[eisisiiddjjssi]

I'm, like, not familiar at all with stylometry on a working basis, so this is absolutely just, like, my opinion, man. But the few examples I've seen of it were far more likely to bunch up subject choice than style e.g. all ethics to one heap, all metaphysics to another, regardless of author. And if you control for something like that (pet subject?) I don't know how much information would remain in the purely structural information of the text i.e. comma placement choice, but I'd guess it's fairly low. There are only so many ways to say things, and even then there are people seem to go straight to the point.

You'd only make yourself identifiable by railing about the same things over and over again, and I think this is something you don't even need a machine to pick up.

[h0p3]

That seems to be more about intention, and I'll agree that even style can be intentionally selected, my dude. Perhaps there are larger leftover pieces, gaps, or other footholds to consider here. I'll agree you might not even need a machine, but I am concerned about unjustifiable ML-empowered humans sifting even more effectively for justified dissidence through style, sentiment, and semantic analysis. Do you think this is an arms race that is won by hand?

I'm not saying I disagree with you. I want to know more about what you think.