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

31–40 of 120 posts

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#31

Post by dllthomas »

dragonwriter wrote: post #26
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.

This is right. Given the same source and the same testimony, the journalist should prefer the source be public. It's when a source agrees to speak on condition of anonymity that a journalist should protect that anonymity. If you ever speak to a journalist, remember that they are not offering you anonymity unless it's stated explicitly.

None of which is terribly germane here, where Scott Alexander's involvement in this story is principally as subject, not source. Protecting the privacy of subjects isn't really a thing, outside of minors and such. Whether particular choice of subject is reasonable is certainly up for discussion. We also may need a new category of "public figure but not". But this is not "doxxing their source".

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#32

Post by novok »

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.

You get other issues, such as NIMBYs not allowing new development in their towns as a form of defecting in a prisoners dilemma, which you often need a larger regional body to make it happen.

Or other issues of too many small governments, such as road networks, or regional transit.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#33

Post by lmm »

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.

That's not enough, because these social movements are already more powerful than national governments in many ways and cross national boundaries freely. We already see people getting fired in one country because of outrage in another.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#34

Post by julianeon »

I saw a comment on Twitter that what you're really seeing here is dueling philosophies, and I agree.

Ever heard the expression, Sunshine is the best disinfectant? I think you're seeing it's logical endpoint with the SSC story. And while it seems to have fallen out of fashion, for the most part, I agree.

It seems to me that no matter where you turn, when it comes to 'the truth and nothing but the truth' about someone or something, you face bad choices.

The problem with allowing some people to be pseudonymous sometimes is that immediately all kinds of bad actors will rush in and try to claim that in their defense. Polluters claiming anonymity because they don't want to be targeted by eco-terrorists, for example. Rather than parsing ever-smaller hair-thin rules about - legitimate - illegitimate - legitimate - and getting docked on every one on charges of political bias - there's an easier solution. Give no one pseudonymity. Problem solved.

The only exception - national security - doesn't require your agreement to accept; it just takes a willingness to not go to jail. It's an appeal to power, really. So you don't have to debate it on moral grounds, it's the law.

Incidentally, for all those stories where the NYT allowed pseudonyms, I agree there was an inconsistency, but my conclusion was: resolve it by publishing them all. Publish Bansky's name, publish Ferrante's name, publish the name of whoever wrote that tell-all book. Make that the norm, instead of half-applied psuedonyms.

Now if you arranged an interview with them about something other than their identity, and they agreed to talk to you on condition of you not revealing it - that's different. That news outlet can't break the story. But another one can. No exceptions. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

I do believe this in principle, believed it long before this story broke, and could be brought around to disallowing most anyone's pseudonymity, before this news became news. It doesn't matter to me at all what the content or leaning of the blog is. Whether they're left or right or 'good' or 'bad' - I believe in the secular version of 'you shall know the truth & the truth shall set you free.'

There is a cost, a real human one. But, rather like capitalism and democracy, it happens to be less than every other alternative. It's not great that people can't be pseudonymous - but it prevents worse problems.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#35

Post by MattGaiser »

vimax wrote: post #20
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.

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.

> anonymity to anonymous sources.

That is a trade. The journalist is trading anonymity for information as if they don't they will not get information.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#36

Post by [deleted] »

julianeon wrote: post #34

I saw a comment on Twitter that what you're really seeing here is dueling philosophies, and I agree. Ever heard the expression, Sunshine is the best disinfectant? I think you're seeing it's logical endpoint with the SSC story. And while it seems to have fallen out of fashion, for the most part, I agree. It seems to me that no matter where you turn, when it comes to 'the truth and nothing but the truth' about someone…

[deleted]

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#38

Post by perl4ever »

wahern wrote: post #30
briefcomment wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Decades ago moving around for a job was normal

People don't move for jobs any more? When did this happen, to what extent, and what's the source of the information?

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#39

Post by topkai22 »

wahern wrote: post #30
briefcomment wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you have a source for the statement about “the North has remained the industrial powerhouse?”

A brief, unscientific look at data from https://www.nam.org/state-manufacturing-data/ suggests that northern manufacturing output has been increasing nowhere near as fast as the south, but I’d love to see better data suggesting otherwise

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#40

Post by Infinitesimus »

radomysisky wrote: post #15

NYT 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. https://twitter.com/hashtag/ghostnyt

Do we cancel every org that makes a misstep? It might be more beneficial to write to NYT if you're a subscriber asking for change.
Post reply on HN