Oh right. What about when the commenter is obviously either astroturfing or responding to the headline alone? Or perhaps you prefer to get your website brigaded?

In that case you should email us so we can take care of the problem right away. Fortunately, that's also what you should do about any other astroturfing concerns too.

What you mustn't do is throw 'astroturfing' and 'shill' around as ammunition in an argument; that's as cheap as it is common, and uncivil.

> obviously

If I've learned anything moderating HN, it's that we all vastly overestimate what counts as 'obvious' and that this is the root of most of our problems here. When you find yourself thinking 'obviously', that's probably a good time to search for at least one alternate model.

And if there's one thing I've learned from reading your website, it's that sometimes the argument will legitimately be that the commenter is astroturfing or spewing an argument that an astroturfer would use. It seems increasingly likely that the discourse on your website is being attacked by brigades of users -- ones even with established accounts here -- who bring along intellectually dishonest argumentation that is motivated by political trolling alone. If those people (or the people influenced by them) can't be called out as brigaders and astroturfers, then I suspect many normal users here will increasingly be influenced by spurious arguments of the sort to which I originally responded.

Keep in mind that you are not making a neutral call by preventing me from calling out a commenter. You legitimize their arguments and leave it to others to find a way to call them out without raising your hackles.

Truthfully, the fact that I'd waste time on the matter is, I suppose, my own problem to fix in the new year...

The key word in your comment is "seems".

There are two problems here, real astroturfing and imaginary. Real astroturfing is a violation of HN's rules. When we find evidence of it, we ban the accounts and sites involved. Imaginary astroturfing—people convincing themselves that the only possible reason for some comment they dislike is that the other user must be an astroturfer or shill—is also a violation of HN's rules. Some people feel a temptation to sling such accusations at each another, merely because they strongly disagree. That is uncivil and it isn't allowed on HN.

Since these two are quite different problems, we need a way to tell the one apart from the other. The way is simple: we look for evidence. If there's actual evidence that someone has been abusing HN, we ban them. If there isn't any evidence, we tell the person who invoked the accusation that doing so is against HN's rules and ask them not to do it again. An opposing opinion does not count as evidence.

If you have evidence that someone is abusing HN, please bring it to our attention. If you don't, you're not allowed to smear someone anyway. Either way, it's not ok to use such accusations as ammunition in an argument. Concern for the integrity of the community is welcome, but invoking that merely to score points against someone is not.

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, you're putting a whole lot of words in my mouth in the process of responding to only a single one of mine. You yourself have now made accusations about my thought process that are not in evidence.

The original comment showed no evidence of having arisen from information in the linked article. In acting to silence someone for asking whether the commenter had read the article, you legitimized their unfounded accusations, particularly that the article was "click-bate" [sic]. Don't pretend that your actions are somehow neutral.

If you think neutrality means making a platform to give spurious claims unfettered voice, then enjoy watching your website crumble into reddit in the new year. If you don't understand how your moderation is needlessly making yourself part of the problem, I have no idea how to convince you of it. We will soon be in a place where your well-meaning notion of civility will be entirely irrelevant.