You may wish to turn down the hyperbole, it's obscuring whatever point you have. He's not "building a career" here, he's teaching a class about historical hoaxes. What better way to teach than to demonstrate?
> does he also encourage lies in academic publications?
He's not encouraging lies at all in the first place. He's using carefully crafted lies as, like one of your repliers said, an intellectual vaccine against actual hoaxes.
He's helping inoculate his students and those aware of the hoax against gullibility in the future. How is that not a net benefit?
> I really question prof. Kelly's idea that expanding the skills base in the disinformation field is for the public good.
I think teaching people magic tricks enables them to deconstruct the magic show in front of them. Teaching them how hoaxes are constructed teaches them how to recognize and call them out in the future.
> Clearly it is to disable/discredit/damage/destroy the free exchange of valid information on the internet.
That's not clear at all.
It's interesting, you say "valid information" as if there's a clear way of recognizing information out there as valid. But there isn't. THAT's what his agenda is: how do we tell the real from the fake?
You may wish to turn down the hyperbole, it's obscuring whatever point you have. He's not "building a career" here, he's teaching a class about historical hoaxes. What better way to teach than to demonstrate?
> does he also encourage lies in academic publications?
He's not encouraging lies at all in the first place. He's using carefully crafted lies as, like one of your repliers said, an intellectual vaccine against actual hoaxes.
He's helping inoculate his students and those aware of the hoax against gullibility in the future. How is that not a net benefit?
> I really question prof. Kelly's idea that expanding the skills base in the disinformation field is for the public good.
I think teaching people magic tricks enables them to deconstruct the magic show in front of them. Teaching them how hoaxes are constructed teaches them how to recognize and call them out in the future.
> Clearly it is to disable/discredit/damage/destroy the free exchange of valid information on the internet.
That's not clear at all.
It's interesting, you say "valid information" as if there's a clear way of recognizing information out there as valid. But there isn't. THAT's what his agenda is: how do we tell the real from the fake?