Obviously defeating a naive online poll is trivial, but it is also trivial to detect.
Presumably this software does it in untraceable ways - with a botnet of IPs from the country in question, with delays and stutter etc so that it is indistinguishable from real traffic.
You should not underestimate the power of online actions in shaping opinion - for example if stories on a particular tech consistently made the top of HN, a significant no. of people would start thinking it was popular amongst this demographic.
If a BBC or Daily Mail story which was a puff piece for GCHQ was consistently on the top of their 'most read' section, people would be far more exposed to that story over a given period. etc.
Still, schoolchildren have controlled botnets... I'm not overhyping the dangers of giving computers to children, my point is that you don't need souvereign power to do that.
As to manipulation of things like HN: The best defense is that such manipulation isn't as easy as just flipping a switch, and there is generally very little interest in doing so. Also Companies where this is an issue (ebay, amzon, google) have very sophisticated systems that can't be fooled or controlled by spying agencies...
Running completely gameable, "unscientific polls" should be considered journalistic malpractice. It was annoying and stupid before, continuing to do so going forward knowing that it will be abused by governments and hidden organizations to manufacture consent is unacceptable.
This is in no way confined to polls. Almost every website has a voting component of some kind, be that measuring which stories are read most, allowing up/downvotes, Q&A or comment systems etc. It doesn't have to be a straightforward poll to be gamed.
I think it would be better to address the malpractice by our governments than to blame journalists - if the gov. is sufficiently determined, and is given the funds to spend on it, they will find ways to distort online discourse. The UK has just increased funding for 'intelligence' (what an oxymoron) by £800 million, so you can expect more of this to come, and we should lay the blame where it belongs - with those agencies poisoning the well of online discussion.
Presumably this software does it in untraceable ways - with a botnet of IPs from the country in question, with delays and stutter etc so that it is indistinguishable from real traffic.
You should not underestimate the power of online actions in shaping opinion - for example if stories on a particular tech consistently made the top of HN, a significant no. of people would start thinking it was popular amongst this demographic.
If a BBC or Daily Mail story which was a puff piece for GCHQ was consistently on the top of their 'most read' section, people would be far more exposed to that story over a given period. etc.