It's justifiably characterized as biased. We lose a useful term for distinguishing normal bias from marketing or PR instigated efforts. That's the point of the term astroturfing. It's useful in that regard. Or I suppose, if it's definition has truly shifted, was useful.

Can a stand-alone complex be an astroturf? I think so, if the social conditions that create the behavior stem from a single entity that stands to benefit.

The point of astroturfing (in comparison to the term it derives from, grassroots) is that it's not people coming together to support a policy, it's people with a vested interest in an entity taking cues from that entity to act in their interests in such a way that it appears as the former. The definition never shifted, the tactics just became less obvious. I would be less suspicious if more comments were complaining or giving measured thoughts, but they weren't.

If I may really stretch the metaphor, I'd say individuals with vested interests are more like sod. They really hold those opinions, and are motivated to express them, but do so "unnaturally". Vs commercial efforts that are entirely fake and are therefore astroturf :D

Bias exists. But by removing the financial incentive from the definition of astroturfing, you make it useless when it comes to distinguishing from bias. Otherwise you turn it into "how many degrees of separation can I find to Waymos" and it gets infinitely tenuous.

I would agree that Waymo employees or shareholders shouldn't be commenting here without disclosing their affiliation. But that's a relatively small class: Googlers (and, increasingly tenuous, Xooglers) don't get paid by Waymo and don't get exposure to it through their GSUs. You can make the claim that Waymo's success adds to Google's brand prestige and has knock-on effects, and maybe that's true to some limited extent. But comparing that to being directly paid by the company to spread propaganda is quite the reach.

>But by removing the financial incentive from the definition of astroturfing

I didn't. I pointed out the less obvious ways a financial incentive might exist.

Excuse me for being skeptical of someone who uses a cutesy nickname for former Google employees.

> I didn't. I pointed out the less obvious ways a financial incentive might exist.

You did no such thing, which is exactly the issue.

>What's important is the existence or appearance of a conflict of interest, particularly if you're not disclosing your connection. Having a friend who works for Google who might be upset at criticism counts. Being a former employee with stock counts. Having any kind of monetary or professional interest in FSD companies succeeding counts.