Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The death of the private citizen?

spectator.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 120 posts

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#21

Post by op03 »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #4
sandworm101 wrote: post #2

All 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.

Things will change. It's not a static world.

The wild west period is over where companies or people could do whatever they felt like with personal data. Forget about privacy advocates, mgmt in many data hoarding companies have suddenly realized it effects them too, their kids, their parents, their employees, clients etc etc.

We just fired someone at work recently for moving customer data off site. Few years back no one would have batted an eyelid. Not only was data moving all over the place, few people had any idea who all had access or in what ways the data could be used. Today after one debacle after another, 200 alerts go off if people touch the wrong data.

But there is so much inertia behind what has happened over the last 10 years that it will take some time for people to see the trajectory change.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#22

Post by swayvil »

radomysisky wrote: post #19
tspike wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We might intentionally choose to quell the infidel, but the quelling-urge is implicit to ideology-attachment, I think.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#23

Post by briefcomment »

swayvil wrote: post #8

I 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…

Is the solution numerous hyper localized governments, with highly limited federal government, so people can choose the policies they are subject to for the most part by changing where they live?

In the situation where federal government has the clout it does, people feel slighted when they are not in the majority, and may find anarchy better than living under rules they don't like.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#24

Post by dragonwriter »

MR4D wrote: post #17
swayvil wrote: post #8

I 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.

Mob rule is not anarchy.

Arguably, it's one of the risks of democracy that motivates anarchists. (Now, there's a case to be made that anarchy also risks devolving into mob rule by a different path than non-anarchic democracy does, but they still aren’t the same thing.)

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#25

Post by anon_cow1111 »

swayvil wrote: post #8

I 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…

As a counterpoint, I would say it is a conscious act... but on the part of those who enable and amplify the ideological friction as a for-profit business model.

Providing a public forum by itself isn't bad, of course. The algorithms driving that infinite-scrolling news feed and recommendations list definitely are, at this point.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#26

Post by dragonwriter »

ycombonator wrote: post #5

So 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.

> So NYTIMES policy is to Dox their sources ?

Both revealing facts about the subjects of news pieces and offering the subject the opportunity to contribute at iroutine in journalism, and, yes, that generally includes clarifying the identity of the subject if possible.

A subject, merely by being offered the opportunity to be heard, does not transform into a protected source.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#28

Post by zozbot234 »

So, the SSC outing/doxxing story is now hitting the Spectator, National Review, Washington Examiner and Free Beacon websites, at least. It will probably spread to other parts of the mainstream media soon enough. How the NYT will react to this whole ruckus is anyone's guess, but sticking to their previous policy of publishing the article without removing sensitive info would be pretty hard at this point. Quite amazing, regardless.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#29

Post by MR4D »

dragonwriter wrote: post #24
MR4D wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re correct, then democracy will devolve into mob rule, which means anarchy. That’s not a pretty thought.

Mob rule is not anarchy. Arguably, it's one of the risks of democracy that motivates anarchists. (Now, there's a case to be made that anarchy also risks devolving into mob rule by a different path than non-anarchic democracy does, but they still aren’t the same thing.)

Good point. Mob rule is arguably much more dangerous.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#30

Post by wahern »

briefcomment wrote: post #23
swayvil wrote: post #8

I 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…

Is the solution numerous hyper localized governments, with highly limited federal government, so people can choose the policies they are subject to for the most part by changing where they live? In the situation where federal government has the clout it does, people feel slighted when they are not in the majority, and may find anarchy better than living under rules they don't like.

I don't see how that would work any better than it has previously. For example, the American South has generally been the more laissez-faire region in the U.S. but the North has remained the industrial powerhouse, despite itself according to mainstream intuition. I think people misunderstand and chaff under many of the very same policies that make them wealthy. We want contradictory things.

Anyhow, mobility is lower today than in recent American history, both in terms of costs but also in terms of desire. Decades ago moving around for a job was normal; it was a common motif in film and television. These days politicians literally run on platforms supposedly preserving your ability to never have to move. We expect jobs (and governance) to come to us, rather than the other way around.

Post reply on HN