answersLogoWhite

0

AllQ&AStudy Guides
Best answer

The word "astroturfing" is one that commonly used in politics, advertising or public relations. It is an attempt to hide a sponsor's interest to make the public believe an action is coming from a grassroots level. The term was coined from the popular brand "AstroTurf" which is basically fake grass.

This answer is:
Related answers

The word "astroturfing" is one that commonly used in politics, advertising or public relations. It is an attempt to hide a sponsor's interest to make the public believe an action is coming from a grassroots level. The term was coined from the popular brand "AstroTurf" which is basically fake grass.

View page

An astroturfer is a person who engages in astroturfing - the disguising of an orchestrated campaign as a grass-roots event.

View page

Thousands of words have entered the language in the past 100 years. Here is a partial list:

  • x-ray, or röntgenograph(November 8, 1895, by Röntgen)
  • radar (1941) from Radio Detection And Ranging
  • laser (1960) from Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation
  • blackhole (1968)
  • meme (1976)
  • prion (1982)
  • lidar (late 90s) from Light Detection And Ranging
  • Internet (1974)
  • hyperspace (1934)
  • robotics (1941)
  • waldo (1942)
  • ansible (1966)
  • phaser (1966)
  • ringworld (1971)
  • replicant (1982)
  • cyberspace (1984)
  • xenocide (1991)
  • metaverse (1992)
  • alien space bats (1998)
  • teleojuxtaposition (2003)
  • carpetbagging (19th century)
  • genocide (1943)
  • Dixiecrat (1948)
  • meritocracy (1958)
  • pro-life (1961)
  • homophobia (1969)
  • Californication (1970s)
  • heterosexism (1979)
  • glocalisation (1980s)
  • astroturfing (1986)
  • Islamophobia (1991)
  • fauxtography (1996)
  • corporatocracy (2000s)
  • Islamofascism (2001)
  • santorum (2003)
  • Chindia (2004)
  • Saddlebacking (2009)
  • Accenture (2001), derived from 'Accent on the future'
  • Acette (2002), derived from 'ace', meaning expertise, and the encapsulating suffix 'ette'; when read together as aye~set signifying 'expertise encapsulated'.
  • Protiviti (2002), derived from professionalism and proactivity as well as independence and integrity.
  • Bauhaus (early 20th century)
  • blobject (1990s)
  • fabject (2004), a fabricated 3-D object
  • kirkyan (2006)
  • moin (early 20th century)
  • prequel (1958)
  • posterized (c. 1980s) ("posterize" also has existed for some time as a term for an image-editing technique; its neologistic sports usage is completely unrelated)
  • queercore (mid 1980s)
  • blog (late 1990s)
  • chav (early 2000s)
  • webinar (early 2000s)
  • truthiness (2005) (already existed as an obscure word previously recorded by the Oxford English Dictionary, but its 2005 usage on the Colbert Report was a neologistic one, with a new definition)
  • fauxhawk (late 1990s)
  • aspirin
  • hoover
  • laundromat
  • linguistics
  • retronym (popularized in 1980)
  • backronym (1983)
  • aptronym (2003; popularized by Franklin Pierce Adams)
  • snowclone (2004)
  • xerox
  • googling
  • photoshopping
  • protologism (2005)
View page

A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term-a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock-originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an internetcommunity who spoke to, or about himself while pretending to be another person.[1]The term now includes other uses of misleading online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a third party or organization,[2]or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym[3]and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer.

The term "sockpuppet" was used as early as July 9, 1993[4]but did not become common in USENET groups until 1996. The first Oxford English Dictionary example of the term, defined as "a person whose actions are controlled by another; a minion," is taken from U.S. News and World Report, March 27, 2000.[5]

Contents[hide] [edit]Notable public examples
  • Between 2000 and 2003, John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime, made numerous posts under the sockpuppet name "Mary Rosh." "Rosh" praised Lott's views and disputed with his critics on Usenet, posting laudatory reviews of Lott's books and panning those of his rivals. Lott admitted he had used the name "Mary Rosh" to defend himself but claimed the book reviews were written by his son and wife.[6]
  • Lee Siegel, a writer for The New Republic magazine, was suspended for defending his articles and blog comments under the user name "Sprezzatura." In one such comment, "Sprezzatura" defended Siegel's bad reviews of Jon Stewart: "Siegel is brave, brilliant and wittier than Stewart will ever be."[7][8]
  • In 2006, a top staffer for then-US Congressman Charlie Bass(R-NH) was caught posing as a "concerned" supporter of Bass's opponent Democrat Paul Hodes on several liberalNew Hampshireblogs. Using the identities "IndieNH" or "IndyNH," the aide argued that Democratsmight be wasting their time and money supporting Hodes, because Bass was "unbeatable."[9]
  • In 2006, American reporter Michael A. Hiltzik was suspended from posting to his blog on the LA Times (entitled "The Golden State") after he admitted "posting there, as well as on other sites, under false names". He used the pseudonyms to attack online conservative nemeses like Hugh Hewitt and L.A. prosecutor Patrick Frey (who eventually exposed him)."[10][11]
  • In January 2007, Peter Ragone, the press secretary of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, admitted that he had posted pro-Newsom comments to the blog SFist as "Byorn" or "John Nelson" (a friend). Ragone said "he answered Newsom's critics using others' names because being online 'was fun - it's where people are having fun."[12]
  • In 2007, the CEO of Whole Foods, John Mackey, was discovered to have posted as "Rahodeb" on the Yahoo Finance Message Board, extolling his own company and predicting a dire future for its rival, Wild Oats Markets, while concealing his relationship to both companies.[13]
  • On January 13, 2009, Ben Grower, a councillorfrom Bournemouth, England, was exposed by the Bournemouth Daily Echo for repeatedly posting comments praising himself and fellow Labourcouncillors on the newspaper's website using a number of sockpuppets including the screen name "Omegaman." When questioned, Grower was initially ambiguous but later admitted the truth of the allegations, saying "I have done nothing against the law. And probably next time I will just use a different pseudonym."[14][15][16][17][18][19]
  • In April 2010 British historian Orlando Figeswas discovered to have written critical reviews of books by professional rivals on the Amazon.comwebsite under the names "orlando-birkbeck" and "historian."[20]
  • In April 2011, the American cartoonist Scott Adamsadmitted using the name "PlannedChaos" to pose as one of his fans on the link-sharing sites Reddit and MetaFilter.[21]
  • In September 2011, Johann Hari, a leading columnist for the British newspaper The Independent, publicly apologized for having used a pseudonym, David Rose, with Wikipedia screen name David r of Meth productions, to add positive material to the Wikipedia article about himself and negative material to Wikipedia articles about people with whom he had had disputes.[22]
[edit]Notable state examples
  • In 2011, a Californian company, Ntrepid, was awarded a $2.76 million contract under the auspices of US Central Command for "online persona management" operations[23]with the aim of creating "fake online personas to influence net conversations and spread US propaganda" in Arabic, Farsi, Urdu and Pashto.[23][24]
[edit]Strawman sockpuppet

A strawman sockpuppet is a false flagpseudonym created to make a particular point of viewlook foolish or unwholesome in order to generate negative sentiment against it. Strawman sockpuppets typically behave in an unintelligent, uninformed, or bigotedmanner and advance "straw man" arguments that their puppeteers can easily refute. The intended effect is to discreditmore rational arguments made in behalf of the same position.[25]Sometimes, the demarcation line between strawman sockpuppets and trolls may be fine or indistinguishable.

[edit]Meatpuppet

The term "meatpuppet" (or "meat puppet") is used as a pejorativedescription of various online behaviors. The term was current before the Internet, including references in Ursula Le Guin's science fiction story "The Diary of the Rose" (1976),[26]the alternative rock band Meat Puppets, and the cyberpunknovelist William Gibson's Neuromancer(1984).[27]Editors of Wikipedia use the term to label contributions of new community members if suspected of having been recruited by an existing member to support his position.[28]Such a recruited member is considered analogous to a sockpuppet even though he is actually a separate individual (i.e. "meat") rather than a fictitious creation. Wiredcolumnist Lore Sjöbergput "meat puppet" first on a satirical list of "common terms used at Wikipedia," defining the term as "a person who disagrees with you."[29]

Nevertheless, other online sources use the term "meatpuppet" to describe sockpuppet behaviors. For example, according to one online encyclopedia, a meat puppet "publishes comments on blogs, wikis and other public venues about some phenomenon or product in order to generate public interest and buzz"-that is, he is engaged in behavior more widely known as "astroturfing."[30]A 2006 article in The Chronicle of Higher Education defined a meat puppet as "a peculiar inhabitant of the digital world-a fictional character that passes for a real person online."[31][32]

[edit]Ballot stuffing

Sockpuppets may be created during an online poll to submit multiple votes in favor of the puppeteer. A related usage is creating multiple identities, each supporting the puppeteer's views in an argument, attempting to position the puppeteer as representing majority opinion and sideline opposition voices. In the abstract theory of social networks and reputation systems, this is known as a sybil attack.

A sockpuppet-like use of deceptive fake identities is used in stealth marketing. The stealth marketer creates one or more pseudonymous accounts, each one claiming to be owned by a different enthusiastic supporter of the sponsor's product or book or ideology.[33][34]A single such sockpuppet is acting as a shill; creating large numbers of them to fake a "grass-roots" upswelling of support for a cause is known as astroturfing.

[edit]U.S. legal implications of sockpuppeting
  • In 2008, 49-year-old Missouri resident Lori Drew was prosecuted and convicted in Los Angeles for creating a MySpace account on which she claimed to be a 16-year-old boy named Josh Evans. Drew's goal had been to create a relationship with Megan Meier, a 13-year-old girl who had been in conflict with Drew's daughter. After "Josh" ended the relationship with Megan, Megan committed suicide. Drew was convicted for misrepresenting her identity, in violation of the MySpace terms of service. The Los Angeles U.S. Attorney successfully claimed that this was covered by federal computer fraud legislation against "accessing a computer without authorization via interstate commerce."[35][36]Drew appealed the verdict, arguing that her use of a false identity did not constitute unauthorized access to MySpace, based on a 1973 breach of contract dispute where a court of appeals ruled that "fraudulently induced consent is consent nonetheless."[37]On July 3, 2009, the appeal was tentatively upheld.[38]
  • In 2010, Raphael Golb was convicted on 30 of 31 counts, including identity theft, criminal impersonation, and aggravated harassment, for using multiple sockpuppet accounts to attack and impersonate historians he perceived as rivals of his father, Norman Golb.[39]Golb defended his actions as "satirical hoaxes" protected by free-speech rights. He was disbarred and sentenced to six months in prison but remained free on appeal on $25,000 bail.[40]
View page

There are many reasons why some people disapprove of wind turbines.

  • Some people believe they are an 'eyesore' and therefore don't want them in fields etc., as they believe they ruin the aesthetics of the picturesque countryside. Aesthetics can't be argued, but aesthetic appreciation is often out-weighed by financial benefit and many others consider wind turbines beautiful. Many areas promote them as a tourist attraction.
  • Some people find wind turbine noise annoying. Wind turbines generate noise. Noise diminishes rapidly, and a big wind turbine will be about as noisy as a quiet room from 550 meters. Environmental noise such as wind, traffic or air condition will often mask this noise. That all said, a subset of people living near wind turbines find the noise annoying, especially if they can directly see the wind turbine or if they are not receiving any economic benefit from the wind turbine, per studies in Holland.
  • On a related point, some people think that wind turbines make people sick, something referred to as 'wind turbine syndrome', which has a host of symptoms.

    This is false. 17 major studies and thousands of minor studies, independent, peer-reviewed and robust, have cleared wind turbines of health impacts on those living near them. The only harm is that subset annoyed by the noise; some of them get stressed, and some of them lose sleep. Standard environmental noise management such as white-noise generators, ear-plugs, closing windows and noise-baffling blinds are effective.

  • Some people believe that the land around wind farms cannot be used for other purposes.

    This is false. As a wind turbine takes up about 20 square meters at its base and perhaps another 100 square meters for access roads, and as they are installed 6-10 rotor diameters apart for maximum efficiency, wind farms actually have very sparse ground usage. This ground is perfectly safe to use for raising crops, livestock, hunting, fishing, hiking; the vast majority of uses the land was suitable for prior to putting in a wind turbine are still suitable afterward. The only real restriction is that most jurisdictions require a setback of a few hundred meters to houses where people sleep to allow the noise to diminish with distance.

  • Some people believe that wind turbines do not generate electricity sufficient to cover their manufacturing and installation.

    This is false. Wind turbines pay for themselves rapidly in the vast majority of instances. Total lifecycle energy balances are better for wind turbines than for the majority of other forms of energy generation. Total lifecycle energy for construction and installation is returned by generation in 146 days for a 2 MW onshore wind turbine, based on an independent analysis.

  • Some people believe that wind turbines do not offset any carbon due to the need for backup and the cost of manufacturing and installing wind turbines.

    This is false. Wind energy has contributed to carbon emissions reductions in every jurisdiction it exists in any significant quantities. In Ontario, wind has assisted in a 70% reduction in carbon emissions from energy in the past eight years. In Texas, governmental documents make clear that wind has helped them significantly reduce carbon emissions. The primary creators of these arguments are fossil fuel lobbyists, tellingly, especially the natural gas industry analyst organization Bentek, whose President is head of a petroleum industry lobbying organization. Wind turbines offset CO2 generated in manufacturing and installation in 94 days of generation for a 2 MW onshore wind turbine.

  • Some people believe that wind turbines are bad for aquifers and ground water.

    This is false. Wind turbines are a strong net benefit for clean water, especially compared to coal generation, and in some jurisdictions, excess energy from wind when it exists is used to pump water into aquifers.

  • Some people believe that wind turbines kill too many birds and bats.

    This is not true from a species perspective; wind turbines do not threaten bird or bat species at all, and are a net positive over fossil fuel generation for bird and bat habitat and health. Wind turbines do kill individual birds and bats, but these deaths are massively outnumbered, in the case of birds by lighted window strikes, cats, power line collisions, car collisions and pesticides. In the case of bats, pesticides and white-nose syndrome are much greater killers and threats to bat populations.

  • Some people just don't want anything to change in the rural environment they currently live or vacation in. These people will usually be using many of the other arguments on this list, rather than admitting this.
  • Some people have their lives or livelihoods invested in other forms of generation of energy. Supporters of astroturfing campaigns against wind turbines include coal unions and miners, natural gas firms and lobbyists, nuclear companies and other traditional energy organizations. This is far from true of all firms and individuals in these areas, but many of the most vocal and most financially supportive of anti-wind efforts are from these areas. As an interesting recent case, Donald Trump has been very actively attacking wind energy since plans were unveiled to put an offshore wind farm within sight of his proposed Scottish golf resort.
  • Some people believe that only nuclear power is the answer to global warming.

    This is false. Nuclear power is carbon-neutral and a good candidate for base-load generation where regulations and social conditions support its development. However, the solution would require a new nuclear plant going into production every week for the next 25 years at a cost of $6-10B USD per plant. And post-Chernobyl, post-Fukushima, there are very few jurisdictions where the political will exists to build new nuclear; quite the reverse, as nuclear is being phased out in many places. In fact, wind energy is on track to have the same world-wide generating capacity as nuclear by 2015 or 2016.

View page
Featured study guide
📓
See all Study Guides
✍️
Create a Study Guide
Search results