Second, given that the author has hidden this in a paywall–you have to sign up in order to access the article and presumably any links–I’m going to immediately distrust the motives.
Third, Medium is a glorified blogging site; anyone can say anything on it.
I’m going to immediately distrust the motives.
Additionally, the data is self-reported surveys with questions like “Have you ever been contacted by someone from a company or corporation?” and… yeah? This part shouldn’t be surprising to any platform that allows private messages. And “Have you ever seen someone promoting a product?” and most people are going to either shrug or already have a strong opinion, it’s not very scientific for actual data on the actual traffic from bots and corporate shills, more how the human users feel about the platform.
I would much rather see an independent investigation from a technical point-of-view, which tracks the comments and timing of user comments to determine how many are actually bots just quietly gaining karma with innocuous comments, or how many are just programmed to go to certain subreddits at certain times to push a narrative.
The “author” is citing a study. Idk why you’d indict the study because the media that is making you aware of the existence of said study is behind a paywall. Bizarre reasoning.
Hmmm, not necessarily all that bizarre. The title on the Lenny link states that 15% of ALL Reddit content is corporate trolls trying to sway public opinion - now that this gentleperson has kindly provided the link to a non-paywall version, I can see that this is 2 studies, one from 2018 and one from 2020, one of which states that 15% of the top 100 subreddits may have experienced corporate trolls and/or bots posting content at some point, but they don’t say how much.
Huge difference between the title and the substance of the article, they buried the lede in a somewhat clever way. Chances are the author (and editor) are well aware that most of their audience doesn’t have an account, and aren’t going to create an account - therefore, by posting a misleading title (or letting others exaggerate the claims in the title through links on other platforms) they can reach a far larger audience, and sway public opinion more effectively, by burying the actual context behind the paywall.
I mean, I don’t know that that is what’s happening, but it makes a lot of sense and kind of rhymes with the whole point of the article, so yeah - I don’t trust their motives either, and I can definitely see the logic behind distrusting paywalls on principle.
