>>12529624>I don't get it... who am I a shill for? What funding?Aha! Ipse dixitum! The rhetoric of those two posts,
>>12529579 >>12529613, correlates loosely with generic shill rhetoric, such as the kind you'd see from a typical astroturfing campaign with corporate backing. And yet, judging by the content of these pseudo-shilling shitposts, it is not clear who stands to benefit in any obvious way. Who would fund posts like this? Who could afford to do so? None of the usual suspects, it would seem counter-productive.
But two obvious shill posts in rapid succession, merely dozens of minutes apart? It cannot be coincidence...
Is it espionage by sci-hub?
Perhaps it is predictive programming by the book publishers, setting the stage for the impending false flag?
It seems paradoxical to the curious anon. Where do these two obvious shills find money to spread negative propaganda about the book publishers.
