Astroturfing is real, but it is disingenuous to say that an entire side of a debate, particularly a scientific debate, is fake.
It has a chilling effect and silences the discussion.
An argument should be able to stand on its own regardless of whether an astroturf exists or not. Money doesn't change the facts, and astroturf is by definition finite. Facts, especially quantitative facts will win in the long term.
> Money can make facts go unheard and/or unheeded.
This is why it's important to respond with a factual debate only. You're actually helping them if you make more noise about other matters instead of sticking with facts.
For a time. But people get bored, tired, and distracted. Facts are permanent.
>What definition says that? Astroturfing can be and is often automated
Servers cost money. Bandwidth costs money. Admins cost money. Businesses aren't going to fund astroturfing indefinitely. Even in the most extreme circumstances, like the climate change debate, the truth still dominates.
>Many religions and mythologies seem to indicate otherwise
You're right. Thats why modern science believes in creation, and the geocentric model. Clearly religion and mythology won out.
-Astroturfing can be done for free via botnet using other peoples machines
-If the truth dominates in the climate change debate, why is it still being debated while the problem continues to get worse?
-It remains that the majority of people on the planet have a religious faith, and those beliefs continue to affect government/state policy (i.e. bans on stem cell research, birth control etc) as it has for thousands of years
It has a chilling effect and silences the discussion.
An argument should be able to stand on its own regardless of whether an astroturf exists or not. Money doesn't change the facts, and astroturf is by definition finite. Facts, especially quantitative facts will win in the long term.