William: I wonder why people think you're kooky when you start talking about the military industrial social media propaganda complex? me: HA HA WHAT A WACKY TERM William: aw me: THANK YOU FOR IMING ME YOUR BITS William: hey now William: CAPTCHAs are the answer here, not hate. me: I see William: More CAPTCHAs, no persona management. But of course then Google might have a monopoly on sockpuppets. William: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Industrial_Media_Complex Anyway, WACKY TERM IS WACKY LOL me: that is indeed the exact same burdensome term you used, touche William: Eisenhower, as echoed by crazed activists me: Anyway, yes, that's indeed a subject that interests me. Did you want to discuss something? William: Yeah dude, CAPTCHAs. Shouldn't you just promote more reverse-turing tests in social media if you want to get rid of automation? me: No, that would not at all address the fundamental problems that have already arisen, much less the unpredictable ones that will come up in the future me: Read the first-hand documentation we've compiled on the subject and think it through as if it were a potentially serious, poorly-understood matter that merits attention and action William: I take it as seriously as I do any other first-hand documentation. The echelon2 wiki is overbearing with all the bias in there. Even worse are the dox. But what are these fundamental problems? Can a continually refined reverse-turing test be broken forever? me: CAPTCHA would not prevent many of the most worrisome instances of the capability, and it's not unreasonable to expect that actors such as CENTCOM would have access to better solutions to CAPTCHA than the public, just as NSA has better encryption/decryption than most, and most other parties that would have access/use for things like persona management would also likely have high-end solutions to that for same reasons me: And the idea that the wiki is "biased" is insane, as it's quite clearly a compilation of dangerous or illicit behavior on part of contractors, not a balanced overview of their pros and cons in terms of the polity. I shouldn't have to explain that, and either you're being cute or you lack an understanding of how informational venues fall into different categories, which I'm sure you're smart enough to understand, so I'll assume you're being cute. William: The researcher's job isn't in declaring behavior dangerous or illicit. That's for the pundits and hopefully the courts. But I guess you can be a pundit and a researcher at the same time. There's no rule against it or anything, but don't be surprised when others scoff at your research. Cute, I know. me: The only people who have scoffed at this stuff are you and a few other random internet people. Nothing on there has been specifically disputed by anyone and it's obviously taken seriously by policy people, journalists who follow these issues, good portion of it has appeared in other publications. Seriously, there are a lot of people I'd be inclined to go to if I wanted to get a reasonable opinion on my work, but being the guy who writes weird satire about me doesn't you one of them. William: Sure! Okay, so, back on the point. Persona management software that currently has very little need, if any at all, to break reverse-turing tests wouldn't be hindered by more CAPTCHAs? Also, crypto is useless because the NSA can break it? I abhor the technological determinism of Anons and cypherpunks, but you gotta be kidding me. William: Sorry for the burdensome term. Technological determinism posits that scientific advancement leads to cultural change. William: Why won't anyone pay attention to my research? "Because you're flagrantly injecting ideology." STFU, EVERYONE LISTENS TO ME.