From: eli+@GS160.SP.CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 03:50:23 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: FW: Net Control is Thought Control
In-Reply-To: <+cmu.andrew.internet.cypherpunks+4kz3qSq00UfAM0yv9n@andrew.cmu.edu>
Message-ID: <9601171916.AA20225@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In article <+cmu.andrew.internet.cypherpunks+4kz3qSq00UfAM0yv9n@andrew.cmu.edu>
Mr. Nuri writes:
>that 9 of the last 10 flamewars on this list were actually carefully
>orchestrated, *manufactured* by a single person interested in making
>this point, and teasing people that refused to believe that rampant
>dischord can be sown through a barrage of pseudonyms. 

Enough already.

We all know that discussion groups are subject to disruption by
flamers, and that anonymity can reduce accountability.  What is more
interesting is whether the use of pseudonyms adds any new
possibilities.

>how can you be so sure that the cypherpunks lists is really what you 
>think it is? a bunch of people from around the country independently
>interested in crypto? an agent provacteur, or agent saboteur, could
>create a vastly different perception regardless of the input of other
>people.

Ah, conspiracy theories again.  A conspiracy of one does have certain
advantages over the old-fashioned approach of gathering several
like-minded people.  Communication costs are reduced, and the problem
of trust is eliminated.  On the other hand, a conspiracy of one isn't
much good for anything but playing games on the net -- cattle mutilation
is really a two-man job, and infiltrating the U.S. Government is right
out.

Being a good Medusa may be easier than controlling the banking system,
but it seems to be quite hard.  Your history suggests that stylistic
analysis may be used to link nyms.  A sufficiently skilled writer
might be able to avoid this.  An individual known to me was wanking
around with pseudonyms (from nyx, I think) on rec.music.industrial in
'92-93; he did a decent job of stylistic variation, but was noticed on
the basis of the response patterns of his articles (and nailed by nyx
usage logs, but that's another matter).  There are several Usenet
examples of people trying to use inapparent pseudonyms without lasting
success.

The classic response, of course, is that the real conspiracies are too
good to be detected, and/or they off the investigative reporters.
This is not falsifiable, but we can compare pseudonym conspiracies to
meat ones: the risk is lower, particularly in an regime of
unconditionally-secure pseudonyms from which the Medusa can simply
walk away.  But you don't get real-world power or money.  You get to
put in a lot of effort for a chance at unduly swaying public opinion
on one forum.  (And if you screw up, you get a lot of attention --
this may be a major draw for some.)  But there are easier and more
effective techniques: press releases and paid advertising, for
example.  Who needs pseudonyms?

Side note:
>another very interesting effect to measure is the following: if there
>is already a lot of mail on a list, people tend to post less.

I would say the opposite.

--
   Eli Brandt
   eli+@cs.cmu.edu