Blog Anonymously • Hacker News Board

Re: Blog Anonymously

#121

Post by numpad0 » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

BorisTheBrave wrote: post #15

dijit wrote: post #4

This goes into the how, but to me the more interesting question is the 'why'. Why should someone interact with something that the author doesn't throw his/her/their name into? I only have one example of why; I'm a genuinely curious and open person and I like having my beliefs tested, some of my beliefs are nuanced enough that I sometimes break down my current beliefs and my reasons into blog posts. Things that I thin…

I think the two most common reasons for anonymity are: * blogging from an oppressive regime * to isolate yourself from online mobs If you write something controversial these days, sometimes it catches a wider audience and you can find yourself under a lot of attention. A minority of those poeple will not be nice, and may send death threats or worse. Your experience is a tiny fraction of what this can be like. Being a…

Offline mobs too. As a Japanese I completely don’t understand why most English speakers so casually disclose their identity so publicly.

If you post something in your real name, your colleagues WILL find it out and your boss WILL read it and your neighbors WILL scrutinize it no matter how woke your post may read. There WILL be consequences from being pointed at to losing your job and pension.

People using real names for app reviews, online comments, those are completely insane to me. Including shorthands like “John D.” Unless you are paid to do so that is.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#122

Post by baby-yoda » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:36 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #116

baby-yoda wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you people what is this ambiguous group you speak of? >Offensive Without Consequence is being offended a protected class? why is the "right to be offended" more important than the "right to offend"?

It doesn't matter if being offended is a protected class. Offending someone isn't . And I. Our society we give individuals and groups broad powers to associate with only the people they choose to. You can offend whomever you want, your right is protected! But if people don't like you, they're under no obligation to deal with you.

the previous poster presented it as a binary set of options but i agree with what you're saying - i think its safe to say we have all, at some point and in some scenario, been both victims and perpetrators. for me the answer is to simply move along with my life and associate with those who seem to be well intentioned and have positive world views. but going up a few comments relating to the cancel culture issue, for some that is simply not enough. they must become the enforcer, alert the world of the offender, until the offender is ostracized from society (judge jury and executioner perhaps). its hard for me to understand the motive but alas here we are.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#123

Post by GoblinSlayer » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:38 PM UTC

tw04 wrote: post #98

wGeF7H8Z59y985y wrote: post #13

> Why should someone interact with something that the author doesn't throw his/her/their name into? We currently live in a "there is only one correct opinion, all others must be canceled" culture. They've already come for anyone who showed even the faintest trace of dissent from the mindlessly woke mob's narrative. Next they'll come for those who have stayed silent. Failure to project virtue signaling will soon be us…

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech. What planet do you live on that you think everyone else should have to both listen to what you say, and then not "punish" you for it? If you tell your wife she looks fat, she's probably not having sex with you that evening. If you call someone a racial slur, they're probably both going to tell everyone they know about what you said, and refuse to inter…

The consequence of speech should be speech.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#124

Post by karpierz » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:38 PM UTC

Aqua wrote: post #115

tw04 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech. What planet do you live on that you think everyone else should have to both listen to what you say, and then not "punish" you for it? If you tell your wife she looks fat, she's probably not having sex with you that evening. If you call someone a racial slur, they're probably both going to tell everyone they know about what you said, and refuse to inter…

And who shall be the judge of what is right and what is wrong? An internet mob? If an unknown woman issues a public twitter statement that she's been abused, is it OK to get the alleged offender cancelled before a court trial? What if they are innocent? How do you un-cancel somebody? You don't. That's why the cancel culture is ridiculous and needs to end.

Would you like to judge how limited my speech should be?

For example, if someone feels me up, should I be allowed to post on Facebook detailing the encounter? Am I allowed to name them? Can I tag their employers?

If I read about someone claiming that they've been felt up, can I forward it to my friends? Can I notify my employer if they're working at the same company as me?

Essentially, can you determine a line where my freedom to speak ends?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#125

Post by munificent » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:38 PM UTC

dijit wrote: post #4

This goes into the how, but to me the more interesting question is the 'why'. Why should someone interact with something that the author doesn't throw his/her/their name into? I only have one example of why; I'm a genuinely curious and open person and I like having my beliefs tested, some of my beliefs are nuanced enough that I sometimes break down my current beliefs and my reasons into blog posts. Things that I thin…

A primary reason you might want to read something written anonymously is because it provides important, actionable information that is not available elsewhere. And the reason that information is only provided anonymously is because that information helps me but harms some other powerful group.

If, for example, someone posts a video of human body parts being ground up to make sausage at Mr. Fred's Delicious Sausage factory, I would really like to know that before I make my breakfast selection at the grocery store. But Mr. Fred probably does not want me to know that, which is why it's likely to be posted anonymously to pretect the author from retaliation.

In a world where some powerful groups are happy to have harm come to others, anonymity is a critical tool to fight back.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#126

Post by efa » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:39 PM UTC

dandellion wrote: post #50

pydry wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a problem that probably existed before writing itself, never mind Twitter.

It's not new. It was huge when religion was more prevalent, for example, but it was becoming less of a problem as society became more educated and secular. Now there's a new wave riding on top of social media like Twitter, and as it gains more popularity it's becoming more about flaming vs virtue signalling than making actual progress.

Yeah, it's getting hard to tell what are real accounts. So many pose as a left/right wing person and spout a little too ridiculously.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#127

Post by detaro » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:40 PM UTC

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #123

tw04 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech. What planet do you live on that you think everyone else should have to both listen to what you say, and then not "punish" you for it? If you tell your wife she looks fat, she's probably not having sex with you that evening. If you call someone a racial slur, they're probably both going to tell everyone they know about what you said, and refuse to inter…

The consequence of speech should be speech.

So no advocating for policies, laws or actions anymore?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#128

Post by efa » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:41 PM UTC

ativzzz wrote: post #118

giancarlostoro wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except its not I have seen people called Neonazis just for being Republican or siding with Trump whether or not they are "Trump supporters" on issues. Even saying the name "Trump supporter" is evidence alone that there is an element of cancel culture. A woman was rejected from a college recently for posting a MAGA video on Tik Tok. Some developer is being called a Neonazi for protesting against an open source org tha…

It's not any different from republicans calling liberals libtards, antifa and communists whenever someone talks about medicare for all. Both sides do it to each other, right wingers just complain about it more because the majority of people who control social media platforms tend to be left leaning. In general, people only want free speech for things they want to say, but not for things they disagree with.

Yes, but has an open Antifa supporter ever been denied college entrance or attending a conference because of that support? Or lost their job?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#129

Post by zimablue » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:42 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #114

zimablue wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech" That's not true, it doesn't even really make sense. Freedom of anything is freedom from consequences for it. If I say I believe in freedom to have an abortion, noone would reasonably be said to agree if they said they also believe in freedom to have an abortion, and then immediate execution by the state afterwards. Freedom of speech in the constitutio…

>Freedom of speech as used idiomatically in speech generally means a certain level of freedom of reprisals from employers and society. "a certain level" implies the existence of an acceptable level of consequence, unless by that you mean "absolute." If so, why not simply state that? >Directed racial slurs is a straw man, almost noone believes in absolutist freedom of speech when it comes to directed harrassment, they…

It's not moving the goal posts, you seem to be creating a false dichotomy between: "support free speech" -> must support lack of reprisals for all free speech, including directed racial slurs "do not support free speech" -> must accept the current level and form of reprisals.

Where most people who say they support free speech are, is this statement: "support free speech without reprisals, excluding directed harrassment, with some level of acceptable reprisals in employment and socially, depending on the context, but at a much lower level than is currently the case, with less arbitrary application of mob justice and employer discrimination"

It's not catchy but nor is it inherently contradictory. It's what I imagine JK Rowling, Chomsky et al would say if you spoke to them about their letter.

I really think it would be useful if the anti-free-speech side of the debate stopped with this semantics and straw men about freedom from reprisals, monarchies, directed racism. I think that a person should be free to discuss eg. spaces for trans vs non-trans women and where to draw the line on sports etc, to what level the BLM is a useful movement, the relative weight of cultural vs economic vs discrimination in explaining different outcomes across ethicities and genders, positive discrimination, without being fired, cancelled or becoming unemployable. That's what most free speech people think, and all these semantic points, false definitions and straw men are kind of a waste of time

Re: Blog Anonymously

#130

Post by Proziam » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:42 PM UTC

mywittyname wrote: post #104

giancarlostoro wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something ironic about your post being downvoted or cancelled depending on your point of view. I think to an extent we seem to be heading towards a thought police society as evident by people losing their jobs over things they do or say that go viral online (if you need references I'll be happy to pull some up, but here in the USA at least its happened a number of times), this is often called cancel culture. We see i…

Society has always, always had social norms which entailed consequences if countered. And often times in the past, the norms were strict and dissent was punished by jail, torture, or death. Today, we've much improved. If you express an opinion that is contrary to the norms, you get made fun or or ostracized by the community, you don't get killed. Which is how it should be, say what you want, but people are completely…

I understand your point but can't get on board with it.

The main issue I have is that people make organized attempts to cause harm to others as part of the 'canceling' rather than a personal choice. Not wanting to work with me is one thing, trying to convince the whole world not to work with me might cause me to become homeless.

The second issue is that the "reasons" for canceling people are so often petty or outright not true. For example, the people that call Joe Rogan a Nazi or alt-right. Either they know nothing about National Socialism and the alt-right or they know nothing about the person they want to cancel.

And third, canceling people is outright stupid. You don't want people with evil ideas and intentions hiding in the dark and invisible to you. You want their bad ideas as visible as possible so you can avoid them or shine a light on them. Sending everyone with a bad idea to another website only serves to embolden them and gives them a way to say 'see, we really are persecuted!'

And this is completely skipping over the de-banking people. That goes into a whole new level that I think people don't fully appreciate.