41–50 of 264 posts
People are not bound to follow this rule, correct? As in, there's no legal consequence? > Instead, his groups have moved to signing NDAs or explicitly stating that conversations are not to be shared externally. This seems a bit better, albeit with more work.
Are the NDAs signed between attendees and the host? That puts the host in the awkward position of having to enforce the NDAs, even if the injured party is one of the guests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I think it’s about not having to fear being retweeted publicly for what you intended to be private discussions.
No. The Chatham House Rule only bars the attribution of the statements, not the sharing of the statements or the things they contain. It’s not simply for privacy or nondisclosure. You are free to disclose, the discussions are not private.
Seems pretty obvious why in a world where if you misspeak or say something ill considered it can be all over twitter and have serious personal and professional ramifications. Regardless of how well meaning people are in their desire to hold people to account for bad views, it does have a chilling effect, and you can't learn if you don't have a safe place to make mistakes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. The Chatham House Rule only bars the attribution of the statements, not the sharing of the statements or the things they contain. It’s not simply for privacy or nondisclosure. You are free to disclose, the discussions are not private.
That's what I said: it's to prevent people from being quoted publicly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the grandparent's views, i think this comment demonstrates why the gp might feel cautious about giving their honest views on the subject.
I've always just given my honest views online under pseudonyms. Like that I think gasoline should cost more.
People are not bound to follow this rule, correct? As in, there's no legal consequence? > Instead, his groups have moved to signing NDAs or explicitly stating that conversations are not to be shared externally. This seems a bit better, albeit with more work.
Not everything has to be legal. The consequence is you don't get invited back and some people might think less of you. Legally enforcing every social norm is dystopian.
Persecuting people for their beliefs by exploiting loopholes (e.g. blast on social media, bully their employer, etc) is also pretty dystopian, don't you think?
And it's not like the persecutors ever give you the full story. For example, the reporting on Meta ending DEI didn't want you to know their rather logical view of the situation (discrimination on the basis of immutable characteristics is wrong). What fraction of people actually believe in giving a boost to certain candidates purely on the basis of race? Certainly not enough for the persecutors to allow that argument to be broadcast widely.
> 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.
[flagged]
People are not bound to follow this rule, correct? As in, there's no legal consequence? > Instead, his groups have moved to signing NDAs or explicitly stating that conversations are not to be shared externally. This seems a bit better, albeit with more work.
In addition, both the subject of a secret conversation and the participants of that conversation could sue someone for disclosing the discussion on the basis of libel. My understanding of USA law is that libel has a very high threshold and is therefore rarely litigated, but in other jurisdictions, such as the UK, libel can be as simple as saying something true with the intent to hurt the subject's reputation.
Many people try to put as much as possible into bespoke, written contracts, but usually a mixture of common law and implicit contracts is adequate to litigate almost anything considered harmful by society. I doubt the NDA is actually needed as long as the Chatham House rule is made clear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> South Africa not doing so well currently? Unless it is group of South African expats why should we brainstorming? Is South Africa asking for help ? Either for ideas or for money? Or is there genocide or other basic human rights abuses that we cannot but intervene. The presumption that we can solve or think about their problems better than them is where it is offensive not what is being said, people are more than ca…
> Unless it is group are South African expats why should we brainstorming? Why is this an inappropriate topic to discuss? > presumption that we can solve or think about their problems better than them You're the only one who presumed this. (It's also presumptuous to assume that nobody outside your own context can be helpful to you.)
I didn’t say you can’t be helpful, but if not being asked that is the definition of presumption .
> Why is this an inappropriate topic to discuss?
It would be same as my neighbor discussing how to fix my problems with my wife or Mexicans having leadership conferences on how to prevent the raise of Trump . Same as how it feels for citizens when Elon Musk is doing now in UK, Germany or France
Domestic intervention or influence by foreign actors no matter if well intentioned or not is inappropriate