• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

The Bot logic thread

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Benotti69 said:
thehog said:
thehog said:
#botlogic - testosterone is not a PED :lol:

Is testosterone that much of a game changer though. It doesn't make riders that much better - it's more for recovery. So it won't make that much difference to your earning potential - unlike EPO.
Because no one really needs a recovery aid riding a 3000km bike race do they? :rolleyes:

This is my favourite one, it's the "everyone was doing it" / "level playing field" argument. That's where bots are at now.
But Wiggins "Never tested positive" and his "credibilty" is Sky high :)
Now it's "no rules were broken / grey area" :eek:
 
Jul 21, 2016
636
0
0
They've at least been (delusionally) consistent with the "no rules were broken / grey area".
Seen that one being trotted out right from the start.
Kind of hard to debate with them in person. I've tried. Just becomes ''la la la la la la I'm not listening la la la la''.
Like trying to debate the existence of God with a young earth creationist.
 
Jul 21, 2016
636
0
0
Re: Re:

GuyIncognito said:
The Hitch said:
Dan2016 said:
GuyIncognito said:
Benotti69 said:
Looks like they been ripping of USPostalisms from back in the day when public Strategies had a load of interns flood the comments and forums.

Shoot the messengers.
Interns?

No, there are professional companies that do it for anyone who will pay. In fact it's so common that there is a large number of companies in that line of work nowadays.

Know a guy who was employed at one. You're given a briefing on the subject, instructions on how to derail every different point that might be raised and you're "let loose" on specific forums/boards. It's literally a job now.
Jesus Christ! Good anecdote. I didn't know real people in real companies were doing that professionally nowadays. Thought it was all bots.
It must be mostly bots, surely? Another good honest job that's being mechanised!
'Computational Propaganda'. The bot is impossible to distinguish from a real person online. Used in political elections etc. No surprises if Sky are doing it.
http://www.topbots.com/can-bots-manipulate-public-opinion/
Super interesting.

I don't think the ones that came on here were bots though. The study says Bots fool people 30% of the time, so they aren't that advanced.

People like vickers took this way to personally. They kept coming back under different accounts and sending threats through pms.

That's comforting, to know that vickers and co are real people, and that they are watching their beloved God's Wiggins, Brailsford and co go through this sky fall, feeling helpless.
From what he tells me, most eventually quit because by making it your 8 hour a day job to argue on a subject, you become passionate and stressed about it even if you know nothing of it.

At first he thought it was bizarre, people would just up and quit with alarming frequency citing that reason and he thought it was just an excuse. Then it happened to him.

At first he was paid to go to certain political forums and defend Israel's foreign policy. As a last resort, accuse anyone saying anything negative about Israel's foreign policy of being antisemitic. He's very apolitical, couldn't care less about foreign policy of any country. After two months he asked to be switched to something else because it consumed his life. He joked to me that at that point he'd become "a defender of the cause".

So he gets switched to a different client, something extremely inane and unimportant. Some videogame company, to post positive stuff about their interests and defend them from accusations of putting out unfinished games.
Guess what, a month later he quit when he realized he was starting to get emotionally attached to a videogame company of all things.

So yeah, those people end up really drinking the kool-aid just by being submerged in it all day.
F*ck me! Thanks for the anecdotes. Fascinating stuff. I had no idea this shite was going on. Bots, yes, but real people in real companies designed solely to do this? Like the Soviet propaganda machine only corporate. I thought, like others up-thread, that the real people would just be interns making a half-arsed attempt at it.

Really interesting that your friend found himself becoming a believer. Pretty crazy it can happen that easily.

Are any of you people real? :eek:
 
Yes. As Ole Blaise Pascal knew, when you kneel down and say your prayer, religious experience comes as a by product. Not necessarily the other way round, especially if there is doubt. Exactly the same thing there.

Recovery products aint no dope, that's a good one.
 
Jul 21, 2016
636
0
0
Who is Ole Blaise Pascal? Why are you trying to manipulate me? Who do you work for?...



(not being serious of course)
 
The general name for what goes on is "Astroturfing" (fake grass-roots support). This is a good read on the topic:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/08/what-is-astroturfing

...most astroturfing now takes place on the forums and comment sections of blogs and newspaper websites. Here, individual astroturfers can leave comments under numerous identities with little fear of discovery.
New forms of software enable any organisation with the funds and the know-how to conduct astroturfing on a far bigger scale than even the Kremlin could hope for. As reported by the Guardian, some big companies now use sophisticated "persona management software" to create armies of virtual astroturfers, complete with fake IP addresses, non-political interests and online histories. Authentic-looking profiles are generated automatically and developed for months or years before being brought into use for a political or corporate campaign. As the software improves, these astroturf armies will become increasingly difficult to spot, and the future of open debate online could become increasingly perilous.
 
Dec 21, 2016
26
0
0
Well, I'd like to chime in regarding the bots. It's probably going be to be a wordy piece, so I hope my limited grasp of the English language doesn't get in the way.

Due to my involvement with the social media aspect of a political organisation, I know quite a bit about what we call "trolls". Personally, I don't think the term "troll" is truly appropriate -- if the so-called "trolls" would only "troll", then they would be much easier to filter out -- but it's the term that has caught on in popular media after the Trump-Russia controversy, so that's what I'm going to call them.

In the playing field of politics, trolls are usually armed with misinformation, most often in the form of fake news or highly subjective, biased, and selective opinion pieces. In this case, I would probably consider the PR-statements the trolls are regurgitating the "fake news" or "biased news" of cycling. One big resemblance between the two is that, while they often both contain bits and pieces of the truth, a big chunk of it is unverifiable or intentionally subjective and/or unfalsifiable. And, whatever the content, both are always written to be persuasive on an emotional level; something that's very hard to disarm with rational arguments.

Now, not all trolls are similar and not all are truly trolls, or bots as they seem to be called here, and I think it's really important to think about their motives when trying to counter them.

When we talk about trolls, the people I work with usually group them in one of four groups belonging to two categories (although this arbitrary and other groupings are quite possible):

The individual trolls:
1. The individual regurgitating misinformation in his own Internet sphere;
These are just individuals who probably truly believe in their "cause" and regurgitate misinformation without being truly open to conversation or criticism. However, they just do this when they come across a discussion touching "their cause" on their FB-feed, Twitter timeline, or fora they visit; they don't actively search the web for places to spread their ideas (and misinformation). Why I still consider them trolls is because they don't actually engage in normal conversations, but rather just post misinformation, drop a link to a page or video, and don't actually engage in discussion. While they may use pseudonyms, they will probably consider it "their account".

2. The self-imposed messenger troll
At a glance, they might seem like someone from the first group, dropping misinformation and fake news into online discussion and often in a amateurish way. However, the big difference is that these people don't just regurgitate their "message" in their own circle, but actively seek out comment sections, fora, Facebook-pages, and Twitter-accounts to bombard with their, well, often badly-formed arguments. This is the type of trolls we most often see in our organisation, e.g., we had a man who periodically, as in twice a day, visited our Facebook-page posting a single-word comment to all of our posts (even those made years ago); that single word was the acronym of our national populist political party. However, they act out of personal motivation and are not truly collaborating with the cause they are fighting for.

The Organised Trolls
3. The Organised Amateurs
These are usually troll/fake/pseudonym accounts controlled by people who are actually part of the orginasation behind the "cause". They are usually incredibly well-informed on the "official" line of misinformation the organisation is putting forward to further their cause, but the execution of the troll is often amateurish. The troll accounts are easily recognizable, such as FB-accounts with just a few friends and almost exclusively posting their propaganda. In some cases, these trolls are acting out of their own individual initative, but in other cases it's an active policy of the organisation. In my country, one political party was criticized for using such amateur "fake accounts" and "troll accounts" after conversations between central leaders of that party discussing the use of those accounts were leaked to the press.

4. The Professional Trolls
This is the category discussed in this thread; the professional troll. You can hire companies to troll for you using professionally-crafted troll accounts. The accounts will appear legitimate, think of FB-accounts with plenty of friends and "normal" activity, but are in reality made for one purpose: To allow employees to steer discussions, spread misinformation, and/or confuse debates. Often, accounts will be controlled by multiple employees, just like the fake dating website accounts, and they usually do engage in debates. The things they post aren't always meant to persuade the other active accounts on the site, but rather to further a view to casual observers or random visitors: Merely creating debate with fake news on the page of a political organisation isn't going to sway the supporters of that party, but may influence new visitors. Here, in the clinic, they could be used to create the illusion that the statement "team a is doping" is more controversial and more debated than it actually is to give neutral and less knowledgable visitors the idea that it isn't really clear cut.

---

Now, why do I post this?

Well, it's because, at the end of the day, it are not members of "group 3" and "group 4" who need convincing, as it's pointless to try to convince either someone on the inside or a paid troll that there position is untenable or fishy, as they already know that.

If we truly want to make a difference; if we truly want to influence the opinion of the general population of cycling fans, or even Sky-fans in particular; then just calling them out or ridiculing them isn't going to help. The true trolls are going to continue posting their "alternative facts" nonetheless. Moreover, by not distinguishing between individual Sky-fans, often ignorantly believing in their cause (e.g., Sky) and acting in good faith, and true "trolls", we aren't going to convince anyone, as just calling them "trolls" or "Sky bots" isn't going to change their minds about anything, nor will it persuade the casual reader or "new visitor" (it might even alienate them from the arguments because members come across as aggressive). Moreover, I think they have the right to be mistaken and others have to right to challenge them (this is a discussion board after all).

So, instead of just listing the illogicality of the Sky argument, I argue that we should point out, concisely and for each pseudoargument, why it's flawed. Instead of hiding our arguments in threads spanning hundreds of pages, never to be read by the casual observer, we could collect the most powerful statements here, for everyone to see.

We should, just like the trolls of "group 4", not be targeting and/or attacking the fanatics, but rather the more neutral cycling fan who isn't blinded by fandom. That's also why the trolls are here, not to persuade the clinic veterans, but counteract their voices for the "neutral" readers.

And, also, respect rather than personally attack someone who disagrees with you.
 
Some classic bot logic going on here:

None of the QS staff at my previous job used our online filling system. Should the project manager have lost his job? Should the MD? Should the owner have shut the business? The modern phenomenon of the figurehead losing their job "because they should know everything that's going on" really is nonsense. It's nothing more than modern society demanding someone to blame.
:cool:
 
Apart from organized/professional trolls, which I suspect that there are quite a few of these, Sky has precisely zero story apart from being a brit team. For Lance, cancer was a big reason why his popularity took off and he became an idol worldwide, not only in US. On the other hand, Froome is not popular even in UK, and I am pretty sure that he is pretty unpopular in everywhere else in the world. So, I think that majority of the Froome/Sky die-hard supporters that are not trolls thinks that "Sky kicks ass, Froome destroys this small Spanish climber ---> UK is the best, yay!" and majority of these people only follows UK cycling and UK guys in the team, and when something jeopardizes this chain, they just go lunatic and blame media/random journalist/spanish authorities/whoever else that blaming them makes no sense, but anyone in Sky. I do believe that majority of Sky "bots" are geniune fans but they only care about brit success, not cycling as a sport.
 
Re:

burning said:
Apart from organized/professional trolls, which I suspect that there are quite a few of these, Sky has precisely zero story apart from being a brit team. For Lance, cancer was a big reason why his popularity took off and he became an idol worldwide, not only in US. On the other hand, Froome is not popular even in UK, and I am pretty sure that he is pretty unpopular in everywhere else in the world. So, I think that majority of the Froome/Sky die-hard supporters that are not trolls thinks that "Sky kicks ***, Froome destroys this small Spanish climber ---> UK is the best, yay!" and majority of these people only follows UK cycling and UK guys in the team, and when something jeopardizes this chain, they just go lunatic and blame media/random journalist/spanish authorities/whoever else that blaming them makes no sense, but anyone in Sky. I do believe that majority of Sky "bots" are geniune fans but they only care about brit success, not cycling as a sport.
Yeah, I'd agree with this. It's usually just a defensive/unconscious reaction to having their libidinal objects besmirched....quite easy to spot, particularly because their historical knowledge of cycling always begins in 2012.

But there was a time - more less when Russia annexed or politely acquired (depending on your loyalities) Crimea - that it was basically impossible to work out if the comments sections of media were getting Putin-botted or if there were just lots of anti-western post-colonial lefties making their case.

I'd like to know more about the paid human bots....who knows more??
 
Dec 21, 2016
26
0
0
Re:

burning said:
Apart from organized/professional trolls, which I suspect that there are quite a few of these, Sky has precisely zero story apart from being a brit team. For Lance, cancer was a big reason why his popularity took off and he became an idol worldwide, not only in US. On the other hand, Froome is not popular even in UK, and I am pretty sure that he is pretty unpopular in everywhere else in the world. So, I think that majority of the Froome/Sky die-hard supporters that are not trolls thinks that "Sky kicks ***, Froome destroys this small Spanish climber ---> UK is the best, yay!" and majority of these people only follows UK cycling and UK guys in the team, and when something jeopardizes this chain, they just go lunatic and blame media/random journalist/spanish authorities/whoever else that blaming them makes no sense, but anyone in Sky. I do believe that majority of Sky "bots" are geniune fans but they only care about brit success, not cycling as a sport.
Well, I don't know; I haven't studied the demographic of Sky-fans, but I wouldn't be surprised if, for a large group, fandom of Sky is aligned with nationalistic pride. I would actually be rather surprised if that weren't the case, seeing that a lot sports fans in general are rooting for national heroes. It's the same in my country, The Netherlands: You can't openly question our national speed skating heroes or (European) football without drawing people who rely on the same line of defense Sky-fans do motivated by the same national pride.

However, while some of those people might come around, I don't think that's the group we should worry about the most. It's very hard to change someone's mind in a debate, especially if their viewpoint is radically different from yours and radically held. I think that if they do come around, it's because, over time, more and more information leaks to the surface until, finally, they can no longer reconcile reality with their strongly-held opinion. Cognitive dissonance is a sturdy beast, though, so this probably isn't going to happen in a single discussion thread. Moreover, calling them names, insinuating that they are stupid, or outright but obviously ignoring them is only going to make them angry and less receptive to your argument.

So, what I think we should is to present a rational and respectful argument, highlighting the inconsistencies in the Sky story by carefully considering the information we have. The reason is that there is also a large group of "casual" cycling fans who, by their interest in the sport, really want to believe that what they see is "real" and "believable". Think of youngsters getting interested in the sport or people who are drawn in by a national success but widen their view after discovering the beauty of cycling.

They, too, might start out on the "everything has changed" side of things, as that is the PR-message currently being spread by most professionals in the sport (riders, UCI, and even some journalists). But, in contrast to the die-hard denying fans, they might actually be open to changing their opinion, as it is not yet held with unrelenting conviction. However, what they see here probably isn't going to do that. What they see is people jumping to conclusions, e.g., "unknown content of bag --> doping!", and think "That conclusion is not really supported by the evidence". Add to that this thread, which is basically "See this stupid opinion of this stupid denier" without presenting any counterargument supported by evidence. Read in isolation, it will not change their mind and it might even alienate them from the argument as it comes across as cynical, negative, and condescending. People usually react badly if their held opinions are threatened that way and tend to radicalize in their opinion.

Now, the clinic veterans know that we're not really jumping to conclusions based on that one observation, but that it's rather an aggregate of many observations of things that shouldn't happen if the sport were truly clean. That aggregation, however, is buried in hundreds upon hundreds of pages spanning multiple threads that will probably never be read by newcomers to the forum. So, what do they see? They see veterans cynically discussing new evidence and cynically rejecting counterarguments often talking condescendingly about anyone who holds a different opinion.

The alternative to that they see are Sky's "public defenders" who know perfectly well that any observation in isolation means nothing and go out of their away to point that out. Those defenders are constantly attacked for their lack of seeing the bigger picture, but they don't care: They know that the "neutral" visitor sees them as people with counterarguments that, on face value and without historical knowledge, seem to have merit and are only opposed by cynical, condescending "veterans" who seem to jump to conclusions and ridicule everyone who disagrees with them.* They know most neutral visitors will think "Ah, indeed, unknown content isn't hard evidence of doping use, so why do all those cynics claim it is?". Without a respectful and open argument against the trolls, those readers are probably not going to linger on this "negative" website to read the aggregate of evidence that might convince them otherwise.

That means the trolls have succeeded in their purpose. (There are not here, veterans, to convince you, but to make sure your views don't leak out into "the real world".)

*) Obviously, this isn't truly the case, there are plenty of rational en respectful posts on here, but there are enough negative posts on here to give visitors a certain impression at a glance.
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
Re: Re:

Strange Loop said:
burning said:
Apart from organized/professional trolls, which I suspect that there are quite a few of these, Sky has precisely zero story apart from being a brit team. For Lance, cancer was a big reason why his popularity took off and he became an idol worldwide, not only in US. On the other hand, Froome is not popular even in UK, and I am pretty sure that he is pretty unpopular in everywhere else in the world. So, I think that majority of the Froome/Sky die-hard supporters that are not trolls thinks that "Sky kicks ***, Froome destroys this small Spanish climber ---> UK is the best, yay!" and majority of these people only follows UK cycling and UK guys in the team, and when something jeopardizes this chain, they just go lunatic and blame media/random journalist/spanish authorities/whoever else that blaming them makes no sense, but anyone in Sky. I do believe that majority of Sky "bots" are geniune fans but they only care about brit success, not cycling as a sport.
Well, I don't know; I haven't studied the demographic of Sky-fans, but I wouldn't be surprised if, for a large group, fandom of Sky is aligned with nationalistic pride. I would actually be rather surprised if that weren't the case, seeing that a lot sports fans in general are rooting for national heroes. It's the same in my country, The Netherlands: You can't openly question our national speed skating heroes or (European) football without drawing people who rely on the same line of defense Sky-fans do motivated by the same national pride.

However, while some of those people might come around, I don't think that's the group we should worry about the most. It's very hard to change someone's mind in a debate, especially if their viewpoint is radically different from yours and radically held. I think that if they do come around, it's because, over time, more and more information leaks to the surface until, finally, they can no longer reconcile reality with their strongly-held opinion. Cognitive dissonance is a sturdy beast, though, so this probably isn't going to happen in a single discussion thread. Moreover, calling them names, insinuating that they are stupid, or outright but obviously ignoring them is only going to make them angry and less receptive to your argument.

So, what I think we should is to present a rational and respectful argument, highlighting the inconsistencies in the Sky story by carefully considering the information we have. The reason is that there is also a large group of "casual" cycling fans who, by their interest in the sport, really want to believe that what they see is "real" and "believable". Think of youngsters getting interested in the sport or people who are drawn in by a national success but widen their view after discovering the beauty of cycling.

They, too, might start out on the "everything has changed" side of things, as that is the PR-message currently being spread by most professionals in the sport (riders, UCI, and even some journalists). But, in contrast to the die-hard denying fans, they might actually be open to changing their opinion, as it is not yet held with unrelenting conviction. However, what they see here probably isn't going to do that. What they see is people jumping to conclusions, e.g., "unknown content of bag --> doping!", and think "That conclusion is not really supported by the evidence". Add to that this thread, which is basically "See this stupid opinion of this stupid denier" without presenting any counterargument supported by evidence. Read in isolation, it will not change their mind and it might even alienate them from the argument as it comes across as cynical, negative, and condescending. People usually react badly if their held opinions are threatened that way and tend to radicalize in their opinion.

Now, the clinic veterans know that we're not really jumping to conclusions based on that one observation, but that it's rather an aggregate of many observations of things that shouldn't happen if the sport were truly clean. That aggregation, however, is buried in hundreds upon hundreds of pages spanning multiple threads that will probably never be read by newcomers to the forum. So, what do they see? They see veterans cynically discussing new evidence and cynically rejecting counterarguments often talking condescendingly about anyone who holds a different opinion.

The alternative to that they see are Sky's "public defenders" who know perfectly well that any observation in isolation means nothing and go out of their away to point that out. Those defenders are constantly attacked for their lack of seeing the bigger picture, but they don't care: They know that the "neutral" visitor sees them as people with counterarguments that, on face value and without historical knowledge, seem to have merit and are only opposed by cynical, condescending "veterans" who seem to jump to conclusions and ridicule everyone who disagrees with them.* They know most neutral visitors will think "Ah, indeed, unknown content isn't hard evidence of doping use, so why do all those cynics claim it is?". Without a respectful and open argument against the trolls, those readers are probably not going to linger on this "negative" website to read the aggregate of evidence that might convince them otherwise.

That means the trolls have succeeded in their purpose. (There are not here, veterans, to convince you, but to make sure your views don't leak out into "the real world".)

*) Obviously, this isn't truly the case, there are plenty of rational en respectful posts on here, but there are enough negative posts on here to give visitors a certain impression at a glance.
this forum should come with a warning/disclaimer/ box to tick, that entering the Clinic, a priori, admission, cycling has had, continues to have, a PED culture, where gains made are in vicinity of 20% from comprehensive Ferrari program, marginal gains, not only is not even the rounding error on this PED enhancement, but it may also be a diseconomy/negative economy, where you lose focus on the integral performance inputs. that you cannout actually win clean, when others behind you* are doping.

when Sky fans come in and enter this echo chamber, it is an admission of their cognitive dissonance, and they are fighting with themselves.

most people lack true autonomy anyway, I dont see the need to alter my behaviour and language to speak to these ignorant folk, they win by having me change my behaviour, it is not my business if they seek to deny or find the truth. I tell it like it is, they can take it or leave it
 
Dec 21, 2016
26
0
0
Re: Re:

blackcat said:
(... Other quote blocks removed ...)

this forum should come with a warning/disclaimer/ box to tick, that entering the Clinic, a priori, admission, cycling has had, continues to have, a PED culture, where gains made are in vicinity of 20% from comprehensive Ferrari program, marginal gains, not only is not even the rounding error on this PED enhancement, but it may also be a diseconomy/negative economy, where you lose focus on the integral performance inputs. that you cannout actually win clean, when others behind you* are doping.
As this is the discussion board of a general cycling website, I disagree with this. I think this should be an open discussion board on which people have the right to be wrong, from whatever perspective. Now, it is a discussion board, which means that while differences of opinion are allowed, so is discussing or debating them in a respectful manner. Calling someone an ignorant idiot without putting forward an argument on why someone is ignorant or mistaken is not debating or discussing something in a respectful manner.

There are plenty of boards on the Internet that censor the other way around, as in disallowing any doping-related talk and outing of suspicions. Those communities are often highly toxic for anyone who does believe that PEDs are an issue in cycling. I don't think "we" should be the reverse.

Moreover, probably not every individual doping suspicion voiced on this board is right so disallowing respectful counterarguments isn't something I would like on a board that claims to search for the truth.

blackcat said:
when Sky fans come in and enter this echo chamber, it is an admission of their cognitive dissonance, and they are fighting with themselves.
Is it? I think that's too simplistic. Maybe they just come across accusations against their idol, the same accusations they now hear in the press, and they truly want to counter the accusations in good faith with arguments also used in the media. The coverage has started to spin (a bit) to the negative or critical side, but, remember, those fans have been hearing for years that the accusations are nonsense and they might truly believe they are. I hope that, after being confronted by the aggregation of arguments against the Sky-narrative, they'll be challenged in that view, but they never will if they are driven away by a toxic community.

blackcat said:
most people lack true autonomy anyway, I dont see the need to alter my behaviour and language to speak to these ignorant folk, they win by having me change my behaviour, it is not my business if they seek to deny or find the truth. I tell it like it is, they can take it or leave it
Depending on what you mean by "telling it like it is", I don't want you to stop "telling it like it is". If you mean by "it" your opinion that doping was and is an enormous problem, then I would even urge you to continue arguing your position, as this is a discussion board after all. What they do with your opinion is indeed their business, as they have the right to be wrong (from your perspective).

What I'm urging is that instead of refraining from arguing your point, people should actually argue their point instead of talking condescendingly about anyone who disagrees without actually putting forward an argument. Something I see a lot now is just highlighting a dubious statement of, say, Sky, without putting forward an argument of why the statement is flawed, with the implicit implication that anyone who doesn't automatically see that it is flawed is an ignorant idiot. That's not arguing a point, that's not participating in a debate/discussion/conversation. This is an open discussion board after all.
 
Jul 21, 2016
636
0
0
Interesting discussion. Enjoying reading this.
Strange loop, thanks for sharing that long post detailing your direct experience of trolls/bots.
I'll echo somebody above, Hegelian I think, in being keen to hear more about the real person 'bots'.

Must do some googling on this. It's nuts this is going on, the lengths to which corporations, political parties etc., go to try and manipulate us. I have a picture in my head of large office blocks full of worker-bees in suits all furiously typing away on social media, but that's probably an exaggeration. What is the reality? Are we talking about hundreds of people typing away with the same message under the same roof or is it much more minor than that? Any way of finding out if Sky do this for their bike team?
 
Here's a new one from our friends, it is getting to the level of extremism, if anyone holds a counter point of view one must be sued and shut down. It's very radical if not scary.


How many months until Benson and Cyclingnews are sued for defamation?

Benson and Cyclingnews have completely lost it lately

In addition to their highly defamatory fabricated articles they allow the comments section (will not talk about the clinic which is a shitpit for years) to be full of libelous defamatory statement be presented as facts.

i'm not from UK but if this website and this editor will be residents of my country they would be eaten alive in court in 2-3 sessions, extra fast.

tick tock i think the clock is already ticking and someone will make an example of them.

you can't lick real madrid's ass but post this *** about cycling.

and when that happen , and that website and Benson especially are ruined, i will open a bottle of wine and celebrate.

even in my country, if you post the crap they post about any REGULAR person, you can bet your house you are good to pay in court.

hell, even you post that about me, i would drag you in court and kick your ass with any problems, making some money in the process.

my guess is that many riders of today, who lost a lot of money through failed sponsorships because of the lies of so called journalists, will sue Benson and cyclingnews after they retire. not now cause it's not nice to attack "the liberty" (LOL) of the press.
 
thehog said:
Here's a new one from our friends, it is getting to the level of extremism, if anyone holds a counter point of view one must be sued and shut down. It's very radical if not scary.


How many months until Benson and Cyclingnews are sued for defamation?

Benson and Cyclingnews have completely lost it lately

In addition to their highly defamatory fabricated articles they allow the comments section (will not talk about the clinic which is a shitpit for years) to be full of libelous defamatory statement be presented as facts.

i'm not from UK but if this website and this editor will be residents of my country they would be eaten alive in court in 2-3 sessions, extra fast.

tick tock i think the clock is already ticking and someone will make an example of them.

you can't lick real madrid's *** but post this ****** about cycling.

and when that happen , and that website and Benson especially are ruined, i will open a bottle of wine and celebrate.

even in my country, if you post the crap they post about any REGULAR person, you can bet your house you are good to pay in court.

hell, even you post that about me, i would drag you in court and kick your *** with any problems, making some money in the process.

my guess is that many riders of today, who lost a lot of money through failed sponsorships because of the lies of so called journalists, will sue Benson and cyclingnews after they retire. not now cause it's not nice to attack "the liberty" (LOL) of the press.
I wonder if it was the same person/bot that said this:

hey facktard, Benson and Irondan retards, it's ok to have your website full of libelous ***?
you drove all from the Clinic to have your nice echo chamber .
:D
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
Irondan said:
thehog said:
Here's a new one from our friends, it is getting to the level of extremism, if anyone holds a counter point of view one must be sued and shut down. It's very radical if not scary.


How many months until Benson and Cyclingnews are sued for defamation?

Benson and Cyclingnews have completely lost it lately

In addition to their highly defamatory fabricated articles they allow the comments section (will not talk about the clinic which is a shitpit for years) to be full of libelous defamatory statement be presented as facts.

i'm not from UK but if this website and this editor will be residents of my country they would be eaten alive in court in 2-3 sessions, extra fast.

tick tock i think the clock is already ticking and someone will make an example of them.

you can't lick real madrid's *** but post this ****** about cycling.

and when that happen , and that website and Benson especially are ruined, i will open a bottle of wine and celebrate.

even in my country, if you post the crap they post about any REGULAR person, you can bet your house you are good to pay in court.

hell, even you post that about me, i would drag you in court and kick your *** with any problems, making some money in the process.

my guess is that many riders of today, who lost a lot of money through failed sponsorships because of the lies of so called journalists, will sue Benson and cyclingnews after they retire. not now cause it's not nice to attack "the liberty" (LOL) of the press.
I wonder if it was the same person/bot that said this:

hey facktard, Benson and Irondan retards, it's ok to have your website full of libelous ****?
you drove all from the Clinic to have your nice echo chamber .
:D
see Dan:

you can see how well behaved I am compared to these loons. show Susan.
 
blackcat said:
Irondan said:
thehog said:
Here's a new one from our friends, it is getting to the level of extremism, if anyone holds a counter point of view one must be sued and shut down. It's very radical if not scary.


How many months until Benson and Cyclingnews are sued for defamation?

Benson and Cyclingnews have completely lost it lately

In addition to their highly defamatory fabricated articles they allow the comments section (will not talk about the clinic which is a shitpit for years) to be full of libelous defamatory statement be presented as facts.

i'm not from UK but if this website and this editor will be residents of my country they would be eaten alive in court in 2-3 sessions, extra fast.

tick tock i think the clock is already ticking and someone will make an example of them.

you can't lick real madrid's *** but post this ****** about cycling.

and when that happen , and that website and Benson especially are ruined, i will open a bottle of wine and celebrate.

even in my country, if you post the crap they post about any REGULAR person, you can bet your house you are good to pay in court.

hell, even you post that about me, i would drag you in court and kick your *** with any problems, making some money in the process.

my guess is that many riders of today, who lost a lot of money through failed sponsorships because of the lies of so called journalists, will sue Benson and cyclingnews after they retire. not now cause it's not nice to attack "the liberty" (LOL) of the press.
I wonder if it was the same person/bot that said this:

hey facktard, Benson and Irondan retards, it's ok to have your website full of libelous ****?
you drove all from the Clinic to have your nice echo chamber .
:D
see Dan:

you can see how well behaved I am compared to these loons. show Susan.
:rolleyes:
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Irondan said:
King Boonen said:
Well that's you told Dan!! :D
Gotta love the comments section!

All the bots that have been banned from the forum seemed to have shown up in the comments section... :rolleyes:
Did you sleep with his wife or something? That's a pretty extremely level of aggression!
I have no idea... I go through those comments to weed out the libelous statements and other stuff but apparently Daniel Bensons article about unnamed riders talking about asking DB to step down really set off the BOT masses. They came en masse to claim it was fake news, lies, part of an agenda by CN to ruin Sky and more. If there is any good (recent) example of how the bots work on this website it's that particular article. Why I was included is beyond me, I don't write for CN.
 
Re: Re:

Irondan said:
King Boonen said:
Irondan said:
King Boonen said:
Well that's you told Dan!! :D
Gotta love the comments section!

All the bots that have been banned from the forum seemed to have shown up in the comments section... :rolleyes:
Did you sleep with his wife or something? That's a pretty extremely level of aggression!
I have no idea... I go through those comments to weed out the libelous statements and other stuff but apparently Daniel Bensons article about unnamed riders talking about asking DB to step down really set off the BOT masses. They came en masse to claim it was fake news, lies, part of an agenda by CN to ruin Sky and more. If there is any good (recent) example of how the bots work on this website it's that particular article. Why I was included is beyond me, I don't write for CN.
The bots are an angry bunch, they spend most of their day and into the night playing down doping stories and getting very aggressive with anyone who would ever consider raising the question about doping and Sky. Cycling news has become the anti-Christ because it print stories about possible doping but the bots never see the articles which are on the racing side and pro-Sky with regards to their training techniques etc.

Bot example #456

By and large Cycling News just reprint other people's stories. I doubt much that they originate themselves would be interesting enough to involve lawyers.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS