3 ms·
Stopping people from putting out Fake News is less important than protecting people from having their lives ruined by a mob for daring to voice heterodox opinio
by curtainsforus 6y ago
Stopping people from putting out Fake News is less important than protecting people from having their lives ruined by a mob for daring to voice heterodox opinions. Anonymity and Pseudonymity protect the weak, not the strong- in that they protect from punishment.
- fnord123 6y agoThat's supposed to be covered by the policy of protecting sex workers and the like. I think we all agree with you in spirit and we only differ in how we rate the implementation.
- curtainsforus 6y agoBut the point is that it the default shouldn't be being NYT exposing you, unless you can make a appeal that puts in you one of the Socially Correct Categories (according to the NYT!). I want the default to be revulsion for doxing, and widely-used strong pseudonymity or anonymity, whereas from what you've said it seem you'd rather people's real names were out there by default.
- fnord123 6y agoFundamentally the journalist has to make a call to dox or not. People who took advantage of tax havens as described in the Panama Papers - good to dox. People who obtained the Panama Papers - bad to dox. People who fund special interest groups trying to support $GOOD_GOVERNMENT dissidents (e.g. jan6 activists) - good to dox. People who fund special interest groups to support $BAD_GOVERNMENT dissidents - bad to dox. There is a great deal of taste involved. Sometimes they will get it wrong. In the example we have in front of us, it worked itself out in the end. In the case of e.g. _why, it did not work and he supposedly quit the Ruby community. If you are a dissident and want to remain anonymous I urge you to not rely on anyone to keep your information secret for you. Use signal, tor, etc.