This clearly describes a number of methods that can be used by trolls and bad actors to disrupt a forum. But it surprises me how many people seem to assume an anonymous pastebin written like a post to /x/ is somehow authoritative, as if it were copied directly from a secret FBI handbook.
I mean, FFS it even says one of the signs of a "Disinformationalist" is not believing in conspiracy theories. If you don't believe the CIA killed JFK, you're probably a spook. Come on.
So, the reason I've raised awareness of this type of thing is because at the end of the day, it all comes down to capabilities. If there is information that must at all costs be kept secret, it is 100% the case that any sufficiently large organization with sufficient resources will hire a force to make sure that that information drops out of focus as quickly as possible after they've become aware of the breach.
We call them Social Media consultants, or PR crisis management firms in "polite society". They have other names as well.
Anyway, the main point is that oftentimes, no one really stops to think about whether or how this type of thing can be done. This document lays out a blueprint for it. In Engineering, as a rule, if you have a blueprint for the basics, someone will find a way to work it into a system. Awareness that someone has done so changes something fundamental in the pursuit of online information dissemination and discourse. At least I noticed a change when I first ran into it. I began to get a bit more religious about cross-checking sources, and paying attention to moderation patterns, and meta-posting behavior. So even if the original content it is based on is from a dubious source, the change in perception it evokes is still useful enough to warrant the occasional resurrection to the front of the public consciousness.
I'd also like to point out to you your post here, in the MKUltra thread, where you admit to it seeming more reasonable that governments would utilize disinformation campaigns rather than drugs.
>The goal? Probably not. The means? Probably. I believe it's more effective in modern society to influence people through disinformation campaigns and popular culture, particularly though social media, than attempt to control them like puppets by secretly dosing them with LSD and barbiturates.
I was going to reply there, but I thought it might be poor form seeing as this submission was based off of something I mentioned. Point being; it never hurts to take into consideration there may be a man behind the curtain every once in a while.
Just... Don't let it consume the rest of your life. Either way, I specifically dropped references to it in Hong Kong threads based on some fishy patterns I was noticing in the hopes it might help out a Hong Konger or two develop more resilient strategies to any possible attempts to utilize any of those mentioned controls against them. I don't know if it helped, but I doubt it hurt.
>FFS it even says one of the signs of a "Disinformationalist" is not believing in conspiracy theories...
So you ignored the most important parts (forum sliding, consensus cracking, infiltrating moderation, high level political/press management techniques, etc...) and jumped straight to the most dated, divisive, and clearly dismissable and irrelevant piece?
I didn't think a single contrived example would so effectively neutralize all the other useful information in there.
Anyway, take it or leave it. I'm just interested in people knowing that this stuff can happen, as it seems to me that knowledge that the techniques exist tends to confer some level of resilience against them.
>So you ignored the most important parts (forum sliding, consensus cracking, infiltrating moderation, high level political/press management techniques, etc...) and jumped straight to the most dated, divisive, and clearly dismissable and irrelevant piece?
No.. I literally started my comment pointing out that it would be useful for pointing those things out:
This clearly describes a number of methods that can be used by trolls and bad actors to disrupt a forum.
What I objected to is its utility in uncovering "disinformation agents," plants, spooks, spies, etc. Most of what's described in it is the normal low bar for any argumentative forum, biases and cognitive fallacies that anyone - particularly those of a paranoid persuasion - might fall prey to, and the result of taking it seriously will be to see bad actors everywhere.
And there's already too much of that sort of baseless paranoia on HN. People accusing each other of being shills or agents, or seeing nefarious motives behind the site's moderation. My point was that people should be just as critical of that as anything else.
I mean, FFS it even says one of the signs of a "Disinformationalist" is not believing in conspiracy theories. If you don't believe the CIA killed JFK, you're probably a spook. Come on.