3 ms·

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

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.
  - cbdc_watcher 4y ago
    Maybe some gov agencies have the kind of culture that is biased toward a dry and austere communication style such as that typically found in papers coming out of regulatory agencies (and ones presented to them), but I assure you it is not a issue of logic; it's an issue of cultural preference. Trying to argue that a certain communication style is more productive in a certain context is again a cultural bias (not of your opinion but of theirs)
    - maxbond 4y ago
      I think we're just having different conversations here.
      - cbdc_watcher 4y ago
        you're saying it was sent to the regulators but it was written as a blog post for popular consumption. I'm countering by saying that whether the regulators are communicated with using a dry, austere style or a theatrical one fit for a blog post should not change the outcome, unless the regulators are culturally biased (toward the dry style) and therefore the sender chose to hit two birds with one stone )both the regulators and blog readers as audience).... that is unless the regulators are culturally biased
        aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
        Yes — why not achieve the most pressure from as many angles as possible, while telling the truth, just in a civilian-approachable way (as is customary in hacktivist circles).
  - fragmede 4y ago
    Tactics which will win over the court of public opinion differ than tactics that would win over regulators, but the piece was always going to try and convince the reader of it's thesis, whomever the reader ends up being. I'm curious why you think the difference in audience make those tactics rise to the level of deception and propaganda though. Stripped of all bold emphasis, would the document read the same? IMO, yes. But I'm not an SEC regulator.
fragmede 4y ago
Personally, I think Mudge wrote, hoping that this document was going to go before Congress and wrote for them, and that possibly that he would have to go before them. Thus the (over) use of bold emphasis is for a broad audience of which certain members won't (or can't) read as critically as others. I'd write like there's no way this doesn't leak to the public eventually. It's Twitter we're talking about. Juicy gossip is the point of the platform so of course it's going to get spread. I don't know that it undercuts its message though.
- maxbond 4y ago
  This doesn't really address any of the questions I posed.

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.
- cbdc_watcher 4y ago
  Maybe some gov agencies have the kind of culture that is biased toward a dry and austere communication style such as that typically found in papers coming out of regulatory agencies (and ones presented to them), but I assure you it is not a issue of logic; it's an issue of cultural preference. Trying to argue that a certain communication style is more productive in a certain context is again a cultural bias (not of your opinion but of theirs)
  - maxbond 4y ago
    I think we're just having different conversations here.
    - cbdc_watcher 4y ago
      you're saying it was sent to the regulators but it was written as a blog post for popular consumption. I'm countering by saying that whether the regulators are communicated with using a dry, austere style or a theatrical one fit for a blog post should not change the outcome, unless the regulators are culturally biased (toward the dry style) and therefore the sender chose to hit two birds with one stone )both the regulators and blog readers as audience).... that is unless the regulators are culturally biased
      - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
        Yes — why not achieve the most pressure from as many angles as possible, while telling the truth, just in a civilian-approachable way (as is customary in hacktivist circles).
- fragmede 4y ago
  Tactics which will win over the court of public opinion differ than tactics that would win over regulators, but the piece was always going to try and convince the reader of it's thesis, whomever the reader ends up being. I'm curious why you think the difference in audience make those tactics rise to the level of deception and propaganda though. Stripped of all bold emphasis, would the document read the same? IMO, yes. But I'm not an SEC regulator.

fragmede 4y ago

Personally, I think Mudge wrote, hoping that this document was going to go before Congress and wrote for them, and that possibly that he would have to go before them. Thus the (over) use of bold emphasis is for a broad audience of which certain members won't (or can't) read as critically as others. I'd write like there's no way this doesn't leak to the public eventually. It's Twitter we're talking about. Juicy gossip is the point of the platform so of course it's going to get spread. I don't know that it undercuts its message though.

maxbond 4y ago
This doesn't really address any of the questions I posed.