Re: FW: Net Control is Thought Control

["Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>]

BW:

>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.. 

I have already conceded this point. hence there is definitely a difference
between "coercive persuasion" and "persuasion". but my point is that
there are other shades of "persuasion" that still have the smell of
brainwashing and propaganda techniques (even though they aren't "coercive"
in the sense there is a prisoner involved).
 
>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. 

but humans are subject to influence no matter how paranoid they are
about being influenced. its a basic human instinct. that's my point.
peer pressure always arises in all groups, not because humans are
malicious, but because they are humans, and humans are social animals.
(perhaps you consider yourself an exception to this rule)

>  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. =20

then why can entire societies fall victim, such as Nazi germany?
answer: because individuals are fallible. and unlike you, I don't 
necessarily blame the victim if they fall victim to extremely sophisticated
brainwashing techniques.

>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.

true, but this has little to do with what I was talking about. my point
was that consensus and its perception (not presence or absence of 
various opinions) is what can be subject to manipulation in cyberspace.

[flamewar manufactured by one person]
>Unless I was thinking of going out to lunch with one of them, I can't =
>isee 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.  :>)

it is easy to say you don't care, but this is patently false in the
grand scheme of things. suppose
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. 
the numerous yellings and screechings on this list are ample evidence 
that most people *do* care about excessive flamewars, and various opinions, 
posted to this list.

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.

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. hence,
if someone (individual) littered the list with many pseudonymous posts 
under different names, then people
who might have contributed otherwise could tend not to post. hence
the problem of "real" dialogue is aggravated as a larger percentage of 
pseudonymous posts appear.

don't care? fine by me. (g) just provides a good opportunity for someone to 
work with "willing research subjects".