4 ms·

> Why does he need to "deserve" anonymity? If you have something already and someone wants to take it away, don't you need to justify why you're taking that thi

> Why does he need to "deserve" anonymity? If you have something already and someone wants to take it away, don't you need to justify why you're taking that thing away? This seems to me like strange framing. 'Anonymity' in this case is not something that someone 'owns' and others 'take it away', it is a demand on others to avoid certain behavior (speaking about your name). Thinking and speaking is fundamental right. Therefore if person A research public sources to find person B's name, then it is fully within rights of person A to express that. If person B has some advantages from that not being expressed (like in this case), then is up to person B to negotiate with person A for that. Trying to suppress information that is already public is often silly and counterproductive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

beaconstudios 6y ago
> Thinking and speaking is fundamental right. Therefore if person A research public sources to find person B's name, then it is fully within rights of person A to express that. If person B has some advantages from that not being expressed (like in this case), then is up to person B to negotiate with person A for that. Who said anything about rights? I'm not arguing that spreading someone's name far and wide against their wishes is illegal. I'm saying it is a dick move, if someone has specifically asked you not to.
- ketamine__ 6y ago
  > I'm saying it is a dick move, if someone has specifically asked you not to. Is this guy a king? What gives him the right to tell the press what to print or not to print?
  - beaconstudios 6y ago
    again with the argument about rights? He has no right or capability to force them not to print something, obviously. But he can ask them not to, and they can choose to be amenable to his request or not. Him asking them not to publish his name because he believes it could threaten his career, then them doing it anyway, is a dick move. But you know that's the argument I'm making - at this point you're just being needlessly obtuse.
- zajio1am 6y ago
  I think that fundamental rights not only specify what is legal, but also provide some default societal position on what is acceptable. Clearly, there are plenty of actions that are legal but are not socially acceptable, but it is on those who claim that the action is unacceptable to provide an argument against the default position. In this specific case, to argue why Scott Alexander 'deserves anonymity'.

beaconstudios 6y ago

> Thinking and speaking is fundamental right. Therefore if person A research public sources to find person B's name, then it is fully within rights of person A to express that. If person B has some advantages from that not being expressed (like in this case), then is up to person B to negotiate with person A for that. Who said anything about rights? I'm not arguing that spreading someone's name far and wide against their wishes is illegal. I'm saying it is a dick move, if someone has specifically asked you not to.

ketamine__ 6y ago
> I'm saying it is a dick move, if someone has specifically asked you not to. Is this guy a king? What gives him the right to tell the press what to print or not to print?
- beaconstudios 6y ago
  again with the argument about rights? He has no right or capability to force them not to print something, obviously. But he can ask them not to, and they can choose to be amenable to his request or not. Him asking them not to publish his name because he believes it could threaten his career, then them doing it anyway, is a dick move. But you know that's the argument I'm making - at this point you're just being needlessly obtuse.
zajio1am 6y ago
I think that fundamental rights not only specify what is legal, but also provide some default societal position on what is acceptable. Clearly, there are plenty of actions that are legal but are not socially acceptable, but it is on those who claim that the action is unacceptable to provide an argument against the default position. In this specific case, to argue why Scott Alexander 'deserves anonymity'.