Should astroturfers at DU be required to fully disclose their affiliations

[gottaB]

Poll question: Should astroturfers at DU be required to fully disclose their affiliations

Should members be asked to state something like "I'm a paid employee of ACME Public Relations" or "I'm a paid staff member of Candidate Smith"? And should that information be publicly available to all DU readers, e.g. in their profile?

Working definition of astroturfing: The use of paid shills to create the impression of a popular movement, through means like letters to newspapers from soi-disant ‘concerned citizens’, paid opinion pieces, and the formation of grass-roots lobbying groups that are actually funded by a PR group (AstroTurf is fake grass; hence the term).

[RC]

1. Out some of the operatives in the Dean/Clark/Kerry'etc BS.

[im4edwards]

2. it'll never happen of course but being above board would be nice

n/t

[Toucano]

3. Enforcement? n/t

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

4. I find...

Any form of astroturfing low and contemptuous. You can be quite sure that in the unlikely event I ever discover someone is astroturfing, I will rat them out to all and sundry, over and over and over and over...

Think: "Worst Nightmare".

[gottaB]

9. Any form? --I'm not so sure

If people are upfront about their interests, it doesn't rankle me. But then if it were out in the open, that might not be seen as astroturfing. It's a loaded term.

I'd assume that many campaign workers would be pleased to disclose their personal and professional interests. But some campaigns seem to rely upon stealth. I agree with you there's something contemptuous about that.

Astroturfing could have terrible consequences for our democracy. The comparison to Microsoft's anti-trust case is not fortuitous. It's a lesson in how duplicitous methods of manufacturing opinion undermine the public interest.

(ps. Debian rocks!)

[gully]

5. Yes...N/T

[Gin]

6. We all use assumed named...I guess I'm an astroturfer.

It's easy to spot these people. Soon it will all be over and we will have one candidate to fight about.

make Love...not War!

[karlschneider]

7. I abstain. Impossible to detect, let alone enforce.

:eyes:

[Khephra]

8. Agreed....it would require work checks to enforce

I only work for one political organization, and that's Truthout.

But I was a DUer and a Deanie long before that.

[imhotep]

11. what are the rules

for truthout workers? Does supporting a candidate publically, violate any non-profit status or tax exemptions?

[gottaB]

12. Sorry, Karl

I offered alternatives to yes or no because I know people have mixed feelings and differing views. I'm sorry that none of the options came close to representing your view.

As for detection, I'm asking if it's a fair question to ask of members. I wouldn't think of advocating "outing" people or going outside this forum to dig up dirt on people. That would suck.

As for enforecement, I don't know. I trust DUers to abide the rules of the forum, and I trust the moderators to enforce the rules.

So this question is rather naive, but I wanted to get a sense of how others feel about it.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

10. Yes, absolutely

I am not now nor have I ever been a paid or volunteer worker for a campaign or corporation.

If you can't say "I'm a PR staff member for the Kerry campaign" and you are than you're being dishonest.

[Dr Fate]

13. Hit "Alert" and establish a pattern of behavior...

If the Mods/Admin are alarmed, then we go from there...

The mods/admin are ON THE BALL.

[wyldwolf]

14. I voted yes, although...

I really don't think there is any of that going on here.

I just believe we have some passionate people here.

Accusing someone of it is a desperate way to divert attention from the issue at hand. Or, in other words, if someone can be painted with that label, then they'll be easier to discredit.

It becomes an issue of attacking the messanger not the message.