From: blanc <blancw@accessone.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 16:00:55 +0800
To: "'cpunks'" <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: FW: Net Control is Thought Control
Message-ID: <01BAE3A0.1232C6A0@blancw.accessone.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:    Vladimir Z. Nuri@LD.com

I don't understand your point. both the agent provocateur and "victim"
are crucial to the process of brainwashing. they are the yin and yang
of it all, of course, and I am certainly not arguing otherwise. what
I was pointing out was that it is increasingly difficult to identify
people's secret agenda in cyberspace. 
..............................................................................................

"What distinguishes coercive persuasion from other kinds of influence processes is the degree to which the person who is to be influenced is physically or psychologically confined to a situation in which he must continue to expose himself to unfreezing pressures.   Not only did the prison confine him physically, but the round-the-clock vigilance and pressure from cellmates confined the person psychologically to an environment in which unusually intense unfreezing pressures were present at all times...."  (from the book)

Now, you know that no one either on this list or anywhere in cyberspace is confined, either physically or psychologically, to continuously & unwillingly expose themselves to alt.usenet.kooks or http://www.ho-hum.com or cypherpunks, etc..  If they continue to do so it is because they themselves have put themselves there or have not seen fit to leave when it behooved them (sometimes requiring the use of kill files to avoid them).

A person in an unrestricted setting, who is so easily persuaded by others that they cannot resist being influenced, has a lot of work to do in finding out about their own lack of self-confidence & direction.   A "victim of information" must study & discover the difference between valid info & dangerous nonsense.  There are ways to know when someone is trying to supplant one's own initiative with their own preferences.  

And here's plenty of debate & unrestricted flaming in cyberspace to challenge anyone's passive acceptance of another's conclusions (or of their own unexamined presumptions).  And there's always new software tools to enable participants to make a quick exit if they feel uncomfortable with a conversation.
 
"the next time you see a flamewar, ask yourself this question: what would
I think if I found out every opinion and post on one side  was manufactured
by a single person? how can you be so sure they aren't?"

Unless I was thinking of going out to lunch with one of them, I can't see why I would care.  i.e.,  unless I needed to make a decision for action based on what they had said, it wouldn't really matter to me.  I expect I would have more effect on them than vice-versa.  :>)
    ..
Blanc