Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

sfstandard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 264 posts

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#141

Post by ghaff »

There was a period when I was having fairly regular luncheon meetings in New York and the purpose was really so that people could talk openly about various tech issues and not have their name appear in a blog post (which I probably wouldn't have done anyway). It wasn't so people could spill dirt or say things that could get them in trouble with HR if they appeared in pront.

Maybe overused today but there are some times when you hold back on things if you know they may appear in print. Certainly, over the years, I've been quite careful about what I say to journalists--even those I generally trust.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#142

Post by JKCalhoun »

flappyeagle wrote: post #81
ryandrake wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. "I really want to say conservative or racist things but don't want to be considered conservative or racist by the public!"

Do you think people on social media should be required to disclose their names?

I use mine. It keeps me honest.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#143

Post by dcrazy »

echelon wrote: post #138
dcrazy wrote: post #128

Denunciations of the Chatham House Rule seem underdeveloped. According to the history on Wikipedia, it was invented to let members of post-WW1 English civic society discuss and debate potential reforms, and then get as much of that discussion into the public record as desired without having individual members pilloried for things they said during the discussion, even if the rest of the group disagreed with them. This…

The easy solution to this in my state is to just wear a recording device. I live in a one party consent state for the recording of conversations [1,2], whether on the phone or in person. I don't know how y'all get away without it in California. It pairs really well with free speech, and it feels wrong to not have this legal feature available. [1] https://www.justia.com/50-state-surveys/recording-phone-call... [2] htt…

The easy solution to what? I’m saying lack of like individual line-item attribution is a feature.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#144

Post by dcrazy »

dmix wrote: post #132
scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #123

More like stupid is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area. The one fine piece of good journalism in there is that SFSU professor: humans have a hard time separating the ideas from the speaker. Done. Now, I might be wrong, but it sure does sound like tech folks in the Bay are getting ready to take advantage of MAGA madness, and paranoid about AI / surveillance. If anything, it’s this orange website that’s closer to unta…

> but it sure does sound like tech folks in the Bay are getting ready to take advantage of MAGA madness, and paranoid about AI / surveillance. Congress is the one that regulates most of commerce and they are always slow and inept. I don’t expect much meaningful stuff to change. If anything it will be some sort of AI regulation that will benefit the top companies under the guise of ‘safety’ and probably get bipartisan…

I woildn’t trust a damn thing Zuckerberg says about his thought process.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#145

Post by pseudo0 »

laidoffamazon wrote: post #90
01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #11

> there’s a liberating and freeing quality to the idea that this is a safe space for me to say unpopular things and not get labeled as a conservative or racist,” Lederer said. Tantalizing, now I really wonder what he said.

If I were to guess, the types of conversations that happen in these places that aren't gutter racism (they're eating the dogs etc) are going to be eugenics-adjacent, "enlightened" scientific racism instead. At least, that's what I've noticed among rationalists online.

There are plenty of things you can say that are career limiting moves if attributed to an individual at a particular company. Eg. if an OpenAI employee says that ChatGPT is negatively impacting the education of children, it gets recorded, and then used in a hit piece against the company, that could go poorly. Or a Facebook employee speaking frankly about the negative impacts of social media, as another example.

With Chatham House Rules you don't have to worry about a gotcha quote getting pulled out of context or used as a statement against interest.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#146

Post by pseudo0 »

davidgerard wrote: post #25
01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #11

> there’s a liberating and freeing quality to the idea that this is a safe space for me to say unpopular things and not get labeled as a conservative or racist,” Lederer said. Tantalizing, now I really wonder what he said.

looks like he just told us

Lederer is the woman presented as an expert to criticize the practice...

> Jenny Lederer, a linguistics professor at San Francisco State University, argued that the Chatham House Rule has intrinsic flaws.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#147

Post by llamaimperative »

SanjayMehta wrote: post #129
llamaimperative wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again: “crucified.” Say what you actually want, I don’t know how to interpret this idea. I haven’t heard of a crucifixion in recent times if I’m being honest.

ISIS crucified a number of people as recently as 2014. https://www.christianpost.com/news/isis-crucifies-11-christi...

See, what an excellent contrast between actual crucifixion and simply someone saying your ideas are bad and socially ostracizing you.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#148

Post by echelon »

dcrazy wrote: post #143
echelon wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The easy solution to this in my state is to just wear a recording device. I live in a one party consent state for the recording of conversations [1,2], whether on the phone or in person. I don't know how y'all get away without it in California. It pairs really well with free speech, and it feels wrong to not have this legal feature available. [1] https://www.justia.com/50-state-surveys/recording-phone-call... [2] htt…

The easy solution to what? I’m saying lack of like individual line-item attribution is a feature.

It feels incompatible with how the rest of the legal framework works.

You can be recorded in public.

In most of the US states you can be recorded in private so long as the one recording is a party to the conversation.

Why does California do this separate weird thing? It doesn't feel like my rights should go away when I cross into your state. It feels like a glitch.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#149

Post by llamaimperative »

echelon wrote: post #135
llamaimperative wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love a real-names only network. There should be other networks as well, but this should be an option.

We already have a few: LinkedIn and the real world.

LinkedIn is a professional network. It's not designed to facilitate the same types of conversations that happen e.g. on Twitter (and no, I don't think the presence of anon accounts make Twitter what it is, at least not in the circles I care about).

"Real world" is umm... okay. Thanks for the contribution.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#150

Post by ryandrake »

TheBruceHimself wrote: post #75
ryandrake wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you really believe something, say it loudly and proudly and sign your name to it. If you're not willing to have it attributed to you because it will make you look bad, then maybe you should take a moment to think about where those beliefs come from.

Well, there is a matter of safety, and not wanting to be harassed for your opinions. Some debates are so heated that an opinion stated either way is going to expose you to potential violence if not, just verbal abuse through various channels. I think even though you should be honest about your opinion, it’s obviously better to avoid that harm so why not be anonymous? Personally, I’ve also found that stating your opin…

Yea. The "What's going to be taboo in 30 years" question is a good one. I don't know and I don't have a good answer to that. I personally don't worry about it because it's never occurred to me to walk up close to the line of what's acceptable. I have pretty vanilla opinions.

But, for today, I always wonder when someone says they are going to be harassed for their opinions. Just what opinions are we talking about, here? That's what these discussions always seem to lack: Specific examples of what opinions you want to share that you are afraid to share.

I've always liked Stephen Fry's retort to the old "You can't say anything anymore!" line. If a friend tells you that, pull them aside in private and ask them "What exactly are these things you'd like to say but can't? We're in private now, and I'll give you a judgment-free chance to say what you think you're being prevented from saying. Go ahead!" Nine times out of ten, they still won't say it, because they know it's terrible. They just want to complain that they're somehow the victim of censorship.

Post reply on HN