Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

digitalnewsasia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 161 posts

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#151

Post by tptacek »

mindslight wrote: post #147
tptacek wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you should be able to provide an example of an NSA thread on HN where a sockpuppet diverted the conversation to infighting between people otherwise sharing common ground. I don't think standards groups need a lot of help concern-trolling complexity into standards. The exact same force is exerted on more benign standards; watch HTML for example. Here's a rebuttal framework: select a NIST crypto standard and show a…

I'm certainly not saying these behaviors are only due to conspiracy, as your response seems to be addressing. What I am saying is that the most effective and stealthy way of steering and disrupting conversation is to encourage these natural behaviors, and simultaneously calling out the organic infighting. Your previous assertion that discourse control would manifest as simple for/against is itself a straw man. I'll o…

The irony is, I'm going further out on a limb, and at the same time making a falsifiable claim. Unlike you, I do not believe that the NSA subverts standards groups by injecting spurious complexity. I think there's a lot of spurious complexity in crypto standards (in fact, I think that for the most part, crypto standards are evil), but that it doesn't come from NSA.

There are archived mailing lists of many of these standards groups. We should be able to find an example of a potentially NSA-sourced complexity.

Remember when John Gilmore claimed that someone from the government had persuaded the IPSEC working group to misuse CBC IVs in order to weaken the standard? We found out who was behind that, and it clearly wasn't the NSA --- not only that, but they were part of a years-running clique of people degrading crypto standards out of what appears to be vanity and ignorance.

If you're a crypto standards body, I think vanity and ignorance is a much bigger threat than NSA.

(I think NSA did subvert at least one crypto standard, for what it's worth).

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#152

Post by tptacek »

diyorgasms wrote: post #144
NovaS1X wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt he will respond to you. It's a pretty classic tactic to request citation from someone you know isn't prepared to offer it in order to defuse an argument. He doesn't have to offer citation, he only has to stop his opponent from appearing knowledgeable. he doesn't need to be right, he only needs to make the other guy look wrong.

Actually, Tptacek is one of the regular users here whom I most strongly suspect is acting as a sockpuppet for NSA interests, or perhaps his own company's interests dovetail with the US intelligence community's so well he is acting out of self-interest. It seems he makes an appearance in just about every thread where criticism of the US intelligence community is presented, and he seems to be staunchly in favor of ever…

At no point has the interests of any company I've worked with dovetailed with the NSA's. That was a profoundly ignorant and obnoxious accusation to casually lob at anyone.

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#153

Post by dctoedt »

mindslight wrote: post #148
diyorgasms wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, Tptacek is one of the regular users here whom I most strongly suspect is acting as a sockpuppet for NSA interests, or perhaps his own company's interests dovetail with the US intelligence community's so well he is acting out of self-interest. It seems he makes an appearance in just about every thread where criticism of the US intelligence community is presented, and he seems to be staunchly in favor of ever…

IIRC, tptacek just has a more nuanced position wrt NSA spying. It just often comes across as towing the Party line. But that's certainly no reason to call him a sockpuppet. Frankly, if you think HN is pwned so hard that the highest-karma account is a sock puppet, why would you even bother? Maybe this whole board is just one giant programmatic timesink meant to waste your time and discourage you from doing something.…

> * Maybe this whole board is just one giant programmatic timesink meant to waste your time and discourage you from doing something.*

As a kid I read a science-fiction short story to that effect --- a successful scientist discovers that he's being drawn into more and more university-committee work, etc., and thus has less and less time for his real work. He detects signs that "someone" (aliens?) is doing this intentionally, to all kinds of knowledge workers. Wish I could remember the title and author.

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#154

Post by jordigh »

birdsareweird wrote: post #150
teddyh wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Larger and more concise list: Who is harmed by a "Real Names" policy? http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea...

Yes but this comes from Geek Feminism wiki, so you have to read it as such: Someone I like is forced to not be anonymous: oppression. Someone I dislike is forced to not be anonymous: justice.

No you don't. Evaluate the statement independently of who is making it. Just because someone calls themselves "feminist" while making a claim doesn't mean you should invalidate their claim.

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#155

Post by jschwartzi »

ownagefool wrote: post #140
NovaS1X wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt he will respond to you. It's a pretty classic tactic to request citation from someone you know isn't prepared to offer it in order to defuse an argument. He doesn't have to offer citation, he only has to stop his opponent from appearing knowledgeable. he doesn't need to be right, he only needs to make the other guy look wrong.

I've no doubt that people ask for citation in the manner suggested, but the gp had a resonable point. In the absense of evidence, it's better to assume what's going on is organic to online discussions. If you've been on the internet for the last 10 years, this is easy to believe. If not, just visit the phoronix fourms. You'll be astounded by the batshit insane folks.

I mainly just wanted to see an analysis of needless complexity which is organically injected into committee-based standards processes because it could inform my own work which depends so heavily on them. Additionally, when so much of software engineering involves dealing with multiple stakeholders, understanding how people can "concern-troll" a useless or damaging requirement into the process might allow me to diffuse such a situation in the future.

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#156

Post by phkahler »

fidotron wrote: post #7

Of course, this place isn't immune to it. That includes all the usual suspect discussions (NSA, Palestine, China, Russia etc.) but more visibly with the employees of certain companies. One of the more curious things you can do on HN to distract from a story is to start a tangential flamewar in the comments on it, but my single favourite way I see to bury things around here is to ask for detailed citations to data for…

You left off just plain downvoting. I've seen some fairly benign comments on certain topics go down to -3 or -4 in a hurry with no counterpoint given. Stuff the collective here will often ignore or debate, but down it goes.

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#157

Post by Umn55 »

arca_vorago wrote: post #145
Umn55 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Wonder why the fourth estate, aka journalism is in such a sad state of affairs? It's because the state has reached (quietly) so far into it that even the handful of real journalist are having a hard time." I'm sorry to tell you but it's the very nature of capitalism to consume everything in it's path. Corporations are authoritarian institutions. The idea that there ever existed some balanced press or balanced capita…

First of all, I would like to point out that when you say capitalism, it is a much more nuanced term than you seem to be inferring. Which kind of capitalism? Crony capitalism? What about Workers capitalism? A much different thing than the generic stereotypical capitalism you seem to be talking about. Why yes, of course, unbridled capitalism tends to swallow up more and more, sometimes exponentially and in a way that…

"Which kind of capitalism? Crony capitalism? What about Workers capitalism? A much different thing than the generic stereotypical capitalism you seem to be talking about."

I'm sorry but this reasoning is fallacious nonsense. No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#158

Post by Umn55 »

drcomputer wrote: post #112
arca_vorago wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The form of abstract ideas, the direction of thought. These things can be studied. Indeed you are on to something there. I have long called for a return to our Enlightenment roots for just that reason. It encourages an independent and able mindset, which is precisely why education has been deliberately manipulated in to preventing any such thing. Education of the populace is not in the interest of the international…

I don't think anyone really does it on purpose. A truly independent mind can be a terrifying thing. It can make you feel disconnected, isolated, insane, or stupid. I have observed the flow of information through people for a long time. I find myself incredibly tired of studying this. It shows nothing of an individual's depth, their character, their individual personality. It's the shadow on the cave.

>A truly independent mind can be a terrifying thing. It can make you feel disconnected, isolated, insane, or stupid.

You get used to it because you remember the science:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F17JGDZDVUs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eURiWot_-ng&list=UUW1ELHQMq-...

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#159

Post by arca_vorago »

Umn55 wrote: post #157
arca_vorago wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, I would like to point out that when you say capitalism, it is a much more nuanced term than you seem to be inferring. Which kind of capitalism? Crony capitalism? What about Workers capitalism? A much different thing than the generic stereotypical capitalism you seem to be talking about. Why yes, of course, unbridled capitalism tends to swallow up more and more, sometimes exponentially and in a way that…

"Which kind of capitalism? Crony capitalism? What about Workers capitalism? A much different thing than the generic stereotypical capitalism you seem to be talking about." I'm sorry but this reasoning is fallacious nonsense. No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.

Calling something complex and nuanced != no true scotsman.

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#160

Post by e12e »

cjslep wrote: post #45
mrottenkolber wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the best shows ever. The whole Stand Alone Complex concept is kind of unique to GitS, is it? Edit: Oh and btw, ghost in the lisp: http://medias.ircam.fr/x03b42f RPG talking about his work on the mass media manipulation machine of DARPA.

Yes and no[0]. For reference, the definition of a Stand Alone Complex from wikipedia [1]: Stand Alone Complex (スタンド・アローン・コンプレックス Sutando Arōn Konpurekkusu) eventually came to represent a phenomenon where unrelated, yet very similar actions of individuals create a seemingly concerted effort. The ideology of radical Islam from the viewpoint of neoconservatives in the USA in the 00 decade was of "shadowy underground ter…

To take this a bit further, as far as I know, the question of what constitutes a mind is still an open question. Ie: where does the "mind" live in us? Is emergent minds, like that displayed by a ant colony, really a mind, in the same sense that we have minds?

One of the hard things about [ed: (military)] intelligence, [gathering] is that it is very hard to ask the right questions. You can sometimes find the "right" answers to the "wrong" questions -- and convince yourself you know what's going on -- while in reality you're interacting with a shadow-reality of partially your own creation.

For example: oppress and invade, deploy divide and conquer tactics across unconnected populations that share some cultural values -- and you'd probably be able to create a stand a alone complex in the form of the resistance that forms. Then that might latter merge into a true complex, as the various independent parts realize that they have a somewhat common agenda... Maybe we'll see the new Star Wars films inadvertently expand on this theme, judging by how they're setting up the story with then animated "Star Wars: Rebels" series? :-)

Highly recommend the newest prequel installation of Ghost in the Shell, GitS: Arise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_Shell:_Arise

Post reply on HN