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

81–90 of 120 posts

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#81

Post by julianeon »

MattGaiser wrote: post #43
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…

>but it prevents worse problems. Like you, I also comment on the internet under my real name, so pulling back the curtain on everything else is an exciting prospect. But for that not to ever bite us, that requires that we never offend too many people, even for a brief second. I naturally stay within bounds, so that is fine for me, but I suspect many opinions would need to remain hidden if a war were waged on anonymit…

Well, I'd like to thank you for engaging me; you've thought about this too, and I respect that you post under your own name. I worry about that myself sometimes but I've decided it's worth it. But if you don't choose that - why can't you?

One thing I wanted to highlight is, I really think this is a thorny problem. There aren't easy answers. So here's a case that illustrates that.

Do you remember this story from a couple of months back, about the Worker's Traditionalist Party? The guy behind that got 'doxxed' and lost his job. But there was no outcry, because of his politics.

Now, I'm not dumb, and I know the real-world difference between that and SSC is, their politics were very different. But that's a problematic answer! It requires the NYTimes to gatekeep and it invites a thousand conflicts of interest of the worst kind - 'he's good, let him stay pseudonymous' vs. 'he's bad, so doxx him.'

One way to cut the Gordian knot is to say, there are no pseudonyms. There are no problems of fairness and partiality if you apply that rule to all.

It's also a simple rule to mentally hold in mind. Everybody is accountable for everything that they do. There are many forms of doing, like writing, and protesting. And anything that anybody does can be considered newsworthy.

I am sympathetic to SSC, and I hope he finds another way to continue - possibly by handing off the reins to others who can go public. I agree that it is a loss for his voice to no longer be heard. I'm just uncomfortable with making an exception for anyone, for the reasons outlined above.

Incidentally, for anyone posting under psuedonyms, please do take a moment to contemplate that, as this story illustrates, for better or for worse, you aren't truly anonymous. If you have some problematic posts, or writing you might regret, maybe consider deleting it? Consider this a kind tip while you can still do something about it.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#82

Post by nybble41 »

mc32 wrote: post #52
logicchains wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There is never “no ruler”. Someone always emerges who sets the pace, etc. True anarchy can only exist in very low density situations where population is very low and very sparsely settled. Let’s say fewer than 5 people per square mile actual (not average) on good land. One or fewer would be better. Rural Siberia -Yakutiya, Rural Mongolia. Colonial era trappers and such when they were not in town.

You seem to be confusing "leaders" with "rulers". It's fine to have someone around who "sets the pace" so long as they are willing to leave other people alone who aren't interested in doing things their way. Anarchy is about the absence of power relationships, not maximizing uniformity of roles or social disorder.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#83

Post by 0xy »

mc32 wrote: post #73
0xy wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 som…

Sadly NPR, and I don’t mean the local programming, are also prone to lapses in journalism—even though I give props to Greene and Shapiro. They’re usually pretty even keeled, unlike Bob Mondello who seems a bit narcissistic.

Less than 3 days ago NPR deleted a tweet (with no retraction) that heavily implied a person who was violently attacked in his vehicle and then sped away to avoid the violence was a "right-wing extremist" involved in a "vehicle-ramming incident" [1] -- with zero reference to the violent attack initiated on the vehicle.

[1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbEIlsUUcAACYht?format=jpg&name=...

Additionally, the protesters who attacked the vehicle were arrested, including one who brandished a gun at the vehicle and another who assaulted the driver. [2]

[2] https://www.wave3.com/2020/06/18/protesters-arrested-followi...

NPR's tweet came after the arrest and live video footage of the incident. They chose to run the story anyway.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#84

Post by hawaiian »

I am in no way a fan of the Failing New York Times (if I may quote a prominent contemporary statesman), but am I missing something by thinking that this is overblown? They haven't printed his name, only asked if they may do so. I also don't see where they threatened him with exposure, but the article claims they have.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#85

Post by jdashg »

dllthomas wrote: post #31
dragonwriter wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 thi…

It really doesn't matter if he's the subject.

> It may surprise some readers to learn that "Scott Alexander" is a pseudonym. Alexander tells us that he omits his last name for privacy and safety reasons:

> > I have a lot of reasons for staying pseudonymous. First, I’m a psychiatrist, and psychiatrists are kind of obsessive about preventing their patients from knowing anything about who they are outside of work. I am not one of the big sticklers on this, but I’m more of a stickler than “let the New York Times tell my patients where they can find my personal blog”. I think it’s plausible that if I became a national news figure under my real name, my patients – who run the gamut from far-left anarchists to far-right gun nuts – wouldn’t be able to engage with me in a normal therapeutic way. I also worry that my clinic would decide I am more of a liability than an asset and let me go, which would leave hundreds of patients in a dangerous situation as we tried to transition their care.

> > The second reason is more prosaic: some people want to kill me or ruin my life, and I would prefer not to make it too easy. I’ve received various death threats. I’ve had dissatisfied blog readers call my work pretending to be dissatisfied patients in order to get me fired. Although I realize I accept some risk of this just by writing a blog with imperfect anonymity, getting doxxed on national news would take it to another level.

> These concerns are tragically well-founded: Alexander tells us he recently learned that someone on SSC got SWATted in a way that they link to using their real name on the blog. While it's common to want to attach a real person to a pseudonym, piercing that veil publicly is not without serious risk.

That is the responsible thing to publish.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#86

Post by mindslight »

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…

Please, no. This is the same constricting paradigm that brought us all-sharing Faceboot with its "real name" policies. Many people use nyms to separate facets of their personality when interacting in different communities and contexts. If you don't personally do this that's your choice, but you don't get to make that decision for others who do.

Specifically in this case, Scott Alexander mentions that leaking his blog persona into his patient relationships would seriously impair them. And of course it would - patients should be talking to him about their own problems, not whatever topic he's written about on his personal time.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#87

Post by dllthomas »

jdashg wrote: post #85
dllthomas wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thi…

It really doesn't matter if he's the subject. > It may surprise some readers to learn that "Scott Alexander" is a pseudonym. Alexander tells us that he omits his last name for privacy and safety reasons: > > I have a lot of reasons for staying pseudonymous. First, I’m a psychiatrist, and psychiatrists are kind of obsessive about preventing their patients from knowing anything about who they are outside of work. I am…

> It really doesn't matter if he's the subject.

It matters to some questions, not to others. The accusation up thread was ill treatment of a source. That's not what is happening, and that angle muddies the water.

The question is what privacy we deserve, even when we choose to engage with society at large scale. It's worth discussing in water as clear as we can manage.

> That is the responsible thing to publish.

Sure, probably, lacking some aspect of Scott's identity that makes his full name important I think I agree.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#89

Post by Barrin92 »

0xy wrote: post #67
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 som…

>CNN threatened to dox an anonymous Twitter user making political memes.

I don't know what the particular context of this is, but there may very well be public interest in the identity of someone tweeting if it was controversial or political content reaching a large audience.

If you're posting on twitter and you're speaking to tens of thousands you also become part of public discourse, and that, generally means someone will investigate your identity. It never was any different.

The idea that one can speak publicly to a mass audience anonymously is a pretty new invention, and arguably not a good one.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#90

Post by throwaway4666 »

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.

What does 'mob' mean and how does it differ from 'majority'? The fact that the speaker is not part of it, maybe?
Post reply on HN