Blog Anonymously • Hacker News Board

Re: Blog Anonymously

#251

Post by throwaway894345 » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:41 PM UTC

Klinky wrote: post #249

throwaway894345 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Freedom of speech protects you from people who attempt to silence you by jailing, torturing, or killing you. It doesn't mean people are forced to put up with your stupid and unpopular opinions. You (like many) misunderstand the debate. "Free speech" proponents aren't advocating for a prohibition of criticism--to the contrary, criticism is free speech. Rather, free speech proponents are arguing against intimidation…

It sounds like you will protect free speech by suppressing certain forms of free speech? I would not necessarily be against anti-harassment/doxxing laws, and stronger employee protections around firings. However, also stronger hate speech laws around protected classes. It's a double edged sword.

Threats and intimidation don't constitute free speech, even when veiled. Note that I don't think anyone is advocating for more/harsher laws to protect free speech (although these might be welcomed by some), only appealing for a cultural shift away from cancellation and toward free-speech values.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#252

Post by hakka-nyu-su » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:42 PM UTC

celestialcheese wrote: post #221

hakka-nyu-su wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand the term "cancel culture", it mostly relates to celebrities who were already controversial or polarizing in some way, that were finally able to be organized against. And in many cases, the same celebrities are still able to have a career that is sometimes even boosted by their ability to campaign against "cancel culture" generally. Do you have any books/articles/resources for thinking about "cancel cu…

"so you've been publicly shamed" by jon ronson goes into this, I don't remember if there's specific stories about personal bloggers, but there's stories from normal, everyday people.

Ok, I understand now that people are taking "cancel culture" to mean online shaming generally. In that case, I think it is reasonable to take precautions like blogging anonymously.

I was specifically thinking of how "cancel" is used as a verb to mean "boycott a cultural product from an entertainer", "boycott a product from a company", or something like that.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#253

Post by lliamander » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:42 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #243

lliamander wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also potentially tortious interference: https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/liability-and-insurance/to...

This seems unlikely. From your link: > For example, Adam could refuse to do business with Bill after learning that Bill has a contract or business relationship with an organization that Adam finds morally distasteful. Adam knows that his business is worth more to Bill than the other organization's and that his refusal to deal is substantially certain to cause Bill to terminate his contractual or business relationship…

Not in all cases necessarily, but just read the next line:

> On the other hand, if Adam means to punish the other organization or put them out of business by taking the advantages of their relationship with Bill away, it is more likely that a tortious interference has occurred.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#254

Post by dredmorbius » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:43 PM UTC

dlkf wrote: post #27

k3liutZu wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He does advise to use google translate to move the content from the original language to a different one and then back to alleviate this.

I think this is a great first stab at the problem, but for two reasons I think a robust solution needs more work: - The first is that, as someone else pointed out, Google is almost certainly logging your translation queries. - Secondly, even if you do it offline (as someone else suggested) the approach itself might not work. Success in linguistic forensics isn't based (as we might naively assume) on catching obscure…

Interestingly, at Google Translate now:

Upcoming changes to history

Translation history will soon only be available when you are signed in and will be centrally managed within My Activity. Past history will be cleared during this upgrade, so make sure to save translations you want to remember for ease of access later.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#255

Post by devalgo » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:44 PM UTC

hakka-nyu-su wrote: post #219

tristor wrote: post #187

I have often considered blogging anonymously because I do not feel free to write my nuanced philosophical views about the world anymore, as nuance is mostly dead in the public discourse and anything I write could easily offend someone and cause me problems. But I decided that if I believed something and I was willing to say it aloud, I should be willing to write it down with my name attached. In the end, it has had t…

As I understand the term "cancel culture", it mostly relates to celebrities who were already controversial or polarizing in some way, that were finally able to be organized against. And in many cases, the same celebrities are still able to have a career that is sometimes even boosted by their ability to campaign against "cancel culture" generally. Do you have any books/articles/resources for thinking about "cancel cu…

>As I understand the term "cancel culture", it mostly relates to celebrities who were already controversial or polarizing in some way, that were finally able to be organized against.

This massively understates the problem. One could easily put together a list of non-celebrities who have had their lives ruined after making some completely anodyne comment.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#256

Post by meheleventyone » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:45 PM UTC

tridentlead wrote: post #191

M2Ys4U wrote: post #40

>We currently live in a "there is only one correct opinion, all others must be canceled" culture. We really, really aren't. >If speech has consequences that are administered outside the law, then it's not really free. Just take a moment and thing about what you just wrote. It's absolutely nonsense. I can't go in to a job interview and call the panel a bunch of cunts and then expect to be hired. That's a consequence o…

Freedom of speech has to do with freedom from government control over speech. However, what people who only talk about enshrined rights forget about is the American spirit. It is not in the spirit of America to destroy a life because of the least charitable interpretation of what they said. Much as the rules of Hackernews include engaging with the most charitable interpretation of someones post, so is common etiquett…

I guess you could give pause and think that the spirit of America is more accurately reflected in so called “cancel culture” than the romantic idyll of it you suggest. From an outside perspective the idea that it’s not in the spirit of America to destroy a life based on uncharitable interpretation doesn’t really square with things like the Iraq war, the death penalty and the very visible actions of the police over the past few weeks.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#257

Post by qqn » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:48 PM UTC

tristor wrote: post #187

I have often considered blogging anonymously because I do not feel free to write my nuanced philosophical views about the world anymore, as nuance is mostly dead in the public discourse and anything I write could easily offend someone and cause me problems. But I decided that if I believed something and I was willing to say it aloud, I should be willing to write it down with my name attached. In the end, it has had t…

There is a good video that underlines your second point[0], specifically mentioning that compassion is increasingly being replaced by moral superiority, that dialogue is often reactionary instead of responsive, and that the system we live in is often trying to group us based on these very differences, not unlike what happens in a high school cafeteria. She's primarily talking about online and big media discussions I think. She goes on to say that "a lot of us are seeing people who remind us of our former selves and we're attacking that", reminding me that "the biggest communication problem is we do not listen to understand -- we listen to reply" (Stephen Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People author).

Your first point does remind me of an early xkcd though[1], ironic in that it was about radically being yourself, come what may, and clearly identifying with what was then the underdog. It could be interpreted differently today, especially without an understanding of what the early 00s Internet was like.

[0]https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/the-problem-with-wokene..., also available on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-WimRb2jXs but ironically censored

[1]https://xkcd.com/137/

Re: Blog Anonymously

#258

Post by triceratops » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:49 PM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #228

triceratops wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Race is a protected class. It's a protected class because it has been used to discriminate in the past and it's unchangeable. Speech or opinions aren't a protected class for discrimination. So your analogy isn't apt.

Religion is also a protected class, and that's not unchangeable. Political affiliation is also a protected class in California, and it's certainly possible that it could be made so at the national level. But in any case, the comment by M2Ys4U was making an argument based on the idea of freedom of association. I'm generally for that freedom, but making an argument from freedom of association without addressing anti-di…

> Religion is also a protected class, and that's not unchangeable.

I have to disagree there. You can convert to another religion but unless you have genuine faith, it's not a true change.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#259

Post by joshuamorton » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:49 PM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #253

joshuamorton wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems unlikely. From your link: > For example, Adam could refuse to do business with Bill after learning that Bill has a contract or business relationship with an organization that Adam finds morally distasteful. Adam knows that his business is worth more to Bill than the other organization's and that his refusal to deal is substantially certain to cause Bill to terminate his contractual or business relationship…

Not in all cases necessarily, but just read the next line: > On the other hand, if Adam means to punish the other organization or put them out of business by taking the advantages of their relationship with Bill away, it is more likely that a tortious interference has occurred.

That's an anticompetitive practice. Which makes sense in the context of a tortious interference claim between two businesses.

But you can't sue for collectively boycotting a business for doing a thing they disapprove of. If Sleeping Giants is immune to Tortious Interference claims, so is pretty much everyone else in this context.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#260

Post by dredmorbius » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:50 PM UTC

syshum wrote: post #32

Having gotten my start on the internet mid 90's it always amazes me the number of people that attached their offline identities to their online identies This was just something that was unheard of back then. It was an extension of "Stranger Danger" that you did not reveal who you were to the wide internet, sure some of your close friends may have known your online name but it was not openly broadcasted Fast forward t…

Somewhat similar timespan.

Real names, or a version of them, weren't unheard of, but were usually at least somewhat indirected. Of current HN users, I can think of two somewhat notable accounts using the same names now as in the 1990s. One is a nickname, the other first initial + last name. Neither is impenetrable.

I became distinctly uncomfortable with Real Name use by the late noughts, and have used a set of pseudonyms (some more than others) since.