"Meaningful discussion" and the "disinfo agent" charge

[MacCruiskeen]

The charge or insinuation of "disinfo agent" can almost never be proven, and poisons and often ends meaningful discussion. Therefore suggesting a poster is purposefully spreading disinformation is not permitted.

What does it do to meaningful discussion when one or two posters hog this former Discussion Board and flood it with copypasted spam, and then simply refuse to discuss these secondhand outpourings at all, least of all meaningfully? It destroys meaningful discussion, that's what. It makes meaningful discussion near-impossible. Q.E.D.

Therefore suggesting a poster is purposefully spreading disinformation is not permitted.

That is an open invitation to agents acting in bad faith to spread disinformation here, purposefully and to their heart's content. Q.E.D. again. Why on earth should they refrain from doing so? What's to stop them?

[JackRiddler]

Thoughts:

I would say it's pointless to say agent, since that is unknowable. At any rate, unprovable. And so, you can be 100 percent right (you probably are in at least one case), but it just invites the old tu quoque and confusionist moves. After all, it cannot be denied that directly accusing someone innocent of the charge of being an agent, or a witting asset, is what the likes of State Department Boss Emiritus Hillary Clinton does. It is what COINTELPRO did, right? It is a means to sow suspicion and division. This is why it's so hard to level against even obvious cases.

However, I don't see that the rule prevents one from arguing that someone's actions, regardless of intent, serve a given interest.

In the language used, I do see a difference between "disinfo agent," which raises unprovable suggestions about state of mind, and "suggesting a poster is purposefully spreading disinformation."

This is a matter of parsing, however. One might purposefully spread disinfo because one is a disinfo agent, or one might purposefully spread it because one actually believes it.

To take one case here, I think there is no question that with the rise of Trump and the #Russiagate narrative, SLAD, who previously may have flooded but did not systematically spread disinfo, began to purposefully post CIA and corporate media disinformation here on a daily basis. This is a continuous extremely long-post and often randomly thrown-together copy-paste flood on almost every thread that can be associated (however indirectly) with the subject, along with near-daily thread proliferation. She treats it as the daily emergency to flood the shit out of RI with #Russiagate propaganda.

But it still seems persuasive to me that SLAD does this - purposefully - because she actually believes this bullshit. I'm more certain about some other folks.

In reality, a great many decent people believe this bullshit. It's been a laughable psyop for most, but extremely effective with the core target demographic, as it has offered the illusion that the government itself will provide a way out of this particular nightmare, and then things will somehow be better.

Does that mean that SLAD should have been allowed effectively to turn RI into a repeater site for #Russiagate and post-#Russiagate propaganda?

No. So really a different rule is needed. Or, not a rule. This is a tiny little place for particular discussions and debates. More of a salon model, a friendly club that nevertheless has an editorial limit and a bouncer. It's not possible to come up with some kind of 9,000-rule code, as this will only challenge stubborn people and bad actors to invent loopholes and litigate and moralize about how one Canadian message board out of millions is censoring their precious right to flood it with the #Russiagate (now post-#Russiagate or Untitledgate as Taibbi calls it) mantra of the day.

.

[MacCruiskeen]

(On edit: This post crossed with Jack's and is not a reply to it.)

It is an undeniable fact that such disinfo agents exist, that they are professionally dishonest and purposefully destructive, and that they are very active online. In 2014, for example, Greenwald reported on the GCHQ's recent and presumably ongoing efforts on the worldwide web:

HOW COVERT AGENTS INFILTRATE THE INTERNET TO MANIPULATE, DECEIVE, AND DESTROY REPUTATIONS
Glenn Greenwald
February 25 2014, 12:25 a.m.

https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

https://firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/ ... on_p07.png

"The 4D's": Deny, Disrupt, Degrade, Deceive"_ "TOP SECRET//COMINT//REL to USA, AUS, CAN, GBR, NZL":


https://firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/ ... nshot2.png

"Gambits for Deception":

https://firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/ ... on_p24.png

These images are from the GCHQ training manual for online disinfo agents, cited in Greenwald's report, here reproduced in full:

The Art of Deception: Training for a New Generation of Online Covert Operations
Feb. 25 2014 — 1:24a.m.

https://theintercept.com/document/2014/ ... perations/

[JackRiddler]

It is an undeniable fact that such disinfo agents exist, that they are professionally dishonest and purposefully destructive, and that they are very active online. In 2014, for example, Greenwald reported on the GCHQ's recent and presumably ongoing efforts on the worldwide web:

Absolutely true.

It is also true that people exist who honestly believe the exact same bullshit that the disinfo agents spread professionally.

It is also true that disruption professionals in the past have used the accusation against innocent people so as to sow confusion and division.

That is one reason that unless it can be proven (in a court sense), the accusation tends to backfire. It's hard to sway that part of the audience who are innocent to be sure.

I would therefore prefer a strong club-style moderation that just says, there are a billion places to go post fully copies of corporate media and intel disinfo, you don't do that here and if you do it enough, you get barred. Then the action is punished, rather than the motive, which is often correctly presumed but unknowable.

Again, these are thoughts. As for actions, I think we agree on what would need to be done here.

.

[liminalOyster]

I suspect the most effective counter-balance, if it is/were technically feasible, would be to generate, analyze and respond to some data about where RI content is coming from. It's very clear that it has changed in recent years and that straight up MSM stuff is now common. If one could analyze even a month's worth of sources for content here, would RI really still register as being associated with anything "alternative?"

[MacCruiskeen]

Damn, I just lost a whole long post there and now I have to go out.

We are in no essential disagreement, Jack. Professional or amateur makes little difference, the trolls' effects are very much the same: deeply disruptive and destructive. And by any rational measure, there has never been a more blatantly obvious troll on this former Discussion Board than the solipsistic spammer known as American Dream, with whom no meaningful discussion is possible.

[alloneword]

@LO: Yes, feasible - but would it really tell us anything we don't already know?

@Mac: If you use 'firefox', try this.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

A necessary OP, Mac.

JR:
[...] So really a different rule is needed. Or, not a rule. This is a tiny little place for particular discussions and debates. More of a salon model, a friendly club that nevertheless has an editorial limit and a bouncer. It's not possible to come up with some kind of 9,000-rule code, as this will only challenge stubborn people and bad actors to invent loopholes and litigate and moralize about how one Canadian message board out of millions is censoring their precious right to flood it with the #Russiagate (now post-#Russiagate or Untitledgate as Taibbi calls it) mantra of the day.

Right -- loopholes/"letter of the law" proclamations to justify this behavior is what we want to avoid moving forward. Agree with the quoted sentiment/suggestion. Unfortunately I don't believe there's an easy way, within a phpbb3 platform, to apply certain restrictions to egregious posting habits (such as restricting the amount of new threads/OPs a member can initiate per day/week/etc.; a restriction on how many consecutive posts a member can post before another member replies, etc.)

Those with phpbb3 experience are welcome to chime in otherwise -- I'm barely a layman in the webscript code arena.


That aside, achieving agreement on Expectations For Engagement moving forward, within this salon, is the first step.

[peartreed]

The issue centers on the difference in perspective or belief between people who honestly think that most (if not all) mainstream media content is propaganda or disinformation orchestrated by the government, CIA, FBI or related conspiracists versus people who accept most mainstream news stories as objective, professional journalist written accounts of true events that have little or less obvious political bias. Both perspectives are common but the former, more minority view is prevalent on internet conspiracy sites like RI.

The former viewpoint can also be held by extremists or fanatics who have an almost paranoid perception that anyone involved in publishing or reproducing mainstream news is a disinformation agent, intentionally or not. Thus all such outlets are run by spooks or dupes or toadies – or whatever pejorative label or insult they can apply to anyone holding not sharing their suspicious projections.

Most people, especially non-conspiracy theorists or alternative view anarchists, accept mainstream media content as being as reliable as the reputation or known bias of the source of it. Of course there is political bias and spin involved as well, but they do not characterize all mainstream media content as propaganda or bullshit. That label is applied by people with an opposing agenda.

More to the point, RI is originally a conspiracy site that has attracted mostly people with alternative viewpoints and beliefs, some of whom see the establishment as the enemy. There are a handful of extremists who are near paranoid and suspicious of any and all who share mainstream news or support popular political party interests.

It is this minority that wants to convert RI to its own antiestablishment faction. To do so it must oppose or attack or deter or inhibit, preferably, ban and eliminate all mainstream posts and participants. They have sustained a campaign of harassment and vitriol directed at SLAD and AD in particular. It has been destructive and mean.

That has only damaged RI with negativity and conflict. In my view the majority of participants are tolerant of mainstream content and many enjoy reading it here. In particular, I appreciate the efforts of SLAD and AD to contribute so much interesting and controversial content to RI. Without the mainstream news and current events there would be no context for the similarly welcomed alternative perspectives that resonate well with a shared appreciation of balanced reporting and discussion of varied and diverse ideas.

To try to limit the content and volume of posts, threads and subject matter by arbitrary decree would be contrary to individual freedom.

[JackRiddler]

Meaningless platitudes as usual.

To make the point for anyone else reading: Of course the problem being described here is not any reference to corporate media reports. It is the daily flooding of the board with the specific propaganda campaigns that already set the daily agenda on all other US corporate media outlets. Tellingly the flooders show a lack of engagement with the material and respond aggressively and theatrically to any criticism thereof, usually in the form of further flooding without comment or curation.

The function of this board as intended by its owner and as established over many years clearly is NOT to copy and repeat the daily one-big-news item as already produced on CNN and MSNBC.

Anyone not getting that and still misrepresenting what I have said here, after all these years, is not dense. They are intentionally not understanding.

[kelley]

of course i can't say this in any comprehensive way but based on personal experience it seems user generated content uh um 'across the board' has become wildly degraded year after year since the golden age of online discussion peaked during the period of 2002 thru 2012

this doesn't make me suspicious as much as it's just a fucking drag

there's always a glimmer of those good old days to be parsed here and there but then again they're tempered by a site like washington's blog deciding to pack it in

and the true weirdo shit becomes harder and harder to find

so

you know

[peartreed]

To describe a sincere attempt at offering a counterbalancing perspective to Mac’s original post starting this thread as, “Meaningless platitudes as usual.” demonstrates precisely the arrogant intolerance and dismissal of other opinions, perspectives and participation styles. It is typical of those who want to coerce everyone to conform to their own exclusive control of the forum, the focus and the form for its followers to function within it.

Jack, your references to CIA and corporate media disinformation, #Russiagate propaganda, intel disinfo and bullshit to characterize the content you contend is “flooding” the forum reveals your view that it is all CNN and MSNBC daily one-big-news repetitions. You have labeled that as propaganda campaigns. That is why you object to posts reflecting mainstream news as content as well as their volume. It is overwhelming your own worldview and minority socio-political persuasion – the stance you want dominating the board. That is also why it angers you and others along with the volume of such posts.

Fortunately the founder, Jeff Wells, instead created a forum to welcome a wide variety of content, politics, opinion, perspectives, personalities, sympathies and styles. He established guidelines for a mature level of civility and tolerance of other members while encouraging discussion and debate with rigorous intuition of content. The alternative topics also featured strange, unusual and odd interests. The main subject matter, like mainstream coverage of US politics, has since deteriorated into angry, rival political fighting.

It may also interest you to know that not everyone on this Canadian forum connects from an urban center of the USA with access or inundation of daily US News media. The content of posts from SLAD and AD and others is welcomed as current updates available in a convenient, accessible and previously enjoyable, friendly forum for those who might also want to discuss the subject matter without personal insult.

[alloneword]

.
Unfortunately I don't believe there's an easy way, within a phpbb3 platform, to apply certain restrictions to egregious posting habits (such as restricting the amount of new threads/OPs a member can initiate per day/week/etc.; a restriction on how many consecutive posts a member can post before another member replies, etc.)

That's unfortunately true. As a general rule, with phpbb3, there's not an easy way to do anything much.

Extra functionality to limit the sorts of disruptive behaviours we see exhibited here tend to be in the form of mod(ification)s to the code base which have a horrible habit of breaking, breaking when updates are applied or just breaking other things randomly.

There is a blunt instrument in the admin CP where you can set a 'flood limit', but that just limits users ability to post (or edit) again until x time has elapsed. Setting this to, say, 15 mins would only limit a determined individual to a maximum of 96 posts per day - which is still above the maximal rate set here (of 83 in a day, IIRC).

All in all, it's difficult to technically limit these behaviours without massively inconveniencing the admins, not to mention the majority of other users.

Now, if we were running an old vbulletin version...

[liminalOyster]

If we can't trust Anderson Cooper, the terrorists have won.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

I admire your resolve, Liminal. In the face of such dreck, a witty one-liner as a graceful retort.

Well done.

Peartreed is proof that there are black budgets dedicated to stretching the confines of known science, as he clearly inhabits an alternate dimension that is decidedly not experienced by the rest of us.

Hopefully they'll be able to place this confused entity back into whatever contraption they came in and blast them back to the far away land of make-believe whence they came.