This sounds a lot like the social engineering strategies of an egomaniac.<p>He submarines a MooC course to see how much attention the mysterious nature of his actions garner. Humans are naturally curious and not accustomed to being blatantly manipulated from a person in a position of authority.<p>The choice of material that he was supposed to teach is indicative of the premeditated nature of the ruse. The course was intended to appeal directly to profs who are having difficulty transitioning to the new model of online teaching. What better way to recruit followers to an anti-MooC movement?<p>He states a shaky case about privacy with no evidence to back up the claims. Yet champions the cause as if he is some &#x27;freedon fighter&#x27; of privacy rights.<p>Then follws up by sending legal notices to the MooC&#x27;s to draw even more attention to his made up cause. All to garner public sympathy and exploit the fact that large organizations default to putting a gag order on public comment when litigation is involved.<p>For what? Increase twitter followers? Claim the throne as the head of the profs fighting to stop MooCs? Extract a tidy settlement? Collect &#x27;research&#x27; to publish some bullshit paper about &#x27;gaming&#x27; the system?<p>Sounds like a prof who who spent too much time studying game theory, is trying <i>really</i> hard to become the Kim Kardashian of academia. Ala sensationalism is the shortcut to fame.<p>I&#x27;d be willing to bet the legal injunctions get dropped before a legal case ever materializes, yet that doesn&#x27;t matter. He&#x27;s trying to cash in on the perceived goodwill of his actions.<p><i>That&#x27;s</i> the purported experiment that then prof has been &#x27;unconsciously planning for years&#x27;.<p>I wonder what kind of mind fuck of cognitive dissonance a person has to go through to reach this point.