A consequence of modern technology is that you can make very detailed worlds blink in and out of existence by sliding a fader. Enter a number for a noise threshold. Black. Enter a different number. A universe of life pullulates on the screen, florid, dense, intricate as a dendriform fractal. Enter a third, the universe goes dark again. The awe of easily creating something from nothing is cancelled by the fact that your creation can be consigned to the nonexistence with equal ease. Does changing a variable and creating a city that advance the reality of that variable, or remove the reality of that city?

The trick is that technological representations of the world don’t capture the full spectrum of what’s going on. Much like biological senses (heard any good frequencies at 22kHz lately?), they only give us part of the world. A selectively-chosen slice.

Without such filtering, our surroundings would be literally incomprehensible. A meteorologist doesn’t need or want to know the position and angular velocity of every single air molecule on the ground. That would just choke the system with noise, and make eyeball-level analysis of the data impossible. So he views simplified versions of the wind and rain, with the movement of cloudfronts simplified to just a few vectors. This means missing out on fine-grained local scenarios, but that’s fine, so long as he possesses the big picture.

But sometimes the big picture is enclosed within the small picture.

In the late 2000s, drone warfare saw a doctrinal change. Where drones had once been used to eliminate targets in moving cars, now they were striking buildings in dense city centers.

Basically, a missile striking a car leaves a pile of flaming wreckage. It’s visible to everyone. A missile hitting a building will punch a small hole through the roof, and explode inside the building, out of sight. Both will kill, but only one of them makes a mess visible from the air.

This change wasn’t prompted only by tactical concerns, but by propaganda. Coalition forceswanted to fight terrorism in a silent, photogenic way, without giving their enemies PR victories. The mid 2000s saw a dismal march of videos and footage  that you can probably remember and name – Abu Ghraib, Collateral Murder, and so forth. The military would prefer that these incidents no longer happen. By incidents, I don’t mean the events themselves. I mean the fact that they were photograph and reached the media.

Millions of dollars are spent designing weapons that don’t look like they’re doing what they’re doing. The “Romeo” Hellfire II or AGM-114R was developed in 2009 and saw mass production in 2012. It features a special charge and delay fuse that adds a few milliseconds between impact and detonation. This allows the Hellfire II to pierce multiple layers of brick, adobe, and concrete before exploding. The fireball happens on the bottom floor, far out of view from the sky.

Remember that drones are used because they are perceived as more “humane” than traditional alternatives. Those who are caught inside their fury – a hailstorm of fragmented steel that shreds flesh from bone – would disagree, but the reality is that the US military would doing something worse if they didn’t exist. Drone strikes are saving lives, when you think about it. It’s cruel to not drone people.

The Hellfire II is used in places where journalists and human rights investigators can’t go. You can’t get reporters on the ground, seeing the fruits of the explosion. The only way to obtain images is from satellite photography.

Photography literally means painting or drawing with light. Digital photographs net the light. They render the infinitely complex detail on a grid of pixels. If an object is smaller than a pixel (and below a threshold for interpolation), it literally disappears. It’s a net, as a fisherman would cast. If the grid is too fine, it trawls up waste and uselessly small fish, eventually choking on its catch. Too big, and you let fish escape.

Satellites, far above the earth, fish for light with a rather loose net. In the 70s, Landsat earth-observation satellites recorded data at 60m/pixel.

At this resolution, the human race barely exists. 99% of our works disappear. Only the largest buildings are 60m long. A single pixel might contain an entire town, lurking unseen.

In the 80s and 90s, satellites refined the resolution to 30m/pixel and 20m/pixel. This is the moment where civilization begins to slide into visiblity. A chemical leak, large explosion, or mass grave might should be visible on a photograph.

This might be the point where it stops. Limitations of technology aside, we’re now the scale human bodies can be seen: a fraught ethical bridge to cross. Surely people have the right to not be watched by a sky-spanning satellite panopticon when they step out of doors. For years, publically-released photographs were legally not allowed to crop closer than this limit.

And as luck would have it, the Hellfire II makes a hole in buildings smaller than 0.5m/pixel – so these strikes technically do not exist, insofar as publically available satellite photography is concerned.

Gutted buildings. Shadows of men flash-burned into walls. All of it, disappeared. Technology does not only enhance our vision, it also degrades our vision, effectively disappearing war, combat, and geopolitical crime.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) tracked 380 strikes in Pakistan from 2004 to 2014. 62 percent (or 234 incidents) were targeted at domestic buildings. These drone missiles resulted in as many as 1614 civilian casualties in Pakistan alone. But they no longer exist.

Wherefore art thou Romeo?

Most scams are only viable at a small scale. Strangers in Paris might fasten a “friendship bracelet” around a snatched wrist and then demand payment for it, but this trick can’t go beyond a few tourists losing tiny amounts of money. If it becomes too common –  with Av des Champs-Élysées flooded with grifters offering bracelets – tourists will get smart and the grift won’t work. There will never be a billion dollar friendship bracelet industry.

There are only about three or four cons that work at scale (thank God). The most prevalent is the bagholder con: borrow money from some people, use their money to inflate your perceived value, borrow a larger amount of money from more people, and then use their money to repay the first.

This scales very well. In fact, it has to scale. The moment there are no new investors – when Paul wants his money back, and no Peter exists to rob – the scheme falls apart.

Ponzi schemes, pyramid schemes, MLM schemes, and stock market pump-and-dumps are riffs on this idea. Karl Marx identified capitalism itself as a bagholder con, requiring ever-increasing profits to support itself. Regardless of whether he was right, the con succeeds because it’s reminiscent of how real investment looks and works. “Today, you pay me x. Tomorrow, I pay you x(1+y).” This can be a healthy thing, rewarding risk-takers and people with vision. Done right, it is nothing less than fiduciary time travel, moving money from the future (where it’s useless) to the present (where it’s not).

“This thing will be worth lots of money tomorrow. If I just had enough cash to get it off the ground…” 

But in bagholder cons, the thing is worth nothing. It’s a lemon. It will have no value tomorrow, next week, next year; it is pluperfectly worthless except as the life support system for a speculation bubble. Sometimes there is no “thing” at all, just a wind-filled space. Charles Ponzi’s 1920 scheme (which involved the arbitrate of postal coupons) was exposed because it was physically impossible for Ponzi to be doing what he said he was doing: he’d have needed to mail hundreds of millions of coupons, exceeding all legitimate mail in circulation many times over.

The winners in such schemes are typically people who invest early, have the value of their share pumped by gullible “bag holders”, and then pull their cash out before reality reasserts and the price crashes to the floor.

The losers are the people who get in late, or those don’t sell – those who think that the price crash is some moral test the have to pass.

Technically speaking, anyone who invests in anything is a loser. There’s no way around it. Money has gone from your pocket to someone else’s. You might expect to regain it later, but until that happens and you cash out successfully, you have lost 100% of your investment. This is similar to how any money added to a poker pot should be regarded as lost money – until you win, it’s gone. But gambling is universally seen as either a fun game or a harmful addiction, while investment (at final evaluation, gambling with a business degree) is regarded as responsible financial behavior. You’re building the future! Maybe your own. Maybe someone else’s.

It’s psychologically interesting to watch scammed people in action. Some are innocent naifs who were duped into believing a bad investment was a good one (Charles Ponzi’s scheme was a good example). Sometimes, they’re doubly duped: they think they’re getting in on a scam’s ground floor when the actual mark is them (most MLMs fit this pattern). David W. Maurer’s 1940 book The Big Con describes how surprisingly few victims of cons actually believe the con was a legitimate way of making money. Instead, most believed they were being invited to rip off someone else.

But in either case, the mastermind behind the con does not want anyone to sell. This deflates the bubble, and the bubble’s the only valuable part. So you see conversational patterns cultivated that can only be called cultlike. Unquestioning devotion. Denial of any possible failure. Criticism isn’t tolerated. Questions aren’t asked. Delusional “yeah, we’re all at a party together! WOOO!” styles of rhetoric. There’s a specific way they talk that you don’t see from normal people.

I am suspicious when I see this sort of thing. Hype is a bad signal. It almost looks as if the hype is the entire point, and there’s nothing underneath.

(“hodler” in the second user’s name is affectionate slang for “holding” onto your Bitcoin instead of selling as the price starts to fall.)

In most cases, people with investments have little reason to talk about their investments. If I had a pirate’s treasure map, the last thing I’d do would be to brag about how cool it is to go looking for treasure, or how digging on remote islands will change your life. This can only hurt me, by increasing the odds that the pirate treasure will be found before I get there.

But suppose I didn’t have a pirate’s treasure map. Suppose my income actually came from selling fake maps. Then I might talk about it a lot.

But are cryptocurrencies Ponzi schemes?

The question illustrates a weakness in language. You can say no or yes and be right. Is it literally a Ponzi scheme? No. There are superficial differences. Ponzi schemes are centralized, run by a single criminal, and involve direct transfers of “new money” to pay off old investors. Bitcoin does not have these features.

But if you’re asking “does it share every interesting trait with Ponzi schemes”, I think this is the case.

Every promise of cryptocurrency having real-world utility has thus far failed to materialize. It’s slow, wasteful, expensive, and volatile. Mistakes are permanently written onto an immutable ledger, lost money can’t be recovered, and most solutions (such as “smart contracts”) involve tying the cryptocurrency back to a regulatory body, defeating its purpose.

Various companies adopted Bitcoin in light of the first bubble. Most eventually dropped it, some with frank admissions that it was not suitable for anything except a bubble. Stripe:

Our hope was that Bitcoin could become a universal, decentralized substrate for online transactions and help our customers enable buyers in places that had less credit card penetration or use cases where credit card fees were prohibitive. Over the past year or two, as block size limits have been reached, Bitcoin has evolved to become better-suited to being an asset than being a means of exchange.

Proper investment moves money from the future into the present. Cryptocurrencies do the reverse: move money from the present into the future. Tons of people are still “hodling” as we speak, trying to parlay their savings into a profit in the eternal tomorrow. Because they’ve been told to do so, by people who do not have their interests at heart.

You’ll notice that most cryptocurrency hype focuses, not on things crypto is doing now, but on things that it could do in the future. As David Gerard says, “could” is a misspelling of “doesn’t.”

But this is where we see the main difference between cryptos and Ponzi schemes. They’re bad differences. They

Charles Ponzi was one man. When he ended up in prison. Bitcoin, for example, doesn’t. It’s

Likewise, Ponzi proposed a simple. This could be readily tested against reality, and when it failed, his credibility vanished.

But Bitcoin has no way to fail. One almost thinks it was designed to have no way to fail.

There is no real endpoint Bitcoin is pointed toward. There are several. Evangelists say it will

• Bank the unbanked
• Separate money from the state
• Create a unified world currency
• Protect the economy from crashes
• Enable individuals to transact outside of a legal framework
• etc

Some of these ideas make no sense, and some fight each other. But that’s not the point. This multi-goal argument allows cryptos to continue to seem like a good idea no matter how badly a given prediction fails. It’s a decentralized Ponzi scheme. It takes the bubble and welds nearly unbreakable metal around it,  keeping the bagholders from selling.

Bitcoin is propositionally unfalsifiable. No matter how badly a given promise crashes and burns, there’s always going to be something else it could possibly do. You never have to look like an idiot for investing in Bitcoin. You do have to become an idiot, however.

Once, conspiracy theories were one-way traffic. David Icke wrote and his audience read, Alex Jones broadcasted and his audience listened.

Social media has changed this: most modern conspiracy theories are interactive affairs akin to ARGs, with the audience an active part of the process.^[1]If anything, traffic now goes the reverse direction, with memes and ideas flowing upward from the followers to the gurus. I used to read the Twitter feeds of people like The Praying Medic and … Continue reading A generation of seniors spend their golden years decoding “Q drops” instead of spending time with their grandkids. Armies of wine moms “research” the child trafficking epidemic going on in their neighborhood.

This participatory Scooby Doo-like quality – a group of friends, collectively solving a mystery – is addicting, and keeps people hooked. Instead of reading a David Icke book, you’re writing a David Icke book. You’re fed narratives that your research work is important, that you’re toppling dark powers from your armchair. Social media also lets you make friends with fellow conspiracists, forging an affinity network that’s hard to escape.

This social factor is particularly important, and the reason I don’t like the popular conception of cults as groups of crazy people. Many people inside them are there for rational reasons. ^[2]Branwen, Gwern. “Notes on Brainwashing & ‘Cults’ – LessWrong.” Less Wrong, 2013, www.lesswrong.com/posts/TiG8cLkBRW4QgsfrR/notes-on-brainwashing-and-cults. It’s where their friends are. If they leave the cult behind, they leave their friends behind. Fear and loneliness are powerful motivators, and ones we’ve all got to watch out for – I can recall times when I did things due to peer pressure that I wouldn’t have done otherwise, and I’m sure you can too. The default behavior of any group of humans – be it the #SaveOurChildren movement or a mainline church or a lawn darts league – is to gradually slide toward conformism and groupthink. It takes no effort at all to become a cult. It’s actually the reverse: a group must actively expend effort to not become one.

So where’s the line? Where does a group of friends “break bad”, and become a delusional, reality-denying cult? Is there even such a point?

A useful litmus test is to watch their reaction to having a theory disconfirmed. Do they accept it with humbleness and equanimity (“wow, I guess I was wrong!”)? Or do they shut their eyes, and jam their fingers in their ears?

You might explore a question like:

Did Jeffrey Epstein’s girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell – aka inmate number 02879-509, currently facing sex trafficking charges in Manhattan federal court – run a reddit account called /u/maxwellhill?

The theory’s details can found at the Daily Mail, and the Sun, and other places. It has existed for years, making the rounds whenever Ms Ghislaine’s perennial legal saga appears in the news.

/u/maxwellhill was a notorious power user, as powerful as a Redditor can become without actually being employed by the site. He was the user with eighth highest link karma, the first user to hit a million karma total, and the moderator for a slew of front-page subreddits (r/worldnews, r/politics, r/science, and r/technology). He had immense influence in shaping the site’s discussion, and his modding style was controversial.

(NB: I use “he” because /u/maxwellhill described himself in a 2010 Redditor of the Day profile as married 40 year old man. /u/hasharin, another reddit mod, has claimed that /u/maxwellhill lives in Malaysia, with the name being a reference to a local landmark.)

This all matters because the Epstein story involved a network. He was friends with the most wealthy and powerful people of the age – presidents, businesspeople, royalty. They flew on his plane and stayed at his island. How far did Epstein’s influence reach? Who knows what? Who did what? These questions are like maggots in Epstein’s corpse, wriggling years after his death, and if his girlfriend was esconced in Reddit’s inner circle and armed with a banhammer, then the 19th largest website lies inside the Epstein contamination zone too. A lot of Reddit’s main players – Alexis Ohanian, Steve Huffman, Ellen K Pao – become suspect, as do many past and current policy decisions.

If /u/maxwellhill was Ghislaine Maxwell, it would be “srs business”, as they used to say. Very well. Let’s study this serious business’s incorporation papers.

Believers cite the following evidence:

1. Ghislaine’s last name is Maxwell

2. Gaps in /u/maxwellhill’s post history line up with significant events in Ghislaine Maxwell’s life

2.a When Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested, /u/maxwellhill stopped posting.

3. A few biographical details kinda match.

4. /u/maxwellhill promotes child p*rn and wants to lower the age of consent

5. There isn’t a fifth one

You might find the above evidence persuasive. Or you might find it too thin to risk accusing an innocent of being party to child sex abuse. You might also recall (from your first day on the internet) that the person making the claim has to provide the evidence.^[3]Conspiracists have the perfect dodge for this, though – they’re “just asking questions“. They’re not making a falsifiable claim. They’re just idly speculating that … Continue reading

Regardless, do these claims hold water?

1. Ghislaine’s last name is Maxwell

“Everything is connected” is a common conspiracist trope, but it’s startling to see it appear so bluntly. Two people have the same name, so they’re the same person, I guess?

“Maxwell” is not a rare name; howmanyofme.com suggests there are 81,736 Maxwells in the United States. The number worldwide might run into the hundreds of thousands. My father’s middle name is Maxwell.

It’s not believable that Ghislaine Maxwell (faking an elaborate identity as a married Malaysian man) would commit such an elementary error as using her real name. Did she want to hide her identity, or not? If so, why not pick a fake name? If not, why invent fake biographical details?

I put this to a believer on Twitter, and he replied:

Lots of people have weak information security practices. Trying to throw people of your scent by changing a few details is a common tactic, and not an unreasonable one for someone who wasn’t (at that time) particularly high-profile.

Is creating a stealth account under your real name a “weak information security practice”? I’d call it the most obviously self-defeating thing you could possibly do. This is as plausible as a Michelin-starred chef performing the “weak culinary practice” of taking a shit in the cordon bleu sauce.

(As a side note, it’s claimed that “hill” is a reference to Ghislaine’s father, whose birthname is Ján Ludvík Hyman Binyamin Hoch. Hoch is supposedly German for hill. But the correct word for that is hügel; hoch just means tall or high.)

2. Gaps in /u/maxwellhill’s post history line up with significant events in Ghislaine Maxwell’s life

Question for believers: have you investigated this for yourself? Or were you told it by someone else and assumed it was true?

Here’s the argument in more detail.

The usage of the account lines up to Ghislaine’s public activities with an almost spooky accuracy. The rare instances where the account logged off the site for more than a day at a time align with big events in Maxwell’s life, including the wake of Ghislaine’s mother’s death. They were also MIA during the much-discussed Kleiner Perkins party where, funnily enough, former Reddit CEO Ellen K. Pao recently claimed she saw her in attendance. This lines up with u/MaxwellHill’s own statement in an interview the user gave to Gizmodo during this period, saying “I am also busy with a potential business venture that is taking a large part of my time, but I try to squeeze in the odd link when I have the time…” What better place to do business than at a party for Silicon Valley VCs?

So…two events. The Kleiner Perkins party, and the death of her mother. But they line up with almost spooky accuracy!

This user has an interesting definition of a “big event”. Does attending a party count? Ghislaine Maxwell was a socialite who attended dozens of parties a year. Note that the Kleiner Perkins party occurred in 2011,  at which point Ellen K Pao worked at an investment firm (she wouldn’t become Reddit’s interim CEO for another three years.)

Regardless, we have a testable hypothesis:

“Whenever Ghislaine Maxwell attends a party or an event, /u/maxwellhill goes silent.”

Here’s /u/maxwellhill’s comment archives. Tagged Getty Images photos allow us to partially reconstruct Ghislaine Maxwell’s public appearances. Let’s match them up and see what we find.

(Click the below image to open the file in Google Sheets. Most original data by /u/f_k_a_g_n on Reddit, with formatting and corrections by me)

No clear pattern emerges from the tea leaves. /u/maxwellhill posts 30, 37, and 39 times on dates coinciding with Ghislaine Maxwell events. He posts zero times on a date (2015-01-05) when Ghislaine was apparently just hanging around her Manhattan townhouse.

It’s hard to see why attending a party would mean you can’t post on Reddit for 24 hours. Don’t parties only occupy part of the day? Doesn’t even the busiest socialite have moments of free time (when travelling in a plane or limo, for example?) Aren’t most people constantly on their phones at parties anyway? Wouldn’t a rich person hire a PA to grind out links even on days when they were busy, or use a tool like Buffer to queue up posts in advance?

Nevertheless, this is the theory the conspiracists have provided. If you think it’s stupid, blame them, not me. Either way, it doesn’t survive contact with reality.

3. A few biographical details kinda match

/u/maxwellhill says he was born in December, just like Ghislaine Maxwell. This is an amazing coincidence: very few people are born in December. Probably less than nine or ten, total.

The theory is internally inconsistent as always: if Ghislaine was going undercover (fake age, fake sex, fake place of residence, fake marital status, etc), we’d expect her to provide a fake birth month, not a real one.

Ghislaine had an interest in environmentalism, founding the NPO and possible tax scam The TerraMar Project. /u/maxwellhill was also interested in this – /r/environment was one of his most frequent haunts.

But you can’t focus on this similarity and ignore the ways their interests differ. /u/maxwellhill mostly posted about US politics, from the vapid center-left “Orange Man Bad!” perspective that constitutes Reddit’s background radation. (click to enlarge).

Ghislaine Maxwell is on record – literally – as claiming to be Donald Trump’s friend.  “Maxwell bragged that she was friends with “lots of famous people” like Prince Andrew and former President Donald Trump, Kate said, according to reporters in the courtroom, corroborating last week’s testimony from an alleged victim who said she encountered the two men while being trafficked by Maxwell and Epstein as a teenager.” They’ve been photographed together numerous times.

But we’re supposed to ignore this. When Ghislaine’s interests match /u/maxwellhill’s, it means something. When they don’t match, it means nothing (either that or it still means something – /u/maxwellhill is trashing Trump as a deliberate disinformation strategy. Dig deeper! We’re through the looking glass here!) This is classic conspiratorial thinking: we’re supposed to remember the hits and forget the misses.

Don’t go to a casino if you’re persuaded by stuff like this. You’ll leave wearing a barrel.

3a. When Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested, /u/maxwellhill stopped posting

This is the big one. The entire reason the theory exists. On 28th of June, 2020, /u/maxwellhill posts publically for the last time. Ironically, he’s promoting a conspiracy theory himself.^[4]RussiaGate

On the 2nd of July, police raid Ghislaine Maxwell’s New Hampshire estate and place her under arrest. /u/maxwellhill is never heard from again. After posting dozens of times a week for over fifteen years, he’s gone. No goodbye post. No “I’ve gotten bored of Reddit and I’m taking a break” explanation. Just silence.

If this was true, it would be the strongest piece of evidence so far.

But it’s not.

I’m sorry to tell you this, but /u/maxwellhill did post after the 2nd of July. Just not in public. He continued to perform moderator duties, interact with staff members, and answer private messages. Here’s a conversation between /u/hasharin and /u/maxwellhill that happened on the 9th.

Additionally, here’s evidence that /u/maxwellhill made a post inside a private subreddit, nine days after the “Tr45son” one.

This seems pretty bad for the theory. With Ghislaine Maxwell in jail awaiting charges, /u/maxwellhill is casually swapping PMs with reddit moderators and spitballing around policy ideas. How could they be the same person?

“Ghislaine Maxwell is a wealthy woman, bankrolling high-powered attorneys. She could easily contrive to have unmonitored internet access for a few moments.”

Maybe. She has odd priorities if this is how she spends them. I’m imagining a scene from an upcoming biopic.

INTERIOR – METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER – NIGHT.

GHISLAINE is wringing her hands in a dimly lit JAIL CELL, begging her LAWYER to let her use his phone.

GHISLAINE: “Please! It’s urgent! I…I…I have to moderate /r/technology! People are spamming it with dickbutt! Fucking dickbutt! /u/hasharin needs me!”

She sobs uncontrollably.

(I’m sure /u/hasharin regrets sharing these messages, based on how his Twitter replies are full people accusing him of faking them and being part of the Ghislaine/Reddit pedo ring. No good deed goes unpunished.)

I’ve heard it argued that maybe Ghislaine Maxwell delegated the account to an assistant. This defense destroys the original argument: if /u/maxwellhill was not controlled by Ghislaine Maxwell, what does her disappearance prove? And why wouldn’t this supposed assistant at least post a few messages in public to completely discredit the theory?

None of it adds up. Unless you consider the most boring and obvious answer. Then all of it adds up.

So where did /u/maxwellhill go? I don’t know. It’s possible that thousands of PMs from insane people calling him a pedo have soured him on Reddit. There’s no point in him posting publically again. Anything he says now will be slammed with downvotes, because half the internet is convinced he’s secretly Jeffrey Epstein’s girlfriend and will likely remain convinced regardless of the evidence.

The conspiracy theory is like their toy. They’ve invested a lot of time into it, and they don’t want it taken away.

4. /u/maxwellhill promotes child p*rn and wants to lower the age of consent

No. This is a lie, then another lie.

The venality of the internet still surprises me. /u/maxwellhill was a news junkie who posted thousands of stories. It’s inevitable that some would involve child sex abuse. To quote one or two out of context and claim they mean he approves of child abuse isn’t even dishonest in a clever way. It’s just embarrassing, like scrawling “/u/maxwellhill is a poopie head!” on a toilet wall.

Specific claims:

“[he] posts articles about why we should legalize child exploitation material” – this is an /r/worldnews submission about a noteworthy figure who has made a controversial statement. There’s no indication that /u/maxwellhill agrees with or approves of Mr Falkvinge’s statement.

“[he] gripes about over-zealous child protection laws” – nice well-poisoning by calling it “griping”, as if it’s unreasonable to not want innocent people accused of crimes. I hope people continue to “gripe” about that, as it’s a real problem that happens all the time.

[…] within hours, 111,000 people had seen the post. Farhad said the massive backlash he received saw him sacked from his job, his house spraypainted, a brick thrown through his window, and attempts made to petrol bomb his home, adding people also threatened his girlfriend and his pet. 

[…] Dure — who runs an online group called TRAP which uses sting operations to catch pedophiles trying to meet with underage children — was later arrested and admitted to falsely accusing Farhad of grooming teenagers at the Southampton Magistrates’ Court in August. He was jailed for 15 weeks by the presiding Judge Lorraine Morgan.

The message explicitly condemns pedophilia, by the way.

“Discusses age of consent in various countries here and here“ – wording as strategic as a Spassky chess move. This user doesn’t actually quote what /u/maxwellhill said about the age of consent, just that he was “discussing” it. He knows you’ll imagine the worst. He knows you won’t click the link.

I have, though. The first link is a selectively screencapped thread that removes /u/maxwellhill’s first reply, where he expresses shock that the age of consent is so low in certain states. “13 years old?! The mind boggles.” In the second link, he hopes that the Italian police will prosecute someone for pedophilia. In neither link does /u/maxwellhill endorse pedophilia – in fact, he’s doing the opposite.

Here’s a question for believers: do you think Ghislaine cared what the age of consent was? 

Seriously, are you smoking crack? Do you think Ghislaine and Epstein needed anyone’s permission to abuse children?

Neither he nor she gave one fuck about the law. The did whatever they wanted to whoever they wanted, counting on their wealth, power, and societal connections to shield them from consequences. And given that it it took decades (and enough victims to fill three entire schoolbuses) before some semblence of justice was served, were they really wrong?

Creepy people with strong opinions on age of consent laws exist. Neither Epstein nor Ghislaine fit that profile. They weren’t standing on a soapbox advancing a pro-ephebophilia agenda – millionaires have more effective ways to do that than to thanklessly moderate /r/technology for ten years. I doubt they thought about the morality of their actions at all, any more than Ted Bundy arrived at a morally calculated decision to murder hitchhikers. The only questions he asked were “will I enjoy it?” and “will I get caught?” Bundy’s relationship with right and wrong was the relationship a blind man has with the colors red and blue. An intellectual, unfeeling one. Bundy, like Epstein, was a sociopath.

(Irresponsible speculation hour: although allegations of sexual abuse exist have been directed specifically at Ghislaine, I don’t believe she was a pedophile. She seems to be a completely amoral individual who went along with her boyfriends’ wishes to gain access to his money and network. The details didn’t matter – if Epstein’s kick had involved sewing cute little bobble hats for pugs, she would have helped him do that instead.)

There is a manic, irrational tone to the way people talk about child abuse online. Something about the topic just incinerates peoples’ brains. If patriotism is the last refuge of the vicious, “think of the children!” is one of the first, though it’s interesting to contrast the fanatic posturing above (“linking to an article about pedophilia proves you’re a pedophile!”) with the fact that it took so long to bring a real pedophile to justice.

Remember the #SaveOurChildren types I linked at the start? How many actual children have they rescued? How many actual pedophiles have they caught? It’s probably a number bounded tightly around zero. Their activities consist of waving signs and accusing celebrities. The police want nothing to do with them. Everything they do is pure theater. They’re not actually helping the problem.

It’s good that witches didn’t exist in the Middle Ages. The witchfinders probably wouldn’t have caught any of them.

Other Observations

I’m >95% sure that /u/maxwellhill is not Ghislaine Maxwell.

If she is, then large numbers of people (the /r/worldnews mod team, for a start) are lying and/or forging evidence in the most incompetent way possible. It would also require Ghislaine to be both insanely cautious and stupid at the same time, the equivalent of someone locking their front door with three deadbolts and leaving the house keys on the doormat.

…And all of this is necessary to merely overturn the negative evidence, bringing us back to square one. A positive case still hasn’t been built. We don’t have much of a reason to think that Ghislaine controlled this particular Reddit account.

Naively, the chance of someone excelling in two different fields (being both high-profile socialite and having the 8th highest link karma on Reddit) seems small, particularly when there’s no way to parlay success in one to the other. It’d be like if the world’s fastest touch-typist was also a world-champion swimmer. Possible. Certainy not probable.

What about stylometry? Can that shed light on the matter? Are there stylistic parallels between /u/maxwellhill’s comments and Ghislaine’s writing?

Here are four things she’s written:

When the Oceans Failed^[5]“It’s December 2031, and my hand is tingling with an alert from Apple’s latest wearable technology…” – if God is just, the only wearable technology tingling in 2031 will … Continue reading

New Year, Old Challenges… For Climate Change

The New ‘Bait and Switch’ on Seafood

Tide Is Turning for Ocean Conservation

It’s not enough. Stylometry’s real-world successes all involve either highly distinctive writing styles (linguists catching Ted Kaczynski), or AI-based tools crunching through giant corpuses of writing (Stylo exposing Elena Ferrante as a pen name for Domenico Starnone). Without those things, you’re basically just performing statistical astrology, building pearls around meaningless grit and dust.

Little things stand out. For example. Ghislaine uses “—” (Unicode U+2014) for her em-dashes, while /u/maxwellhill prefers the minus sign “-” (Unicode U+2212), as you can see here.

This doesn’t prove anything; Ghislaine could have written articles on one device and Reddit posts on another, or the articles could be ghostwritten, or Medium/HuffPo’s CMS might automatically convert minus signs to em-dashes, or [insert a half-dozen other explanations].

A more profitable vein to mine would be to figure out /u/maxwellhill’s timezone.

You’d scrape the timestamps off his posts using Reddit API, plot them on a 24-hour chart, and see where the humps are. Do they plausibly coincide with the wake/sleep schedule of a person living at GMT-5, Eastern Standard Time? Malaysia is 13 hours ahead of NY, so we should be able to geographically “place” the account with some accuracy.

But it doesn’t matter and isn’t worth the effort. Nobody convinced by the theory would be unconvinced by this. They’d have some locally plausible but globally ludicrous explanation, like Ghislaine deliberately posting her Reddit messages at weird times to throw off pursuit. All while posting under her real name.

Many people are an emotional tail wagging a rational dog, and will believe because they want to believe, ignoring all evidence. They see disconfirmation as a test of faith to overcome, like an athlete powering through a tough spot on a marathon. In the immortal words of Steven Kaas, “You are not the king of your brain. You are the creepy guy standing next to the king going “a most judicious choice, sire”.

Here’s the boring truth.

/u/maxwellhill goes away on a holiday. He returns to find six thousand PMs screeching at him and calling him every name under the sun. He’s already very busy, and this is the final straw, killing his desire to contribute to Reddit. There’s no way to win, no way to prove he’s innocent. Anything he says will be spun and misrepresented as still more proof of a conspiracy.

So he does a little more moderation work behind the scenes, ties up loose ends, and then flushes this Reddit crapshake for good. A wise decision. If only we all were that strong.