5 ms·

Tangentially related: I'm not sure if anyone else gets this, but I honestly have trouble reading some of these comments without viewing any argument I disagree

by qrendel 11y ago

Tangentially related: I'm not sure if anyone else gets this, but I honestly have trouble reading some of these comments without viewing any argument I disagree with as a potential JTRIG operation. (And yes I know someone was criticized yesterday[1] for making similar accusations in the other thread.) Which is certainly uncharitable towards others' alternative opinions, but how can you honestly not be suspicious at this point? That's why the tactics are so insidious and destructive to civil society: there's really no way to innoculate yourself. Either you potentially let yourself be swayed by a NatSec astroturfing campaign, or let the same sow fear, uncertainty and doubt to where you can't even participate in a political discussion with people of opposing viewpoints. Would be curious how many others have the same reaction and how they deal with it. Though there's a certain amusing irony that one would have cause for paranoid suspicion of those comments as well. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11036249 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11036249

progressive_dad 11y ago
I used to be afraid of looking the fool for arguing with a machine, but when I looked around everyone was too busy with their smart phones to laugh.
kafkaesq 11y ago
I'd love to think that HN was interesting enough to JTRIG attract it's attention. Sadly, I tend to doubt that's the case.
- qrendel 11y ago
  Why not? Judging from the number of submissions and comments per day, and assuming the 1%/10%/89% approximation for how many people are content creators (submitters) vs contributors (commenters) vs lurkers, I'd estimate the site has tens of thousands of daily visitors. The demographic would also tend to be better educated, politically informed, career tech industry people, rather than your typical "low-information voter" who has no influence or authority in the world whatsoever. That plus the smaller number of users who are actually influential people in infosec or other relevant industries. I assumed the government spying apparatus must be keeping at least some amount of eyes on this and similar places, even if it's just an intern or two.
  - kafkaesq 11y ago
    They're almost certainly monitoring HN (at least algorithmically) to sniff for leaks (inadvertent disclosures from people who might know the various leakers or journalists of interest, or their supporters). And yes, high-signal threads (like this one) might get passed off to a human analyst somewhere. As to whether they're trying to poison (or otherwise influence) this community in some way? It's certainly possible. But there's also the famous advice from a former government agent (who was once involved with infiltrating domestic radical communities) -- which goes about like this (someone out there might have a better quote): "My advice? Stop worrying about infiltrators. That is, just assume you're being infiltrated and monitored, and that there's nothing you can do about it. You'll waste an infinite amount of time and energy speculating who the source might be, who to point fingers at -- to the point where you end up poisoning your own community form within. Which is precisely what these monitoring agencies want you to do." My own view is basically existentialist: if I were ever to get deeply involved in resistance politics -- or even if I'm not, and just casually hanging out with people who are -- sure, almost inevitably I'm going to end up monitored, perhaps even "cased" (i.e. someone might slither up to me at a bar or meeting somewhere, to find out what I know or what I'm about). But at the end of the day... really, just fuck all those people. If they're playing that game, as far as I'm concerned, they've already given up, and are already dead inside, on some level. And I'm not going to let that stop me for a minute from speaking freely, calling things as I see them, or hanging out with people I consider to be to be basically ethical and well-meaning (though I may sometimes question their approaches), just because of what some agency flack somewhere might be doing with me to pad his quota and make himself look good for his bosses. But that's just me. You can make your own choices.
    - progressive_dad 11y ago
      Well there's an argument to be made that a mistaken analysis as to your "threat level" curtails your personal freedom and has a detrimental impact on your ability to accomplish your goals. Just as the existence of your credit score doesn't impinge upon your fundamental rights as a human, its existence means it can be used to discriminate and that by bringing it into existence you've created opportunities for abuse. Once it exists and you assume it exists you have to change your behavior in a way that maximizes outcomes for yourself. Its subtle psychological coercion. At the very least decisions made by non-elected officials in the name of national security need oversight. So even if you yourself are not political, just by surveilling you they have forced you to become political in the sense that now you MUST participate in an issue and debate regarding the value of national security vs. your personal security.

by qrendel 11y ago

progressive_dad 11y ago

I used to be afraid of looking the fool for arguing with a machine, but when I looked around everyone was too busy with their smart phones to laugh.

kafkaesq 11y ago

I'd love to think that HN was interesting enough to JTRIG attract it's attention. Sadly, I tend to doubt that's the case.

qrendel 11y ago
Why not? Judging from the number of submissions and comments per day, and assuming the 1%/10%/89% approximation for how many people are content creators (submitters) vs contributors (commenters) vs lurkers, I'd estimate the site has tens of thousands of daily visitors. The demographic would also tend to be better educated, politically informed, career tech industry people, rather than your typical "low-information voter" who has no influence or authority in the world whatsoever. That plus the smaller number of users who are actually influential people in infosec or other relevant industries. I assumed the government spying apparatus must be keeping at least some amount of eyes on this and similar places, even if it's just an intern or two.
- kafkaesq 11y ago
  They're almost certainly monitoring HN (at least algorithmically) to sniff for leaks (inadvertent disclosures from people who might know the various leakers or journalists of interest, or their supporters). And yes, high-signal threads (like this one) might get passed off to a human analyst somewhere. As to whether they're trying to poison (or otherwise influence) this community in some way? It's certainly possible. But there's also the famous advice from a former government agent (who was once involved with infiltrating domestic radical communities) -- which goes about like this (someone out there might have a better quote): "My advice? Stop worrying about infiltrators. That is, just assume you're being infiltrated and monitored, and that there's nothing you can do about it. You'll waste an infinite amount of time and energy speculating who the source might be, who to point fingers at -- to the point where you end up poisoning your own community form within. Which is precisely what these monitoring agencies want you to do." My own view is basically existentialist: if I were ever to get deeply involved in resistance politics -- or even if I'm not, and just casually hanging out with people who are -- sure, almost inevitably I'm going to end up monitored, perhaps even "cased" (i.e. someone might slither up to me at a bar or meeting somewhere, to find out what I know or what I'm about). But at the end of the day... really, just fuck all those people. If they're playing that game, as far as I'm concerned, they've already given up, and are already dead inside, on some level. And I'm not going to let that stop me for a minute from speaking freely, calling things as I see them, or hanging out with people I consider to be to be basically ethical and well-meaning (though I may sometimes question their approaches), just because of what some agency flack somewhere might be doing with me to pad his quota and make himself look good for his bosses. But that's just me. You can make your own choices.
  - progressive_dad 11y ago
    Well there's an argument to be made that a mistaken analysis as to your "threat level" curtails your personal freedom and has a detrimental impact on your ability to accomplish your goals. Just as the existence of your credit score doesn't impinge upon your fundamental rights as a human, its existence means it can be used to discriminate and that by bringing it into existence you've created opportunities for abuse. Once it exists and you assume it exists you have to change your behavior in a way that maximizes outcomes for yourself. Its subtle psychological coercion. At the very least decisions made by non-elected officials in the name of national security need oversight. So even if you yourself are not political, just by surveilling you they have forced you to become political in the sense that now you MUST participate in an issue and debate regarding the value of national security vs. your personal security.