I need to preface this by saying that this evidence is from right before the blackout protest, a few weeks ago.
So it's not fresh tea, if that's what you're looking for.
Nevertheless I still think it's relevant and interesting.
Why?
Because I've been suspecting an astroturf campaign for a while now, especially post-blackout given the sudden and enormous influx of cookie-cutter pro-Reddit comments we saw after the blackout.
I've seen others have similar suspicions, but I hadn't seen any concrete evidence for it.
Until now that is.
I'm not sure how it flew under the radar, perhaps because the evidence was posted on Reddit right before the blackout?
In any case, without further ado, below is what I'm talking about.
r/Programming is a sub who's mod team is made up out of majority admins/ex-admins.
It's currently blacked out, seemingly due to a combination of a rogue mod and admins being too busy to notice, but others think it was a panicky response to suppress the uncovering of the astroturfing campaign that just happened to coincide with the general blackout.
Whatever the case, r/Programming never announced anywhere they'd join in the blackout and the last top post on the sub before it went dark, is the one exposing the astroturfing campaign.
On June 11, Redditor u/ammon-jerro notices an astroturfing campaign on r/Programming, and makes a post about it.
In a comment u/ammon-jerro provided 6 examples to support his claims of there being an astroturfing campaign.
As if those examples weren't enough, Redditor u/schauerlich went and found an account that had posted a comment containing the following verbatim:
Sorry, I am not capable of generating inappropriate or offensive content.
In addition to this, there's something weird going on with the bot accounts that are involved in this.
Let's look at the one that posted "Sorry, I am not capable of generating inappropriate or offensive content" as an example.
That was posted by u/Joseph_Harris2.
But if you go to https://www.reddit.com/u/Joseph_Harris2 it'll show a "Page not Found" page with "u/Joseph_Harris2: page not found" in the upper left corner.
If you instead go to https://www.reddit.com/u/joseph_harris2 (same url, all lowercase) you'll see the same page with the same "u/Joseph_Harris2: page not found" (notice that it's still correctly capitalized).
So clearly Reddit knows who you're talking about.
However it doesn't seem that the account is simply suspended or banned because that looks different.
Nor is it deleted, because that looks like this.
And a non-existing account looks almost identical, but there's an important difference.
The difference being in the upper left, where it doesn't mention the username and just says "page not found".
This weird behavior on the profile page happens with all the accounts that are brought up in the post on r/Programming in relation to the astroturfing.
Not sure what to make of it just yet, but it is strange.
The evidence is clear as day.
There has been, and perhaps still is, a pro-admin astroturfing campaign going on on Reddit with the help of ChatGPT and other such tools.
Does this prove that it's a Reddit commissioned or even sanctioned astroturfing campaign?
No, there isn't sufficient evidence for that at the moment.
Off course Reddit would have the best motivation for something like this, and it is at least remarkable that a mod team stacked with admins that have access to admin tools wouldn't be able to effectively detect this and be able to prevent comments like these on a sub they moderated.
Nevertheless, that's at best circumstantial and can't be considered concrete evidence.
Edit: Mods, the usernames mentioned in this post (and subsequent links) are either of seemingly defunct bot accounts or of people who shed a light on this. If this is against the rules please let me know and I'll remove references to these users on Reddit.
I’m not the person you replied to, but I’ll take a stab.
@cmbabul stated in GP that they hand out raises for exceptional work of no more than 3% per year.
So, to recap in a piecemeal fashion, we’re talking about:
You saw this and ran with it. While doing so, you changed the premise to:
On top of that, presumably, because inflation currently exceeds 3% and has well exceeded 3% for almost the last three years, you changed the premise somewhat more into a career’s length timeframe.
The average inflation rate for the last 50 years is 3.8% per year,
Even when looking at a break-even inflation rate for the last 30 years, we’re looking at 2.40%, so we’re talking about a .60% pay increase. No wonder that this doesn’t impress @bunchofnumbers.
Never mind all that, though. I’m more interested in why you decided to change that premise.