3 ms·

> Why is one illegal, but the other one isn't? The personal harm (To the politician) is the same. Is there a social harm that I'm missing? I'd say yea, this tw

> Why is one illegal, but the other one isn't? The personal harm (To the politician) is the same. Is there a social harm that I'm missing? I'd say yea, this two party model of 'victim' and blackmailer leaves out a third party, the person or entity that would be otherwise informed. I put victim in scare quotes here because the party being harmed is really others. Yelp: is blackmail, because other customers are denied information you'd otherwise provide. osha: blackmail for the Monday off, because other employees aren't getting Monday off; and maaaybe because osha would like to fine your employer? shorting: other shareholders would like that information, and are harmed without their knowledge by the spend. profiting by telling everyone that truth, however, falls in line The profit motive of the blackmailer is offensive, but there is also societal harm.

vkou 8y ago
If we're going to blame blackmailers on creating societal harm, by virtue of not revealing information (relevant to third parties), why don't we mandate this sort of information disclosure in other contexts? Learn a secret? You're harming society, by not shouting it from the rooftops, to anyone who will hear. > shorting: other shareholders would like that information, and are harmed without their knowledge by the spend. profiting by telling everyone that truth, however, falls in line What about profiting by telling the highest bidder the truth? If there's a social harm from not releasing financial research on a company, why do we even allow it to be sold for profit? > osha: blackmail for the Monday off, because other employees aren't getting Monday off? So it does seem to come down to the 'fairness' litmus test? I wish that life were fair, but it doesn't seem to be a metric that our economy, or the law cares much about.

vkou 8y ago

If we're going to blame blackmailers on creating societal harm, by virtue of not revealing information (relevant to third parties), why don't we mandate this sort of information disclosure in other contexts? Learn a secret? You're harming society, by not shouting it from the rooftops, to anyone who will hear. > shorting: other shareholders would like that information, and are harmed without their knowledge by the spend. profiting by telling everyone that truth, however, falls in line What about profiting by telling the highest bidder the truth? If there's a social harm from not releasing financial research on a company, why do we even allow it to be sold for profit? > osha: blackmail for the Monday off, because other employees aren't getting Monday off? So it does seem to come down to the 'fairness' litmus test? I wish that life were fair, but it doesn't seem to be a metric that our economy, or the law cares much about.