I can't remember accusing anyone specifically of being an astro-turfer. I only noticed a tendency of any comment critical of Microsoft having a more than average likelihood of being downvoted, something I already noticed years ago, when Digg was intersting. This topic seems to bring out a certain amount of passion in the audience, myself included.

There are two statements you can try to falsify: "It is possible for you to hire people to secure an open platform from the ground up" and "It is up to Microsoft to secure Windows from top to wherever they think the cost exceeds the benefit for them". As for the third, "Microsoft seems to spend more money promoting their wares than properly checking and securing them", it's an impression and, as such, subjective. The "seems" is there because they do spend a whole lot of money in promoting their software and the "properly" is there because it doesn't matter how much they spend, the results are still pitiful, as the mountain of spam in my inbox and the constant onslaught of botnets on my clients (no - my trade is software, but my code has passed more security audits than I can remember) demonstrate so eloquently. Their programs seem to be improving with every release, true, but there is still a long way until I would entrust my data to them.

But that's just my opinion.