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

61–70 of 120 posts

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#61

Post by evamvid »

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.

Well, yeah, for anonymous sources. A random blogger they're writing an article about usually isn't an anonymous source.

The ethics publishing name etc. are absolutely debatable, but the anonymous sources you are talking about are something completely different. Those are people who only agree to be sources for the story on the condition that their anonymity will be protected.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#62

Post by catalogia »

zozbot234 wrote: post #28

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…

It doesn't really seem they ever had such a policy. Not in a meaningful way anyway. There's a twitter thread filled with instances of the NYTs respecting pseudonymity.

https://twitter.com/hradzka/status/1275460707069210624

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#63

Post by Spooky23 »

This isn’t really new.

Based on the few encounters I’ve had with journalists, I cannot imagine a reason I would voluntarily interact with one unless I was reaching out for a reason.

5/7 interactions, the reporters were a lazy turds who strung together some drivel to meet deadline, missing key facts and mangling the story.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#64

Post by cortesoft »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #56
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.

Isn't mob rule what we have now? Isn't democracy effectively mob rule? Where the mob is the majority - being a majority is how they become the mob.

No, we (the United States) have a system that is supposed to protect against mob rule, and why we don't have a pure democracy. This is why we have a constitution that takes more than a simple majority to change.

The whole idea of laws being ruled unconstitutional is that there are some things that even the majority can't do.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#65

Post by Spooky23 »

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…

This happened in the early 20th century. Eventually things will be regulated and locked down.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#66

Post by [deleted] »

zozbot234 wrote: post #28

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…

[deleted]

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#67

Post by 0xy »

zozbot234 wrote: post #28

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…

This is par for the course for mainstream media outlets. In 2017, CNN threatened to dox an anonymous Twitter user making political memes.

I don't know why people continue to speak to these outlets while their records, actions and ethics are appalling.

The slide into clickbait and yellow journalism over the last few years has been devastating to the industry. There isn't a major outlet left that hasn't been behind some whopping journalistic errors (usually repeatedly). Not even self-described neutral outlets like AP are immune.

At this juncture, I'd sooner trust an independent journalist with 50k followers and a handheld camera on YouTube than a major news outlet.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#68

Post by coldtea »

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.)

Mob rule is not anarchism (the ideology).

It is however anarchy (the term), which is much older, and used to convey precisely lack of order and mob rule.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#69

Post by [deleted] »

dragonwriter wrote: post #6
dvtrn wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Both publishing on your own blog and publishing true, not-legally-protected facts about someone who owns a blog are exercises of free speech. It's not either/or.

[deleted]

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#70

Post by coldtea »

logicchains wrote: post #45
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.

Anarchy means "no ruler"; it's the opposite of mob rule.

That's anarchism.

Anarchy means no established order / ruler -- there can be tons of ad-hoc ones.

Post reply on HN