My main concern would be about their priorities: We should figure out what to do about this rather than who to blame for it. If the original source were a lab that changes little right now compared to if it were a market.
On 4/20/20, 1:51 PM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: You can't *objectively* tell. That's the whole point. But what you can do is check your impressions against those of others. My personal impression is that this "article" is complete bullshit. I feel *certain* that at least some of the people here, if they read the whole article, will conclude the opposite. I won't list my bullshit triggers the article sets off. Bullshit replicates exponentially faster and more efficient than its debunking. So my debunking would be lost in the wind. But I can point to 1 easy step you can take: https://smmry.com/https://project-evidence.github.io/#&SM_LENGTH=10 Play around with the length. It's interesting. On 4/20/20 1:12 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > Thanks for that link/reference. I appreciate that there ARE such things as "influence operations" and Schneier's description is helpful, but I guess I'm still not clear on how I can tell objectively that "project evidence" is up to that. To build my own strawman that maybe you can bolster up to more of a steelman: > > 1. I have a gut reaction to it that says "this feels like the kind of conspiracy-theory the trolls-I-know-to-hate are likely to be hatching". > 2. The EPSTEIN thing is weird... I guess if they'd just removed the reference and not referenced it, THAT would have been even more of a hint that they were up to no good. > 3. The tone of the introduction, etc. seems a bit "protest too much" > 4. The sheer bulk of the material without obvious additional organization feels like a "dogpile" technique (ro maybe as you suggest "baffle-em-with-bullshit" or TL;DR ? > > I guess what I was asking for is whether you found any specific elements or if there is a more specific (than my lame list above) structural thing to question. I *didn't* follow the myriad references and validate them, and I *don't* have a broad enough understanding of the field to estimate how biased their list of articles is... if they are blatantly cherry picking or what? > > When publication like this was much harder, the volume of material was small enough that it seems like traditional journalists could possibly keep up with more in-depth analysis? > > I suppose rather than asking YOU if/how you have done its, or if I should go search for other critical analysis of this "project"... -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
