4 ms·

This assumes the statement is not verifiable. Most political statements are easily verifiable once they actually make it out of a particular political stronghol

by why-el 11y ago

This assumes the statement is not verifiable. Most political statements are easily verifiable once they actually make it out of a particular political stronghold. The goal with public anonymity is to continue making such statement while staying out of jail until such political stronghold is no longer.

lisper 11y ago
> Most political statements are easily verifiable You can't be serious. Have you never watched Fox News?
- Retra 11y ago
  Yeah, and it's pretty easy to verify when they are full of crap.
  - lisper 11y ago
    And the people who watch Fox News would say exactly the same thing about MSNBC. It is manifestly not easy to verify political statements. If it were, there would be much less political disagreement than there is.
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      You are using a non-standard definition of "verify". For the purposes of this discussion, we don't care whether a political speaker accurately predicts how many undocumented immigrants will steal old ladies' purses in the next year. We only care that e.g. the radical dissidents we hear from today are the same ones that we heard from last week. This has nothing to do with CP. EDIT: I'm pretty sure we're all responding to your invocation of Satoshi Nakamoto. If anonymity wasn't important to that person or persons, why don't we know who she or they are?
      - lisper 11y ago
        I'm pretty sure that's not what why-el meant by "verifiable". What you're talking about is identity-binding, the value of which I explicitly acknowledged in my original comment.
    - viraptor 11y ago
      Depends on the context really. You can verify something as either correct and incorrect, depending on what data you choose and how you interpret a statement. That's not a problem of verification, that's a problem of vague statements though.
  - Kalium 11y ago
    Have you ever talked to left-wing activists? I have. Half the time, I can't tell self-satire from serious positions.

by why-el 11y ago

lisper 11y ago

> Most political statements are easily verifiable You can't be serious. Have you never watched Fox News?

Retra 11y ago
Yeah, and it's pretty easy to verify when they are full of crap.
- lisper 11y ago
  And the people who watch Fox News would say exactly the same thing about MSNBC. It is manifestly not easy to verify political statements. If it were, there would be much less political disagreement than there is.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    You are using a non-standard definition of "verify". For the purposes of this discussion, we don't care whether a political speaker accurately predicts how many undocumented immigrants will steal old ladies' purses in the next year. We only care that e.g. the radical dissidents we hear from today are the same ones that we heard from last week. This has nothing to do with CP. EDIT: I'm pretty sure we're all responding to your invocation of Satoshi Nakamoto. If anonymity wasn't important to that person or persons, why don't we know who she or they are?
    - lisper 11y ago
      I'm pretty sure that's not what why-el meant by "verifiable". What you're talking about is identity-binding, the value of which I explicitly acknowledged in my original comment.
  - viraptor 11y ago
    Depends on the context really. You can verify something as either correct and incorrect, depending on what data you choose and how you interpret a statement. That's not a problem of verification, that's a problem of vague statements though.
- Kalium 11y ago
  Have you ever talked to left-wing activists? I have. Half the time, I can't tell self-satire from serious positions.