5 ms·

I saw a comment on Twitter that what you're really seeing here is dueling philosophies, and I agree. Ever heard the expression, Sunshine is the best disinfecta

I saw a comment on Twitter that what you're really seeing here is dueling philosophies, and I agree. Ever heard the expression, Sunshine is the best disinfectant? I think you're seeing it's logical endpoint with the SSC story. And while it seems to have fallen out of fashion, for the most part, I agree. It seems to me that no matter where you turn, when it comes to 'the truth and nothing but the truth' about someone or something, you face bad choices. The problem with allowing some people to be pseudonymous sometimes is that immediately all kinds of bad actors will rush in and try to claim that in their defense. Polluters claiming anonymity because they don't want to be targeted by eco-terrorists, for example. Rather than parsing ever-smaller hair-thin rules about - legitimate - illegitimate - legitimate - and getting docked on every one on charges of political bias - there's an easier solution. Give no one pseudonymity. Problem solved. The only exception - national security - doesn't require your agreement to accept; it just takes a willingness to not go to jail. It's an appeal to power, really. So you don't have to debate it on moral grounds, it's the law. Incidentally, for all those stories where the NYT allowed pseudonyms, I agree there was an inconsistency, but my conclusion was: resolve it by publishing them all. Publish Bansky's name, publish Ferrante's name, publish the name of whoever wrote that tell-all book. Make that the norm, instead of half-applied psuedonyms. Now if you arranged an interview with them about something other than their identity, and they agreed to talk to you on condition of you not revealing it - that's different. That news outlet can't break the story. But another one can. No exceptions. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. I do believe this in principle, believed it long before this story broke, and could be brought around to disallowing most anyone's pseudonymity, before this news became news. It doesn't matter to me at all what the content or leaning of the blog is. Whether they're left or right or 'good' or 'bad' - I believe in the secular version of 'you shall know the truth & the truth shall set you free.' There is a cost, a real human one. But, rather like capitalism and democracy, it happens to be less than every other alternative. It's not great that people can't be pseudonymous - but it prevents worse problems.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
MattGaiser 6y ago
>but it prevents worse problems. Like you, I also comment on the internet under my real name, so pulling back the curtain on everything else is an exciting prospect. But for that not to ever bite us, that requires that we never offend too many people, even for a brief second. I naturally stay within bounds, so that is fine for me, but I suspect many opinions would need to remain hidden if a war were waged on anonymity. Why can't ideas be allowed to exist on their own, detached from any known person?
- julianeon 6y ago
  Well, I'd like to thank you for engaging me; you've thought about this too, and I respect that you post under your own name. I worry about that myself sometimes but I've decided it's worth it. But if you don't choose that - why can't you? One thing I wanted to highlight is, I really think this is a thorny problem. There aren't easy answers. So here's a case that illustrates that. Do you remember this story from a couple of months back, about the Worker's Traditionalist Party? The guy behind that got 'doxxed' and lost his job. But there was no outcry, because of his politics. Now, I'm not dumb, and I know the real-world difference between that and SSC is, their politics were very different. But that's a problematic answer! It requires the NYTimes to gatekeep and it invites a thousand conflicts of interest of the worst kind - 'he's good, let him stay pseudonymous' vs. 'he's bad, so doxx him.' One way to cut the Gordian knot is to say, there are no pseudonyms. There are no problems of fairness and partiality if you apply that rule to all. It's also a simple rule to mentally hold in mind. Everybody is accountable for everything that they do. There are many forms of doing, like writing, and protesting. And anything that anybody does can be considered newsworthy. I am sympathetic to SSC, and I hope he finds another way to continue - possibly by handing off the reins to others who can go public. I agree that it is a loss for his voice to no longer be heard. I'm just uncomfortable with making an exception for anyone, for the reasons outlined above. Incidentally, for anyone posting under psuedonyms, please do take a moment to contemplate that, as this story illustrates, for better or for worse, you aren't truly anonymous. If you have some problematic posts, or writing you might regret, maybe consider deleting it? Consider this a kind tip while you can still do something about it.
- evgen 6y ago
  > Why can't ideas be allowed to exist on their own, detached from any known person? Perhaps because their formation was coloured by someone else's experiences and prejudices. Why is it wrong to want those who propose these ideas to take credit and responsibility so that we can examine the idea and the nature of the person who conceived the idea. These ideas exist to persuade; they should be examined as the rhetorical sophistry that they truly are and not in some pretend world of spherical cows and platonic ideals. If you temper the ideas you propose to the public it could be because you are afraid of offending someone, or it could be that you are simply someone who is capable of feeling empathy. Given the similar result does it matter which reason is the source of such self-regulation, and are we worse off for it?
mindslight 6y ago
Please, no. This is the same constricting paradigm that brought us all-sharing Faceboot with its "real name" policies. Many people use nyms to separate facets of their personality when interacting in different communities and contexts. If you don't personally do this that's your choice, but you don't get to make that decision for others who do. Specifically in this case, Scott Alexander mentions that leaking his blog persona into his patient relationships would seriously impair them. And of course it would - patients should be talking to him about their own problems, not whatever topic he's written about on his personal time.
zepto 6y ago
Sunshine is the best disinfectant is true if and only if someone thinks there is an infection. What is your real name, bank account numbers, home address, employment history, medical records? I strongly recommend against posting those, but I ask rhetorically because as a true believer in this philosophy you presumably would wish to disinfect yourself by doing so.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

MattGaiser 6y ago

>but it prevents worse problems. Like you, I also comment on the internet under my real name, so pulling back the curtain on everything else is an exciting prospect. But for that not to ever bite us, that requires that we never offend too many people, even for a brief second. I naturally stay within bounds, so that is fine for me, but I suspect many opinions would need to remain hidden if a war were waged on anonymity. Why can't ideas be allowed to exist on their own, detached from any known person?

julianeon 6y ago
Well, I'd like to thank you for engaging me; you've thought about this too, and I respect that you post under your own name. I worry about that myself sometimes but I've decided it's worth it. But if you don't choose that - why can't you? One thing I wanted to highlight is, I really think this is a thorny problem. There aren't easy answers. So here's a case that illustrates that. Do you remember this story from a couple of months back, about the Worker's Traditionalist Party? The guy behind that got 'doxxed' and lost his job. But there was no outcry, because of his politics. Now, I'm not dumb, and I know the real-world difference between that and SSC is, their politics were very different. But that's a problematic answer! It requires the NYTimes to gatekeep and it invites a thousand conflicts of interest of the worst kind - 'he's good, let him stay pseudonymous' vs. 'he's bad, so doxx him.' One way to cut the Gordian knot is to say, there are no pseudonyms. There are no problems of fairness and partiality if you apply that rule to all. It's also a simple rule to mentally hold in mind. Everybody is accountable for everything that they do. There are many forms of doing, like writing, and protesting. And anything that anybody does can be considered newsworthy. I am sympathetic to SSC, and I hope he finds another way to continue - possibly by handing off the reins to others who can go public. I agree that it is a loss for his voice to no longer be heard. I'm just uncomfortable with making an exception for anyone, for the reasons outlined above. Incidentally, for anyone posting under psuedonyms, please do take a moment to contemplate that, as this story illustrates, for better or for worse, you aren't truly anonymous. If you have some problematic posts, or writing you might regret, maybe consider deleting it? Consider this a kind tip while you can still do something about it.
evgen 6y ago
> Why can't ideas be allowed to exist on their own, detached from any known person? Perhaps because their formation was coloured by someone else's experiences and prejudices. Why is it wrong to want those who propose these ideas to take credit and responsibility so that we can examine the idea and the nature of the person who conceived the idea. These ideas exist to persuade; they should be examined as the rhetorical sophistry that they truly are and not in some pretend world of spherical cows and platonic ideals. If you temper the ideas you propose to the public it could be because you are afraid of offending someone, or it could be that you are simply someone who is capable of feeling empathy. Given the similar result does it matter which reason is the source of such self-regulation, and are we worse off for it?

mindslight 6y ago

Please, no. This is the same constricting paradigm that brought us all-sharing Faceboot with its "real name" policies. Many people use nyms to separate facets of their personality when interacting in different communities and contexts. If you don't personally do this that's your choice, but you don't get to make that decision for others who do. Specifically in this case, Scott Alexander mentions that leaking his blog persona into his patient relationships would seriously impair them. And of course it would - patients should be talking to him about their own problems, not whatever topic he's written about on his personal time.

zepto 6y ago

Sunshine is the best disinfectant is true if and only if someone thinks there is an infection. What is your real name, bank account numbers, home address, employment history, medical records? I strongly recommend against posting those, but I ask rhetorically because as a true believer in this philosophy you presumably would wish to disinfect yourself by doing so.