5 ms·

This document feels out of place to me. It's addressed to various regulators, and at a surface level it has the form of an affidavit or other legal document. Bu

This document feels out of place to me. It's addressed to various regulators, and at a surface level it has the form of an affidavit or other legal document. But the language is far too familiar to be writing for that audience - they refer to Mudge consistently as Mudge rather than, say, "Mr. Zatko"; they make liberal use of superlatives; they add emphasis using bold text. This is kind of like writing a cover letter where you explain why the job would be great for you rather than why you would be great for the job, it's going to sound wrong to your intended audience, and it will degrade your credibility in their eyes (rightly or wrongly). This isn't the style you would adopt if you wanted such austere organizations as the SEC, DOJ, and they even mention _Congress_ to take you seriously. This leads me to believe that this is a document for public consumption adopting the aesthetics of a letter of concern sent to regulators, and that this document is being submitted to the court of public opinion. I don't doubt that Twitter executives are borderline fraudulent and may have crossed the line into outright fraud - I'd be unsurprised to learn that about any group of executives at any large company. But this document has more the feeling of propaganda than a serious appeal to regulators.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
peteradio 4y ago
Is there some other legitimate example affidavit which to compare? Is SEC bound by a non-superlative clause? Perhaps the drafting lawyers demanded mandate of flair.
- maxbond 4y ago
  To clarify this isn't an affidavit, I just meant that there is clearly a stylistic choice here to have a certain form. Here's an arbitrary example of a criminal complaint (just because it was the first court document I found): https://www.gwern.net/docs/darknet-markets/2013-ulbricht-complaint.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/darknet-markets/2013-ulbricht-com... The way things are presented in sections with numbered subsections, the way some things in the beginning appear to be redacted, are clearly meant to convey the authority of an official document submitted to a legal body. I'm sure this doesn't violate any sort of law and that you are permitted to write a letter like this and submit it to regulators. What I'm suggesting is that the stylistic choices they make are indicative of the audience they are writing for, and that it is different from their stated intentions. And that suggests to me that this document has an agenda and is willing to accomplish it through deceptive means (those being, lying about the purpose and audience of the document to enhance it's perceived authority by giving the general public the impression they are the fly on the wall of an official proceeding rather than reading a document for their own consumption that may have no bearing on the outcome of this dispute), which is my personal standard for calling something propaganda.
  - notmelgibson 4y ago
choppaface 4y ago
Page 40 has a redaction over the circumstances under which Mudge was terminated. The intro mentions a Board Member who silenced Mudge and the reactions are done in two blocks so you can infer who that person was. This whole report is a clown show. This is Elon’s attempt to burn US taxpayer money helping launder him out of having to pay ~$10b to walk away from Twitter. It sounds like Mudge has his own litigation regarding severance. So it was a no-brained to join Musk’s mercenaries. This issue is not worth taxpayer time. You want less regulation? Then stop crying wolf to Congress, and more importantly, stop just doing dumb stuff like buying a company you can’t actually run.
- flomo 4y ago
  Twitter is under a FTC consent degree, which they allegedly have been grossly violating, so the taxpayers are already up in their business.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- m00x 4y ago
  That's a rather large claim without any substantial evidence. This is HN and it only serves as a court of opinions, and Elon isn't popular right now, but let's keep ourselves intellectually honest. Twitter has had several security issues, including Saudi spies[1], a large-scale hack of several celebrities[2], and even recent ones[3]. Twitter is one of the largest tech companies and a very important town square. Mudge was hired to do a job by Dorsey, and the newly appointed execs made it very clear that they don't give a shit about security, when the lack of safety measures has been demonstrated to be dangerous to the public. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/09/twitter-spy-convicted-saudi-arabia/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/09/twitter-spy-convicted-saud... [2] https://www.thewrap.com/teen-mastermind-behind-elon-musk-joe-biden-twitter-hack-gets-3-years-behind-bars/ https://www.thewrap.com/teen-mastermind-behind-elon-musk-joe... [3] https://www.hackread.com/twitter-data-breach-accounts-sold-hacker-forum/ https://www.hackread.com/twitter-data-breach-accounts-sold-h...
  - 4y ago
fragmede 4y ago
In Mr. Zatko's previous appearance before Congress* in 1998, he was addressed by his hacker nom-de-plume, Mudge. Perhaps they see fit to continue this practice. *https://youtu.be/VVJldn_MmMY https://youtu.be/VVJldn_MmMY
- maxbond 4y ago
  That's certainly true, I've seen this testimony before and were that the only thing that was off about the document I wouldn't have made my comment. Any one of these elements isn't sufficient to justify suspicion of anything, it is the preponderance of them. The use of the Mudge is certainly the weakest of the indicators I've presented; what do you think of the strongest of them, the unusual use of emphasis? What do you think of the three of them taken together? If you were the author of this document and you just found out that the public would never see it, only officials at the SEC et al - would you feel like this document was likely to be effective for that audience? Is there truly nothing about it you'd change in that circumstance?
  - cbdc_watcher 4y ago
    Why should the style matter more than the content. If our gov agencies are as sensitive to style of communication as you suggest then I would say they are wasting our tax dollars with their extreme focus on aesthetics and spurious semantics.
    - maxbond 4y ago
      As I've said, what I believe is that this document _was not intended for regulators_ and is employing _deceptive tactics to win in the court of public opinion rather than the court of law_, and you're welcome not to find that important but I do. I'd also argue that style and aesthetics do, in fact, matter and are worth discussing, as they are part of the context in which the content resides and our understanding would be incomplete without them. I do think there is a good reason for bodies which are meant to dispassionately find facts and enforce regulations to prefer plain language and straightforward argumentation. But even if that weren't the case, it really wouldn't reflect on my argument. Additionally, everything the document alleges could be true, and the allegations worthy of discussion - I haven't argued that they aren't true or that we shouldn't be discussing them, I have no way of knowing if they are true and am ambivalent about whether we should give them oxygen - and that would not reflect on my argument.
noptd 4y ago
Is the style more important than the content? Seems like he wrote it with multiple audiences in mind and I don't see how that detracts from his claims or message.
- maxbond 4y ago
  Style is context which should be considered to understand content, and without considering it our understanding of the content may be incomplete (as I argue is the case here). I make no claim that either is more important. I would claim they did not write for more than one audience. I'd refer you to my other comments in this thread for that argument.
cozos 4y ago
What is the proper way for emphasis if not with *bold*?
- maxbond 4y ago
  Emphasize however you want, I'm not the style police, I'm just arguing the choice to use emphasis rather than plainly state the facts is incongruous with the stated intention of the document and is an indicator that it has a different intention. I'm not saying they did it _wrong_ I'm saying that we can infer something from the choice _to do it_.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

peteradio 4y ago

Is there some other legitimate example affidavit which to compare? Is SEC bound by a non-superlative clause? Perhaps the drafting lawyers demanded mandate of flair.

maxbond 4y ago
To clarify this isn't an affidavit, I just meant that there is clearly a stylistic choice here to have a certain form. Here's an arbitrary example of a criminal complaint (just because it was the first court document I found): https://www.gwern.net/docs/darknet-markets/2013-ulbricht-complaint.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/darknet-markets/2013-ulbricht-com... The way things are presented in sections with numbered subsections, the way some things in the beginning appear to be redacted, are clearly meant to convey the authority of an official document submitted to a legal body. I'm sure this doesn't violate any sort of law and that you are permitted to write a letter like this and submit it to regulators. What I'm suggesting is that the stylistic choices they make are indicative of the audience they are writing for, and that it is different from their stated intentions. And that suggests to me that this document has an agenda and is willing to accomplish it through deceptive means (those being, lying about the purpose and audience of the document to enhance it's perceived authority by giving the general public the impression they are the fly on the wall of an official proceeding rather than reading a document for their own consumption that may have no bearing on the outcome of this dispute), which is my personal standard for calling something propaganda.
- notmelgibson 4y ago

choppaface 4y ago

Page 40 has a redaction over the circumstances under which Mudge was terminated. The intro mentions a Board Member who silenced Mudge and the reactions are done in two blocks so you can infer who that person was. This whole report is a clown show. This is Elon’s attempt to burn US taxpayer money helping launder him out of having to pay ~$10b to walk away from Twitter. It sounds like Mudge has his own litigation regarding severance. So it was a no-brained to join Musk’s mercenaries. This issue is not worth taxpayer time. You want less regulation? Then stop crying wolf to Congress, and more importantly, stop just doing dumb stuff like buying a company you can’t actually run.

flomo 4y ago
Twitter is under a FTC consent degree, which they allegedly have been grossly violating, so the taxpayers are already up in their business.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
m00x 4y ago
That's a rather large claim without any substantial evidence. This is HN and it only serves as a court of opinions, and Elon isn't popular right now, but let's keep ourselves intellectually honest. Twitter has had several security issues, including Saudi spies[1], a large-scale hack of several celebrities[2], and even recent ones[3]. Twitter is one of the largest tech companies and a very important town square. Mudge was hired to do a job by Dorsey, and the newly appointed execs made it very clear that they don't give a shit about security, when the lack of safety measures has been demonstrated to be dangerous to the public. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/09/twitter-spy-convicted-saudi-arabia/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/09/twitter-spy-convicted-saud... [2] https://www.thewrap.com/teen-mastermind-behind-elon-musk-joe-biden-twitter-hack-gets-3-years-behind-bars/ https://www.thewrap.com/teen-mastermind-behind-elon-musk-joe... [3] https://www.hackread.com/twitter-data-breach-accounts-sold-hacker-forum/ https://www.hackread.com/twitter-data-breach-accounts-sold-h...
- 4y ago

fragmede 4y ago

In Mr. Zatko's previous appearance before Congress* in 1998, he was addressed by his hacker nom-de-plume, Mudge. Perhaps they see fit to continue this practice. *https://youtu.be/VVJldn_MmMY https://youtu.be/VVJldn_MmMY

maxbond 4y ago
That's certainly true, I've seen this testimony before and were that the only thing that was off about the document I wouldn't have made my comment. Any one of these elements isn't sufficient to justify suspicion of anything, it is the preponderance of them. The use of the Mudge is certainly the weakest of the indicators I've presented; what do you think of the strongest of them, the unusual use of emphasis? What do you think of the three of them taken together? If you were the author of this document and you just found out that the public would never see it, only officials at the SEC et al - would you feel like this document was likely to be effective for that audience? Is there truly nothing about it you'd change in that circumstance?
- cbdc_watcher 4y ago
  Why should the style matter more than the content. If our gov agencies are as sensitive to style of communication as you suggest then I would say they are wasting our tax dollars with their extreme focus on aesthetics and spurious semantics.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    As I've said, what I believe is that this document _was not intended for regulators_ and is employing _deceptive tactics to win in the court of public opinion rather than the court of law_, and you're welcome not to find that important but I do. I'd also argue that style and aesthetics do, in fact, matter and are worth discussing, as they are part of the context in which the content resides and our understanding would be incomplete without them. I do think there is a good reason for bodies which are meant to dispassionately find facts and enforce regulations to prefer plain language and straightforward argumentation. But even if that weren't the case, it really wouldn't reflect on my argument. Additionally, everything the document alleges could be true, and the allegations worthy of discussion - I haven't argued that they aren't true or that we shouldn't be discussing them, I have no way of knowing if they are true and am ambivalent about whether we should give them oxygen - and that would not reflect on my argument.

noptd 4y ago

Is the style more important than the content? Seems like he wrote it with multiple audiences in mind and I don't see how that detracts from his claims or message.

maxbond 4y ago
Style is context which should be considered to understand content, and without considering it our understanding of the content may be incomplete (as I argue is the case here). I make no claim that either is more important. I would claim they did not write for more than one audience. I'd refer you to my other comments in this thread for that argument.

cozos 4y ago

What is the proper way for emphasis if not with *bold*?

maxbond 4y ago
Emphasize however you want, I'm not the style police, I'm just arguing the choice to use emphasis rather than plainly state the facts is incongruous with the stated intention of the document and is an indicator that it has a different intention. I'm not saying they did it _wrong_ I'm saying that we can infer something from the choice _to do it_.