AntiSocial Media, Slideshow Presentation by Judd Bagley Options

[Kato]

Here's Judd Bagley's slideshow presentation for anyone who might have missed it. The early part of his lecture covers the Naked Short Selling Financial Issue, gradually moving onto blogging problems, and finally detailing his experiences with Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia stuff is a must see.

You can cut in at any point of the presentation / lecture using the sidebar.

http://antisocialmedia.net/lecture1/player.html

*Update: Blog post about the lecture is here:

http://antisocialmedia.net/?p=158

LECTURE ON ABUSE OF SOCIAL MEDIA BY STOCK MANIPULATORS

I recently had the honor of lecturing a group of business students at the University of Texas, on the topic of abuse of social media by stock manipulators. I’ve merged the recording of the lecture with my slide presentation and make it available for you here.

I should also note that I found this experience to be a very positive one, and would welcome similar opportunities in the future. Please contact me via email at: antisocialmedia@gmail.com

[Cedric]

The only thing that mystifies me is what made Stroynaya think that this many times warmed over accusation would gain any significant purchase here now. Even houseflies have longer memories than she seems to attribute to us.

[Kato]

The only thing that mystifies me is what made Stroynaya think that this many times warmed over accusation would gain any significant purchase here now. Even houseflies have longer memories than she seems to attribute to us.

Well it works.

Wikipedia World is a swirling tempest. Controlling that Tempest in your favour is difficult but not impossible as Slim proved back in 2006-7. Wikipedios are a unworldly, obsessive bunch of nerds who will regurgitate any old crap if it suits. Old hands who know a bit about propaganda, manipulation, politics, presentation, conspiracy etc, can manipulate the mob any which way they choose. It is part Art, part Science.

Slim is really good at it. Witness the Lar trials, for example, where a fair few people were duped into going on the attack against Lar, relying on a fog of innuendo. Within a few days, the whole thing had morphed into inquiries into Lar's marriage, false claims of sexy undie pictures, and anyone who complained were accused of being "hostile" to the plight of women and living in the 1950s. That was some piece of work. And then it turned out that Slim's accusations at Lar last year, that dragged on for months were "never regarded as a big deal" anyway.

I mean, Spyware, Schmyware! What's in a word? What is important is that the opponent is "up to no good" - and it is essential that the oafish minions who roam the WikiVerse get behind that meme. The rest writes itself.

PS: Also, I forgot to say earlier that, judging by some of Cla68's edits, he appears to be based in the same state as Wordbomb.

[the fieryangel]

The only thing that mystifies me is what made Stroynaya think that this many times warmed over accusation would gain any significant purchase here now. Even houseflies have longer memories than she seems to attribute to us.

Well it works.

Wikipedia World is a swirling tempest. Controlling that Tempest in your favour is difficult but not impossible as Slim proved back in 2006-7. Wikipedios are a unworldly, obsessive bunch of nerds who will regurgitate any old crap if it suits. Old hands who know a bit about propaganda, manipulation, politics, presentation, conspiracy etc, can manipulate the mob any which way they choose. It is part Art, part Science.

Slim is really good at it. Witness the Lar trials, for example, where a fair few people were duped into going on the attack against Lar, relying on a fog of innuendo. Within a few days, the whole thing had morphed into inquiries into Lar's marriage, false claims of sexy undie pictures, and anyone who complained were accused of being "hostile" to the plight of women and living in the 1950s. That was some piece of work. And then it turned out that Slim's accusations at Lar last year, that dragged on for months were "never regarded as a big deal" anyway.

I mean, Spyware, Schmyware! What's in a word? What is important is that the opponent is "up to no good" - and it is essential that the oafish minions who roam the WikiVerse get behind that meme. The rest writes itself.

Well, let's follow this one step further: Everybody knows that Wordbomb = Judd Bagley, who is a free-lance journalist whose location everybody knows.

Lots of conjecture has been made, but we don't really know who SlimVirgin is, where she lives or what she does. That's fine with me, but it begs the question:

How much damage does it do when you say that "Judd Bagley" (real name) did all sorts of dastardly deeds? How does this affect his real life existence? Do you suppose that maybe he's lost work because of this stuff going on? I'd have to say that this is probably pretty damned likely.

How much damage does it do when you say that "SlimVirgin" (a screen name attached to a website, of which nothing else is known) has done all sort of dastardly deeds? Does it affect her real life existence? Has she lost jobs because of it? I'd have to guess that, no, she probably has not. She might not even be a 'she' for all that we know. So, this cannot be connected to her real existence.

That's the point, folks. Identity matters. If you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to lay your cards on the table and come out of your wiki-closets. You're going to stalked a hell of a lot less if you just stop playing this game with mirrors and masks and just say who you are.

As far as I'm concerned, Judd has something to beef about. A pseudonym has no rights at all.

[GlassBeadGame]

That's the point, folks. Identity matters. If you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to lay your cards on the table and come out of your wiki-closets. You're going to stalked a hell of a lot less if you just stop playing this game with mirrors and masks and just say who you are.

As far as I'm concerned, Judd has something to beef about. A pseudonym has no rights at all.

Stop over-reaching to make your point. Obviously if you are going to defame people, edit BLP's or hold positions of authority on a top ten website you should act under your real name. But of course for every bat shit crazy and reckless pseudonym on Wikipedia there is a corresponding bat shit crazy person using their real name. For every thoughtful critic using real names there is a thoughtful pseudonym critic.

The bat shit flies everywhere. In this environment why would anyone who has no authority and leaves BLP's alone want to reveal information, especially if they are critical of the bat shit and don't want put up with needless aggravation? Your over-reaching only chills dissent.

If you are going to harp on everyone to reveal information you are not entitled to you are going to undermine your better arguments.

[the fieryangel]

That's the point, folks. Identity matters. If you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to lay your cards on the table and come out of your wiki-closets. You're going to stalked a hell of a lot less if you just stop playing this game with mirrors and masks and just say who you are.

As far as I'm concerned, Judd has something to beef about. A pseudonym has no rights at all.

Stop over-reaching to make your point. Obviously if you are going to defame people, edit BLP's or hold positions of authority on a top ten website you should act under your real name. But of course for every bat shit crazy and reckless pseudonym on Wikipedia there is a corresponding bat shit crazy person using their real name. For every thoughtful critic using real names there is a thoughtful pseudonym critic.

The bat shit flies everywhere. In this environment why would anyone who has no authority and leaves BLP's alone want to reveal information, especially if they are critical of the bat shit and don't want put up with needless aggravation? Your over-reaching only chills dissent.

If you are going to harp on everyone to reveal information you are not entitled to you are going to undermine your better arguments.

We have a named individual who is having to justify his actions to a pseudonym. Why is it over-reaching to say that this is not fair because the named person's real life is in the balance and the pseudonym's real life is not? And why should anyone listen to a pseudonym when a named person has given out pretty much everything that can be known about him except whether he carries to the right or to the left?

The whole reason that this entire discussion is taking place is because people are being paranoid because they're hiding behind pseudos. That's the whole problem right there. The named individual is, by nature of what that entails, immediately more believable. That's just how that game works, my friend.

Just to calm this recurring discussion down once again (how many times have we had this already? five times? ten times? I've lost count): whatever I know about anybody is going to remain a secret. I'm not going to out anyone, ever. All that I'm saying is that once you're "out", a lot of problems go away.

I will continue to say this because it's a fact. Like it or not.

[GlassBeadGame]

That's the point, folks. Identity matters. If you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to lay your cards on the table and come out of your wiki-closets. You're going to stalked a hell of a lot less if you just stop playing this game with mirrors and masks and just say who you are.

As far as I'm concerned, Judd has something to beef about. A pseudonym has no rights at all.

Stop over-reaching to make your point. Obviously if you are going to defame people, edit BLP's or hold positions of authority on a top ten website you should act under your real name. But of course for every bat shit crazy and reckless pseudonym on Wikipedia there is a corresponding bat shit crazy person using their real name. For every thoughtful critic using real names there is a thoughtful pseudonym critic.

The bat shit flies everywhere. In this environment why would anyone who has no authority and leaves BLP's alone want to reveal information, especially if they are critical of the bat shit and don't want put up with needless aggravation? Your over-reaching only chills dissent.

If you are going to harp on everyone to reveal information you are not entitled to you are going to undermine your better arguments.

We have a named individual who is having to justify his actions to a pseudonym. Why is it over-reaching to say that this is not fair because the named person's real life is in the balance and the pseudonym's real life is not? And why should anyone listen to a pseudonym when a named person has given out pretty much everything that can be known about him except whether he carries to the right or to the left?

The whole reason that this entire discussion is taking place is because people are being paranoid because they're hiding behind pseudos. That's the whole problem right there. The named individual is, by nature of what that entails, immediately more believable. That's just how that game works, my friend.

Just to calm this recurring discussion down once again (how many times have we had this already? five times? ten times? I've lost count): whatever I know about anybody is going to remain a secret. I'm not going to out anyone, ever. All that I'm saying is that once you're "out", a lot of problems go away.

I will continue to say this because it's a fact. Like it or not.

Don't broaden this point further needed or you will find yourself isolated, again. We repeat this discussion over and over again because of your failure to understand a nuanced and reasoned position. Of course Judd has nothing to answer to SlimVirgin, an abusive admin of extraordinary authority and influence who has completely abused her use of a pseudonym. You are "known," like Proab, only because you failed to manage your own doxs. Then you both bitch and moan about it. Followed by complaining about people who have done a better job and do in no way abuse their own pseudonyms. This is hardly any great virtue. Knock the "like it or not" nonsense off. You make yourself look like an intrusive busybody.

[Proabivouac]

You are "known," like Proab, only because you failed to manage your own doxs. Then you both bitch and moan about it.

Ludicrous, GBG. My name became known because it was already known - I contributed under it for three years. I had never before had occasion to use a pseudonym, and hope to never have to again. When asked who I was, I told the truth, unlike certain cowardly liars who run this forum.

The main one bitching and moaning around here is you, Mr. Game, as your lies and misdeeds of your Wikipals are exposed. Last I heard, you were telling us that it’s perfectly acceptable for high-level Wikipedia administrators to use fake names, fake genders and fake credentials. Say, don’t you have an account over there? I hope you’re not impersonating a young woman like your colleagues - it would explain a lot, though, if you were.

Followed by complaining about people who have done a better job and do in no way abuse their own pseudonyms.

How would you know? Do you know who runs this site, for example? The last time a staff member here was identified, it didn’t look so good. Your watch, your fail. And you’re still failing away, because you’re too lazy to do any actual work, and lack the will and probably also the integrity to clean up your own house. What’s changed?

What Greg, Paul, Judd and Anthony are doing isn’t novel: it’s called setting an example. You’re setting one, too, come to think of it, and your rationalization about why it’s honorable for all of you, but not others, to hide behind pseuds is just a trivial component of that example.