3 ms·

Except this letter didn’t come from some message board, but a source that is generally considered reliable (admin of gulagu). It would be good if you knew some

by rosndo 5y ago

Except this letter didn’t come from some message board, but a source that is generally considered reliable (admin of gulagu). It would be good if you knew something about the topic before throwing around LARP-accusations. I’m willing to bet that you are completely unfamiliar with the people publicly involved in this release, odds are that you can’t even read Russian.

rich_sasha 5y ago
So maybe it’s genuine. Or the admin is bored. Or the admin got this sent randomly from someone. Maybe an FSB operative, or maybe a convincing troll, or Russian or Ukrainian or frankly any intelligence service. It’s completely unknowable. Any heuristics for determining authenticity go out the window, because they would be used by a faker too. Hell, even concluding it’s a fake is dangerous, because what if that’s the intention? Next thing you might be wondering if this is reverse psychology and trying to conclude things from something that really has no informational content to the lay user.
- rosndo 5y ago
  This is the case with most journalism, no? Here we have a well respected journalist with a solid track record claiming that they trust their source. Doesn’t mean it’s necessarily true, but certainly lends credibility.
  - rich_sasha 5y ago
    It is similar. I wouldn’t take at face value a journalist saying “this is what an FSB operative says, trust me”. Leaks from “senior anonymous official” are dozen a penny. Journalists typically indicate how they verified the provenance of leaks they publish, and hopefully keep the unverifiable stuff off their pages. As for the guy’s track record... this sounds like a niche source. Some fairly small slither of the population can indeed infer more by knowing this guy well, for everyone else is “trust me he’s good”. Certainly not informative to me.
    - rosndo 5y ago
      In the end this is a really empty criticism. Anyone with half a brain understands that journalism tends to come with these caveats.

by rosndo 5y ago

rich_sasha 5y ago

So maybe it’s genuine. Or the admin is bored. Or the admin got this sent randomly from someone. Maybe an FSB operative, or maybe a convincing troll, or Russian or Ukrainian or frankly any intelligence service. It’s completely unknowable. Any heuristics for determining authenticity go out the window, because they would be used by a faker too. Hell, even concluding it’s a fake is dangerous, because what if that’s the intention? Next thing you might be wondering if this is reverse psychology and trying to conclude things from something that really has no informational content to the lay user.

rosndo 5y ago
This is the case with most journalism, no? Here we have a well respected journalist with a solid track record claiming that they trust their source. Doesn’t mean it’s necessarily true, but certainly lends credibility.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  It is similar. I wouldn’t take at face value a journalist saying “this is what an FSB operative says, trust me”. Leaks from “senior anonymous official” are dozen a penny. Journalists typically indicate how they verified the provenance of leaks they publish, and hopefully keep the unverifiable stuff off their pages. As for the guy’s track record... this sounds like a niche source. Some fairly small slither of the population can indeed infer more by knowing this guy well, for everyone else is “trust me he’s good”. Certainly not informative to me.
  - rosndo 5y ago
    In the end this is a really empty criticism. Anyone with half a brain understands that journalism tends to come with these caveats.