Re: The Barkto Incident

[Mitch Stone <mstone@vc.net>]

In reply to Brett Glass's message sent 4/11/98 11:34 AM:

>I believe that Microsoft's use of shills in online forums is widespread,
>and that it is naive to believe otherwise. It's too easy and too tempting
>a tactic. However, you are correct in that these incidents are chump change
>in comparison to the planned barrage on the mainstream media. Most 
>participants in online discussions know and expect that people may not be 
>who they say they are; it's part of the medium. (In fact, many members of
>the online community value privacy and anonymity enough that they consider
>the occasional appearance of an impostor an acceptable price to pay.) But 
>the print media are very different; there's a greater presumption of 
>legitimacy.

You'll find me expressing a certain degree of ambivalence with respect to 
this subject. I find myself trying to maintain a healthy degree of 
skepticism without indulging in an unhealthy level of paranoia. Not that 
I suspect you are wrong -- you may well be correct. There may very well 
be spooks in the woodpile. I find, however, that massive conspiracies are 
very difficult to organize and sustain, and hence, to keep quiet. I also 
wonder: where's the -pay off- in dedicating productive employee hours to 
participating in on-line forums?

>Editors will be particularly furious about the letter column issue. As 
>I've mentioned earlier, Microsoft has claimed that nothing covert would go 
>on -- but this is disingenuous in the extreme. No editor wants 
>"commissioned" 
>letters in his letter column, so the ONLY WAY those letters would see 
>print is
>if they were submitted under false pretenses.

I hope you're right. The Wash Post didn't seem to be sufficiently 
incensed, though. The papers certainly have divided loyalties.

   Mitch Stone
   Editor, Boycott Microsoft
   http://www.vcnet.com/bms 
 +---
   If you don't know where you want to go, we'll make 
   sure you get taken. --- Microsoft ad slogan, translated
   into Japanese.