Maybe it’s not a bad thing.
Look up the etymology of idiot.
The death of the private citizen?
11–20 of 120 posts
Re: The death of the private citizen?
#12All of the examples in the article are people who spoke up about various things online that are clearly in the public interest. If you want to maintain a blog about a subject, if you want to speak out publicly and gain some sort of online rep, then you risk your identity being released. That's freedom of speech. If you are the author of a meme that becomes nationally significant (ie the president adopts it) then CNN…
That's freedom of speech. To avoid making an incorrect assumption, and reading this in context with the rest of your post: are you saying it's "Freedom of speech" if someone has a blog or "Freedom of speech" is having your identity revealed as the owner of said hypothetical blog? Just trying to make sure if I've read and interpreted your comment the way you're wanting it to be consumed and understood by people readin…
When you become a public figure, the press has the ability to come after you as a private person. That is the press exercising their freedom of speech. Many would say it is actually the duty of the press to investigate public figures and expose things like hypocrisy or conflicts of interest.
Would anyone here argue that an elected official operating an "anonymous" twitter feed for political purposes should not be exposed? What if they are just running for office? What if they are just a backer/patron of a political party? At what point does the public's interest in honest communication on public issues give way to the privacy of an individual wanting to speak publicly?
Re: The death of the private citizen?
#13All of the examples in the article are people who spoke up about various things online that are clearly in the public interest. If you want to maintain a blog about a subject, if you want to speak out publicly and gain some sort of online rep, then you risk your identity being released. That's freedom of speech. If you are the author of a meme that becomes nationally significant (ie the president adopts it) then CNN…
It is kind of crazy how many people can’t - or won’t - connect the dots about this. If you have an online presence you cannot be anonymous. Some of our parents, whether they know it or not, were actually pretty wise to tell millennials “everything you post online is forever.” The corollary being it will be linked back to you eventually.
> If you have an online presence you cannot be anonymous.
So "The Dead Past" (by Isaac Asimov) is our only option?
I reject that.
The problem is that our laws have not caught up to the fact that the Internet makes some things too accessible. We have too many things which link our personal identities exposed online because of the government which assumed that it was too much work to go to the county courthouse and look up a deed without good reason.
Now, that's not to say that someone determined cannot link things together. They obviously can. However, right now it's simply far too easy.
Re: The death of the private citizen?
#14I think that ideological groups "naturally" seek to quell all differing groups. Like dueling beehives. In decades past they could exist peacefully, insulated by a natural inability to communicate. An inability to rub against each other. But now we are in the age of communication. We have the internet. The sensitivity and power of the hive has grown vastly. It touches much that it never touched before. Various ideolog…
It would be naïve to believe the west is immune. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
Re: The death of the private citizen?
#15NYT subscribers: to cancel your subscription online, change your address to California and a button will appear allowing you to cancel immediately. Unsubscribing won’t change much, as they can afford it. What will is freezing them out.
By RTing #ghostnyt you commit to not talking to NYT reporters or giving them quotes. Go direct if you have something to say.
Re: The death of the private citizen?
#16I think that ideological groups "naturally" seek to quell all differing groups. Like dueling beehives. In decades past they could exist peacefully, insulated by a natural inability to communicate. An inability to rub against each other. But now we are in the age of communication. We have the internet. The sensitivity and power of the hive has grown vastly. It touches much that it never touched before. Various ideolog…
It would be naïve to believe the west is immune. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
I am curious what (if anything) OP wrote that leads you to believe OP thinks the west is immune?
Re: The death of the private citizen?
#17I think that ideological groups "naturally" seek to quell all differing groups. Like dueling beehives. In decades past they could exist peacefully, insulated by a natural inability to communicate. An inability to rub against each other. But now we are in the age of communication. We have the internet. The sensitivity and power of the hive has grown vastly. It touches much that it never touched before. Various ideolog…
If you’re correct, then democracy will devolve into mob rule, which means anarchy. That’s not a pretty thought.
Re: The death of the private citizen?
#18All of the examples in the article are people who spoke up about various things online that are clearly in the public interest. If you want to maintain a blog about a subject, if you want to speak out publicly and gain some sort of online rep, then you risk your identity being released. That's freedom of speech. If you are the author of a meme that becomes nationally significant (ie the president adopts it) then CNN…
> If you want to maintain a blog about a subject, if you want to speak out publicly and gain some sort of online rep, then you risk your identity being released.
No, you shouldn't risk your real-world identity being released. People have good reasons for having pseudonyms; Scott Alexander gave a number of them in his post explaining why he took down his blog.
Freedom of speech does mean being willing to stand behind your speech and defend it. But that can be done perfectly fine under a pseudonym. The reputation simply attaches to the pseudonym.
> If you want to be actually anonymous, I suggest not using facebook or any other online identity tied to your real name.
You do realize that you just contradicted yourself, right?
Re: The death of the private citizen?
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be naïve to believe the west is immune. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
I am curious what (if anything) OP wrote that leads you to believe OP thinks the west is immune?
OP says:
> This is not a conscious act. It's more like gravity. Gallivanting glaciers. Or weather.
I'm saying it's naïve to believe this, along with the other incidents mentioned within the article, aren't intentional. As if the west is immune to concerted censorship efforts and the only explanation is unconscious bias.
Re: The death of the private citizen?
#20So NYTIMES policy is to Dox their sources ? I don’t see them dox the opinion column of the famous “anonymous” government official or other tyrants.
I was always under the impression that journalistic integrity was staked on providing anonymity to anonymous sources. In the past it was something the most respected journalist would have gone to prison over, but in today's world I guess it's whatever keeps those click rates high.