
The Gentleperson's Guide to Forum Spies (2012) - 0_gravitas
https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm
======
amoshi
Brings to mind the secret psyops JTRIG group (part of the GCHQ), as revealed
by Edward Snowden.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Threat_Research_Intellig...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Threat_Research_Intelligence_Group)

Look at the presentation slides from below - scary to think we are subjected
to their propaganda on a regular basis

[https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-
manipulation/](https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/)

Very wide breadth and depth of the tooling used by JTRIG

[https://www.schneier.com/gchq-catalog/](https://www.schneier.com/gchq-
catalog/)

------
0_gravitas
Technique #1 - 'FORUM SLIDING'

If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum -
it can be quickly removed from public view by 'forum sliding.' In this
technique a number of unrelated posts are quietly prepositioned on the forum
and allowed to 'age.' Each of these misdirectional forum postings can then be
called upon at will to trigger a 'forum slide.' The second requirement is that
several fake accounts exist, which can be called upon, to ensure that this
technique is not exposed to the public. To trigger a 'forum slide' and 'flush'
the critical post out of public view it is simply a matter of logging into
each account both real and fake and then 'replying' to prepositined postings
with a simple 1 or 2 line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the
top of the forum list, and the critical posting 'slides' down the front page,
and quickly out of public view. Although it is difficult or impossible to
censor the posting it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and unuseful postings.
By this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading
unrelated and non-issue items.

Technique #2 - 'CONSENSUS CRACKING'

A second highly effective technique (which you can see in operation all the
time at www.abovetopsecret.com) is 'consensus cracking.' To develop a
consensus crack, the following technique is used. Under the guise of a fake
account a posting is made which looks legitimate and is towards the truth is
made - but the critical point is that it has a VERY WEAK PREMISE without
substantive proof to back the posting. Once this is done then under
alternative fake accounts a very strong position in your favour is slowly
introduced over the life of the posting. It is IMPERATIVE that both sides are
initially presented, so the uninformed reader cannot determine which side is
the truth. As postings and replies are made the stronger 'evidence' or
disinformation in your favour is slowly 'seeded in.' Thus the uninformed
reader will most like develop the same position as you, and if their position
is against you their opposition to your posting will be most likely dropped.
However in some cases where the forum members are highly educated and can
counter your disinformation with real facts and linked postings, you can then
'abort' the consensus cracking by initiating a 'forum slide.'

------
krapp
This clearly describes a number of methods that can be used by trolls and bad
actors to disrupt a forum. But it surprises me how many people seem to assume
an anonymous pastebin written like a post to /x/ is somehow authoritative, as
if it were copied directly from a secret FBI handbook.

I mean, FFS it even says one of the signs of a "Disinformationalist" is not
believing in conspiracy theories. If you don't believe the CIA killed JFK,
you're probably a spook. Come on.

~~~
salawat
So, the reason I've raised awareness of this type of thing is because at the
end of the day, it all comes down to capabilities. If there is information
that must at all costs be kept secret, it is 100% the case that any
sufficiently large organization with sufficient resources will hire a force to
make sure that that information drops out of focus as quickly as possible
after they've become aware of the breach.

We call them Social Media consultants, or PR crisis management firms in
"polite society". They have other names as well.

Anyway, the main point is that oftentimes, no one really stops to think about
whether or how this type of thing can be done. This document lays out a
blueprint for it. In Engineering, as a rule, if you have a blueprint for the
basics, someone will find a way to work it into a system. Awareness that
someone has done so changes something fundamental in the pursuit of online
information dissemination and discourse. At least I noticed a change when I
first ran into it. I began to get a bit more religious about cross-checking
sources, and paying attention to moderation patterns, and meta-posting
behavior. So even if the original content it is based on is from a dubious
source, the change in perception it evokes is still useful enough to warrant
the occasional resurrection to the front of the public consciousness.

I'd also like to point out to you your post here, in the MKUltra thread, where
you admit to it seeming more reasonable that governments would utilize
disinformation campaigns rather than drugs.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21165647](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21165647)

>The goal? Probably not. The means? Probably. I believe it's more effective in
modern society to influence people through disinformation campaigns and
popular culture, particularly though social media, than attempt to control
them like puppets by secretly dosing them with LSD and barbiturates.

I was going to reply there, but I thought it might be poor form seeing as this
submission was based off of something I mentioned. Point being; it never hurts
to take into consideration there may be a man behind the curtain every once in
a while.

Just... Don't let it consume the rest of your life. Either way, I specifically
dropped references to it in Hong Kong threads based on some fishy patterns I
was noticing in the hopes it might help out a Hong Konger or two develop more
resilient strategies to any possible attempts to utilize any of those
mentioned controls against them. I don't know if it helped, but I doubt it
hurt.

>FFS it even says one of the signs of a "Disinformationalist" is not believing
in conspiracy theories...

So you ignored the most important parts (forum sliding, consensus cracking,
infiltrating moderation, high level political/press management techniques,
etc...) and jumped straight to the most dated, divisive, and clearly
dismissable and irrelevant piece?

I didn't think a single contrived example would so effectively neutralize all
the other useful information in there.

Anyway, take it or leave it. I'm just interested in people knowing that this
stuff can happen, as it seems to me that knowledge that the techniques exist
tends to confer some level of resilience against them.

~~~
krapp
>So you ignored the most important parts (forum sliding, consensus cracking,
infiltrating moderation, high level political/press management techniques,
etc...) and jumped straight to the most dated, divisive, and clearly
dismissable and irrelevant piece?

No.. I literally started my comment pointing out that it would be useful for
pointing those things out:

 _This clearly describes a number of methods that can be used by trolls and
bad actors to disrupt a forum._

What I objected to is its utility in uncovering "disinformation agents,"
plants, spooks, spies, etc. Most of what's described in it is the normal low
bar for any argumentative forum, biases and cognitive fallacies that anyone -
particularly those of a paranoid persuasion - might fall prey to, and the
result of taking it seriously will be to see bad actors everywhere.

And there's already too much of that sort of baseless paranoia on HN. People
accusing each other of being shills or agents, or seeing nefarious motives
behind the site's moderation. My point was that people should be just as
critical of that as anything else.

------
0_gravitas
A credit to
[https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=salawat](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=salawat)
for mentioning this in a thread.

Resource here features the following lovely topics:

```

1\. COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet
forum

2\. Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

3\. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

4\. How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)

5\. Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

```

------
dang
A thread from 2014:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7329162](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7329162)

Discussed at the time:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4277278](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4277278)

------
papermachete
What's a 'gentleperson'? You mean 'gentleman'?

~~~
defertoreptar
Merriam Webster:

> Gentleperson -- a gentleman or lady

I wouldn't say it rolls off the tongue well, but it's technically correct
usage.

~~~
papermachete
Absolutely devilish.

