I really can't see what is supposed to be implausible about the notion that nation states operate information engagement units. Spies spend their time spying and remarkably little of that is 'espionage'.
Throwing out spurious conspiracy theories to muddy the waters to conceal a real one is all part of the model.
When a large group of otherwise rational people start gibbering irrational conspiracy theories about alien lizard people, high ranking politicians harvesting adrenochrome, etc. etc. it is natural to ask where these ideas are coming from and why they are not being rejected as the obvious nonsense they are. The people promoting those theories are the exact same people promoting the white replacement theory garbage you have been peddling.
I am not talking about lizard people or anything of the sort.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 12:44 PM Dan Harkins <dharkins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Wow, what an incredible conspiracy theory! Truly astonishing.
I'm "regurgitating" "tropes" (note the loaded terms) in the
service of nation state actors, one of which is a mistress of
a Russian diplomat! It ultimately involves Hitler and the
holocaust (of course it does!) and the removal or preservation
of statues raised to honor the cause of slavery!
Yea, you're right. I don't believe any of this and I doubt
anyone else does. I want to say you're trying to troll here
but, sadly, I think you're serious. And seriously deluded.
And I say this sincerely: you need help, seek out some mental
health professional immediately.
regards,
Dan.
On 10/3/22 9:17 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
A rejection of the IESG recommendation is not necessarily a repudiation of it. The facts might have changed as a result of the PR proposal. They have not but Dan could have chosen to react differently.
I don't for a moment imagine that Dan is going to believe it, but together with some colleagues I have been following the emergence of some of the tropes he is regurgitating. At each point, there are agents of a nation state actor that have worked to amplify and extend the reach of ideas that would have otherwise quickly died.
Nor are these agents particularly difficult to spot. One was part of Occupy, anonymous, BLM, the Sanders campaign, the Stein campaign, the Sanders campaign again and finally the Trump campaign in an 18 month period. She was also the mistress of a Russian diplomat, or at least his name was on the lease of her flat. These are the worst spies ever, they constantly tweet their activities and their meetings and they are the people that the 10-20,000 paid trolls work to direct attention towards.
What these people are doing is working a tactic originally developed by David Irving who originally rose to fame on the back of 'Hitler's War' which in the first edition claims the holocaust happend but Hitler himself was not aware of it. As the subsequent libel action demonstrated, the claim itself was pure bad faith and obviously anti-Semitic in intent, but it was not anti-Semitic on its face.
And these information engagement operations have frequently targeted both sides because the end goal is division, not (say) the removal or preservation of statues raised to honor the cause of slavery.
The desire to be a part of a social group can be very powerful, so powerful in fact that some people are willing to sacrifice their principles, their reason or both. And we have created this vast communication engine which allows the unprincipled to exploit those desires on an unprecedented scale. And certain social media actors have chosen to enable those operations.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 10:21 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 9:24 PM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/2/22 21:16, Timothy Mcsweeney wrote:
> I have less trust now too, but for a completely different reason. The originating email to this thread states that the IESG has already formed an opinion, (Dan is bad) thereby tainting the results of the poll, even if only subconsciously, so that those who may want to be seen in a favorable light by the IESG would naturally back up their previously expoused decision and respond accordingly.
>
> Where the originating email goes on to describe that the IESG does not like to be rebuffed with communication that can be considered both
> antagonistic and hostile, it puts the poll responder on notice to get in line.
+1.
In a normal Last Call, anyone is free to object without significant
reprisal. In this case, anyone can see that by objecting they'd be
courting disfavor from those in power. That's not a consensus call at
all.
I don't agree with the premise. Any Last Call is in essence a statement that the IESG is preparing to take some action it believes is appropriate and justified, and wants (or, if you prefer, is required) to test community consensus on that decision. That could be a WG being chartered, a document approaching readiness for publication as an RFC, or a PR action for which supporting evidence appears to exist. This is no different.
I also don't particularly care for the insinuation that there might be reprisals ("disfavor") if the community decides the IESG got it wrong. If the consensus goes against this action, then we'll just end up having to figure out where we go from here. That presumes a lack of integrity. Were I to engage in such reprisals, I would expect to be recalled.
-MSK
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
-- "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
