.

Conspiracy theories are for the bat shit crazy. People like w*nkertree. I mean if you want unimaginable generic shite, look at the posts below, such homogeneous opinion on a forum isn't natural, it's almost like there's some leftwing anti-Brexit AI in charge here... Except there isn't. It's just people pushing their political viewpoints and competing to be top poster. 

Literally nobody has said that.   Not once, not ever.

The stream of new, “pop up” accounts with surprisingly similar turns of phrase and topics of interest however, the subject of this thread, they stand apart.  Especially when some turns of phrase crop up exclusively in misinformation appearing elsewhere (twitter, other forums) within days of here.  Especially when at least one person behind some of those other places is an American advertising as a social media consultant.

Classy.  I don’t recall ever being rude or offensive to you. Seven different posters in rapid succession gave counterpoints to your post in a recent thread.  It seems you’re taking that hard.  That’s seven posters who normally in various subsets have disagreements on many topics here.  I didn’t try to shut down the conversation, I just gave my view.  Others did likewise.  Why are you taking this so personally and trying to frame it as a problem?  Are we not allowed to disagree any more?

If you think I have a political viewpoint you haven’t been paying much attention.  I’ve been accused of all sorts for airing my views on both Corbyn and Johnson.  I give my view on what I think the data says, and on what I think we should do. 

I am curious, why do you make the leap from people disagreeing with you over covid to anti-Brexit?  I for one have had very little to say about the Brexit process on this forum, other than to note that I was preparing for the possibility of crashing out without a deal.

It appears to be his standard MO. Big mouth, even bigger sugar glass fragile ego. He's permanently stuck at the top left of the Dunning-Kruger graph on virtually every topic he comments on. I first noticed him in May and he's felt the need for three different names for his profile over that short period. Tells you all you need to know really.

You've misunderstood. Many of us think that some of the accounts that appear, make a token attempt to create a profile as a climber, and then post a load of cut-and-paste anti-lockdown shite are part of a political campaign.

Other posters with we just think are basically Nigel Farage in a Berghaus fleece. That's just who they are, they're perfectly genuine.

I'm just glad that some of you on here can actually spot all these resurfacing posters with different names or these AI type bot-posts. Noticing things like that just goes straight over my head. Not so much naivete, more not very good at picking up on subtleties like that.

(of course for those of you who do notice these things, they're obvious rather than subtle)

If you want to tone the attitude down a bit and discuss what I actually wrote I'm willing but I'm not going to engage with your misrepresentation.

I have no problem at all accepting people see things differently even when presented with the same (local) situation and facts. My issue is with alternative facts.

I'm interested, do you see this issue as being primarily about personal risk and perception of it? I mean I'm a coward, anyone who ever climbed with me well knows that but my concern about not regaining control of covid is not for me, at least not directly.

Maybe. And maybe there's a good reason for the stylistic similarities and the formulaic arguments. Any ideas what that might be?

Wintertree doesn't seem bat shit crazy to me.

Blah blah blah, go shout it at a pigeon, I'm not interested.

Again, more interesting. Do you think preservation of a functioning economy, supply chains, infrastructure and social fabric is an issue for the left or the right? Or perhaps you're viewing this from a different skew, social-liberals or authoritarians? To me those seem pretty universal interests at their core but perhaps I'm not understanding what you mean by 'pushing politics'? I just want to get through next year via the path resulting in minimum net harm.

Personally I think that means knocking covid cases right down asap then not getting into this mess again before we act next time, if there is a next time. I'm broadly of the opinion that short periods of semi-planned very tight restrictions with strong, borrowing fed, economic support to take cases very low is the least worst option. That's interspersed with longer periods of quite loose restriction, hands face space type stuff, all but the highest risk business open near normally, covid imports minimised through testing at the border. We probably exit that open period via increasing localised restrictions in the weeks before the next 'lockdown' to maximise the benefit of the open period for the majority. I think that probably delivers maximum liveability and minimum economic harm but I could be swayed to an alternative course by a compelling argument.

A tight feedback loop keeping deaths running in the low 10s per day with safeguards should the feedback degrade to the system become unstable, that is an alternative but personally I don't like the degree of very direct state control it implies. Also we currently lack the capacity and competence it requires and I think it'd be hard to live with while stifling economic activity.

Either way we need to buy ourselves maybe 3-9 months, reassess the strategy if the vaccine programs fail to deliver a clear route back toward normality.

Convince me I'm wrong if you disagree, make a reasoned, evidenced case for an alternative strategy.

jk

Opinion is far from homogeneous. But, on the whole, UKC posters are a fairly intelligent bunch, and can smell bullshit a mile off. Hence calling out those spouting the 'lockdown or the economy' false dichotomy.

On this forum I enjoy watching ideas being tested to destruction. So far Brexit and the anti lockdown stuff, to name just 2, haven’t survived as they have no basis in facts or reality. In that way it’s a sort of Antifacebook. Still, it’s good for someone else to come along to test the machine; you’ve failed so far. 

Certain racist university lecturers spring to mind...

You realise the mental block might be yours, and a result of the media you choose to consume.  Do you really think there's a cancel culture war in the real world, despite the exhortations of the Telegraph, Mail, Breitbart etc..?

What's your problem with pigeons, exactly?... Why advocate subjecting them to this? 

Amidst all this rancour, I am pleased to report back that over on UKantivaxx.com, thanks to the efforts of new poster 'PollutedDiluted',  they are in schism over drilled pegs on sea cliffs.

That thread was a dark matter.  It disappeared in to a black hole alright.

The pendulum is certainly swinging that way in some UK universities, following some in the US.  

About a week ago a new account started a new thread on lockdown or covid, I can't remember which, but it was deliberately provocative. The poor English and grammar looked dodgy so I called it out in a reply.

It happened very early morning as I was heading to work so it's unlikely many people saw it. The post seemed to have been removed by 6am, so fair play to the mods. The new account followed the FirstnameSuranameNumber nomenclature so perhaps not a "pro" bot / troll.

Just today I received a strange looking message from a friend via Facebook messenger with a link for a fun sounding website. A quick Google search showed it was a DIY chat bot creation site. Turns out she had her account hacked. 

This crap is becoming more widespread. we all need to vigilant.