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

101–110 of 120 posts

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#101

Post by ethanwillis »

evgen wrote: post #100
MattGaiser wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> Why can't ideas be allowed to exist on their own, detached from any known person? Perhaps because their formation was coloured by someone else's experiences and prejudices. Why is it wrong to want those who propose these ideas to take credit and responsibility so that we can examine the idea and the nature of the person who conceived the idea. These ideas exist to persuade; they should be examined as the rhetorical…

You're making an oversimplification of generating offense. You can be afraid of offending someone, but the idea that generates the offense can still be correct.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#102

Post by ethanwillis »

Infinitesimus wrote: post #40
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.

The best way to ask for change is to not patronize them.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#103

Post by zepto »

nybble41 wrote: post #82
mc32 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There can never be an absence of power relationships.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#104

Post by zepto »

catalogia wrote: post #62
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

So the individual reporter who spoke with Scott Alexander was just lying?

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#105

Post by zepto »

hawaiian wrote: post #84

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.

They didn’t ask. He asked them not to, and they refused and said they were going to publish the article about him even without his cooperation.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#106

Post by zepto »

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…

Sunshine is the best disinfectant is true if and only if someone thinks there is an infection.

What is your real name, bank account numbers, home address, employment history, medical records?

I strongly recommend against posting those, but I ask rhetorically because as a true believer in this philosophy you presumably would wish to disinfect yourself by doing so.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#107

Post by zepto »

sandworm101 wrote: post #12
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…

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 exp…

If the press has a duty to expose conflicts of interest and hypocrisy they should investigate themselves.

Let’s not kid ourselves. The press are political actors and nothing more. That isn’t necessarily avoidable in itself, but we get to decide what norms we expect them to follow.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#108

Post by wasdfff »

anon_cow1111 wrote: post #25
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.

The noise is by design, signal is drown out, by design. The last thing the ruling class wants is for the working class to put down their idealogical arms against each other and unite around shared economic interests. A poor white Republican and a poor black Democrat have a lot more in common than either would like to admit, but the focus on things like stretching the roe vs wade debate out over the past 50 years, or gun ownership, are wedges to drive apart what should be an overwhelmingly large and unified working class voting block.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#109

Post by someguyorother »

zepto wrote: post #103
nybble41 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There can never be an absence of power relationships.

In that case, the anarchists would try to find/develop a society that minimizes the number of power relationships.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#110

Post by dvtrn »

zepto wrote: post #107
sandworm101 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exp…

If the press has a duty to expose conflicts of interest and hypocrisy they should investigate themselves. Let’s not kid ourselves. The press are political actors and nothing more. That isn’t necessarily avoidable in itself, but we get to decide what norms we expect them to follow.

Let’s not kid ourselves. The press are political actors and nothing more.

"The press" is made up of tens of thousands of people making individual choices (within their individual editorial requirements) about what to cover, how and with what inflection towards a given topic or trend, are they all political actors? I suppose if one takes "the person is political" calculus far enough, they might be.

It's been my experience people tend to like the news sources they've self-selected as trustworthy and reliable, and complaints about "the media" are usually borne out of a specific gripe, not anything that can actually be provably shown as an accurate generalization of every single outlet that generates news content.

This is not to attack or refute your position, this is just idle conjecture and pondering the topic.

Post reply on HN