[FRIAM] whackadoodles go mainstream!

[uǝlƃ ☣]

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