Writing is a single-player game • Hacker News Board

Re: Writing is a single-player game

#41

Post by TedDoesntTalk » Tue, Jun 14, 2022, 11:32 PM UTC

ponow wrote: post #39

klez wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should they make something public if it was not written to be public? How is that mean?

Exactly. It's even worse than the belief that privacy is unnecessary unless you have something to hide, since it enslaves you to a positive obligation to informing others, and despite the risks. If you have something interesting to say regarding humans, then you have to judge that there doesn't exist someone sufficiently threatened by it to do you or your interests any harm, and thinking through that is both stressfu…

> you have to judge that there doesn't exist someone sufficiently threatened by it to do you or your interests any harm

There absolutely is someone who exists that would weaponize some of my posts against me. That's why it's private and will remain so, except for my son's eyes when he is older.

Re: Writing is a single-player game

#42

Post by tdy_err » Wed, Jun 15, 2022, 11:21 AM UTC

Sinidir wrote: post #40

cs137 wrote: post #29

I don't disagree with the general sentiment, but as someone who has faced literal attempts on his life for revealing unpleasant truths about powerful people and has PTSD, I find myself cautious in fully accepting the optimism. And I'm someone who had a pretty big platform in the 2010s. The problem with "speaking truth to power" is that the shitbags in power already know the truth (that they're shitbags, and that in a…

I read the title as "Writing a single player game" and was utterly confused by this comment. Damn you brain!

In order to participate in the comment section you must have read the entire linked post/article. It's the law!

Re: Writing is a single-player game

#43

Post by ponow » Wed, Jun 15, 2022, 1:55 PM UTC

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #41

ponow wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. It's even worse than the belief that privacy is unnecessary unless you have something to hide, since it enslaves you to a positive obligation to informing others, and despite the risks. If you have something interesting to say regarding humans, then you have to judge that there doesn't exist someone sufficiently threatened by it to do you or your interests any harm, and thinking through that is both stressfu…

> you have to judge that there doesn't exist someone sufficiently threatened by it to do you or your interests any harm There absolutely is someone who exists that would weaponize some of my posts against me. That's why it's private and will remain so, except for my son's eyes when he is older.

Good choice.