6 ms·

“If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.” And hey, great news, now we have e

“If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.” And hey, great news, now we have every line written by every man, woman and child automatically captured and archived forever in an easy to search dossier. Someone who wrote a racist or anti-Semitic comment in 2007 could have evolved to deeper understanding and to a more compassionate worldview. But the writing remains forever, conveniently accessible.

HPsquared 5y ago
This is why anonymity is so important on the internet.
- kube-system 5y ago
  ... and/or privacy. In this case, it's was a once-public post, but the same issue applies to messages sent in confidence.
- kulig 5y ago
  If only there were some genius programmer guy who has been saying that for the last 30 years
- threatofrain 5y ago
  More like a proper social response to bad behavior. We can't keep hiding from the truth, especially when we live in an interconnected world where other people don't have to agree to forget.
  - nikolay 5y ago
    Just to remind you that your binary, i.e. inhumane, way of thinking is permanently documented here as well. I hope you regret this comment one day when the same binary approach is applied to you as well. People are expected to change today - and that's why people go in and out of jail. But in the liberal world view, everybody (except the oppressed) is evil! Even when the oppressed is a cold blooded killer, it's an excuses - they did it, because they are oppressed. And this is how the Commies executed tens of million of people - they were imperialists and enemies of Communism and there was no chance for them; they were sentences as permanently damaged goods and deserved only a bullet!
    - threatofrain 5y ago
      > Just to remind you that your binary, i.e. inhumane, way of thinking is permanently documented here as well. I hope you regret this comment one day when the same binary approach is applied to you as well. People are expected to change today - and that's why people go in and out of jail. But in the liberal world view, everybody (except the oppressed) is evil! Even when the oppressed is a cold blooded killer, it's an excuses - they did it, because they are oppressed. And this is how the Commies executed tens of million of people - they were imperialists and enemies of Communism and there was no chance for them; they were sentences as permanently damaged goods and deserved only a bullet! I mean, you sound like you think you have moral clarity to denounce someone as inhumane, and I guess this is how you lead in your conversational style. I'm talking about a technologically interconnected world where other nations and parties never have to agree to forget anything. Either we decide to excommunicate or suppress every nation and party that chooses to remember, or we decide what it means to coexist with those who remember. The humane way to do things is to decide how we should treat each other despite flaws, not stamp out every nation or peoples in the world that seeks to remember forever.
      - nikolay 5y ago
        Yes, if you sentence people as bad, because they've done something bad 15 years ago, and are binary in your judgements (people are they "good" or "bad" in certain aspects and can't transition between these two options), then, by all morals and definitions, you're inhumane not giving a chance and not willing to reassess. Everybody deserves a second chance, everybody has the right to have been wrong, and you should not judge and sentence with a bullet, but talk and see if they are the same person they presented themselves as decades ago.
        threatofrain 5y ago
        Where do you find any indication of permanent moral judgment except in your own speech, where you so persistently talk about it? Aren't you the one talking about judging people in binary ways? Perhaps you are speaking from your own heart? I'm talking about co-existence between nations with different policies, a world where the US may not agree to forget everything Germany asks of them. > Just to remind you that your binary, i.e. inhumane, way of thinking is permanently documented here as well. I hope you regret this comment one day when the same binary approach is applied to you as well. People are expected to change today - and that's why people go in and out of jail. But in the liberal world view, everybody (except the oppressed) is evil! Even when the oppressed is a cold blooded killer, it's an excuses - they did it, because they are oppressed. And this is how the Commies executed tens of million of people - they were imperialists and enemies of Communism and there was no chance for them; they were sentences as permanently damaged goods and deserved only a bullet! So you lead with your sense of moral and conversational clarity. > then, by all morals and definitions, you're inhumane not giving a chance and not willing to reassess. And so you follow with your sense of moral and conversational clarity.
FridayoLeary 5y ago
>Someone who wrote a racist or anti-Semitic comment in 2007 could have evolved to deeper understanding Perhaps but i don't feel they deserve the benefit of the doubt.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  >Perhaps but i don't feel they deserve the benefit of the doubt. 14 years is a long time really, there are people who get the benefit of a doubt for murder after 14 years.
  - zimpenfish 5y ago
    > there are people who get the benefit of a doubt for murder after 14 years They tend not to get put in charge of anti-murder departments, though, like this person being made Head Of Diversity.
    - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
      well probably they tend not to get that because once you've done time in the U.S you're screwed whether it was for stealing a candy bar, dealing drugs, or murder. On the other hand the exception to that rule would be - I've known guys who were drug addicts, caught, go through rehabs, and become counselors and psychologists in the judicial system. Which is pretty close to the scenario under discussion. on edit - ok only know two guys who did that, but they exist.
      - ipaddr 5y ago
        But never police or doctors who can prescribe drugs.
        bryanrasmussen 5y ago
        well sure, in America.
        5y ago
ipaddr 5y ago
The wise enough to not use their real name will survive. The culling of the real name begins. This is the literal killing of the 'you have nothing to hide' meme that goes to show you have something to hide.
- syshum 5y ago
  I am still baffled by the use of Real Names online.. As a late 70's child that got the internet when I was in my late teens it was unthinkable at that time to give anyone any personal info about you online. "Stranger Danger" and everyone online should be thought of as an axe murder was the dominant position I am not sure when or why this shift happen to where it was common for people to not only post their full personal info but also post real time location information about where they are and what they are doing... It is all baffling to me even today
  - 8bitbuddhist 5y ago
    Facebook and other social networks (Google+ for example) played a huge role in this* by enforcing real name policies. It's more profitable to advertise to users when you know who they are, where they live, how they shop, what they eat, etc, and not just their screen name. * https://www.npr.org/2011/09/28/140879480/who-are-you-really-activists-fight-for-pseudonyms https://www.npr.org/2011/09/28/140879480/who-are-you-really-...
  - rootsudo 5y ago
    Past twenty years, using your own name is authoritative and great for marketers to verify and validate you. With the rise of social media, no longer do you have to know basic html, or hosting.. or be in the community of random IRC people not trusting one another.
- hollasch 5y ago
  I use my real name precisely _because_ everything I say is being recorded. It's a guard against the foolish belief that any "anonymity" is real and can be relied on.
acituan 5y ago
> Someone who wrote a racist or anti-Semitic comment in 2007 could have evolved to deeper understanding and to a more compassionate worldview. But the writing remains forever, conveniently accessible. Not all writing is equal. There is a difference between let's say a tweet that was sent in during a flamewar versus a personal blog post that has been penned in the past and stayed published until today. The function of the latter is closer to a book, in that it explicitly aims to persist and communicate thoughts through time. If one changes, they could have taken the post down. If there was regret about the contents, one could have published an update/apology etc with the post. And the post wasn't picked from a web archive; it had stayed up until it the pushback reached career threatening levels. Yet there is still no evidence or apology in any medium that the person has actually changed their viewpoint. All we have is other people apologizing on their behalf with speculative redemption.
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  Coincidentally I was talking about that time that Tom Petty toured in the 80s using the confederate flag and then many years later he apologized for doing it, no more than an hour ago with a friend of mine More details here https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/10/03/tom-petty-used-the-confederate-flag-onstage-in-the-80s-then-he-took-a-stand-against-it/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/w... People do change and also understand when they do «downright stupid things», but we have to give them a chance to arrive at that point. If the post is still online, like the videos and photos of Tom Petty's 1985 tour, that could also be interpreted as a sign of honesty, it's also possible that the author forgot that he wrote it. I write a lot of things that I don't remember soon after. It happens to code as well, sometimes I ask myself «who's the genius that wrote this beautiful code» and I'm shocked when I find out it was me years ago, but most of the times I regret writing it.
- nradov 5y ago
  You're inventing an arbitrary difference where none exists. Twitter is literally a microblogging platform. There is no legal or moral difference between a Tweet versus a post on a different blogging platform such as Medium.
hilbert42 5y ago
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." Unfortunately, as we've seen from the many instances where utterers of comments have suffered the consequences, Cardinal Richelieu's famous quote has turned out to be truer than it ought to be—especially so in this internet age where ancient dirt is seemingly dragged up from anywhere. (This quote also tells us much about Richelieu's devious mind and I'd suggest that with this one line of his that he's told us more about himself than most six lines of many others!) One of the problems with the internet is being heard amongst the many voices so there's a tendency for people to use hyperbole and or exaggerate for the point of emphasis and yours truly is no exception (there are some comments of mine on the net that, in hindsight, I'd like to rephrase with more eloquence). :-) Expressing one's view is especially problematic with the net, as one has to be succinct and to the point if one's to be heard at all. Thus, more often than not, expediency wins out and only the raw message is heard sans nuances and without qualifications. That said, whether any of those scenarios is relevant in instance seems moot but I will say that generalizations of that sort aren't helpful as they're both dangerous to oneself and unfair to those about whom one has made comment. One cannot generalize as a whole about a nation, society etc. as within any group of people one will find a remarkably diverse range of views and beliefs. I have many Jewish friends and acquaintances and I can only say that I do not know of a more diverse group of people. If I were to generalize at all then the only reasonable comment I could make would be that they're all remarkably interesting individuals but each in different ways. The matter of whether some ancient and possibly intemperate remark is used against someone many years later is a troubling and vexed matter, especially so in this internet age. For starters, that person may have changed his or her mind in the intervening time. Then there's the issue of why someone has raised this matter after all that time not to mention the fact that once it's been raised and has gone viral across the net then the individual will have essentially no reasonable chance of ever defending himself or herself—whether his or her opinion is now right or wrong. Then there's the matter of Google protecting its corporate image so it's little wonder that he was dismissed (irrespective of his current beliefs or convictions). Unfortunately, that's the way things are. There is no easy answer to this matter. Fear of speaking out stifles free speech and we're seeing more and more self-censorship on the net day by day and it's truly worrying. Moreover, if one speaks out or expresses an opinion on any controversial matter then woes betide the consequences. In the days before the net and the sensational tabloid press there was a chance that a long-past dubious event from one's past may have gotten lost in the noise of old newspaper reports but the net has put a stop to that. Perhaps it's time to restate the age-old adage, which is to: 'Never discuss one's views on politics and religion as emotions run high and you'll surely make enemies.'

HPsquared 5y ago

This is why anonymity is so important on the internet.

kube-system 5y ago
... and/or privacy. In this case, it's was a once-public post, but the same issue applies to messages sent in confidence.
kulig 5y ago
If only there were some genius programmer guy who has been saying that for the last 30 years
threatofrain 5y ago
More like a proper social response to bad behavior. We can't keep hiding from the truth, especially when we live in an interconnected world where other people don't have to agree to forget.
- nikolay 5y ago
  Just to remind you that your binary, i.e. inhumane, way of thinking is permanently documented here as well. I hope you regret this comment one day when the same binary approach is applied to you as well. People are expected to change today - and that's why people go in and out of jail. But in the liberal world view, everybody (except the oppressed) is evil! Even when the oppressed is a cold blooded killer, it's an excuses - they did it, because they are oppressed. And this is how the Commies executed tens of million of people - they were imperialists and enemies of Communism and there was no chance for them; they were sentences as permanently damaged goods and deserved only a bullet!
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    > Just to remind you that your binary, i.e. inhumane, way of thinking is permanently documented here as well. I hope you regret this comment one day when the same binary approach is applied to you as well. People are expected to change today - and that's why people go in and out of jail. But in the liberal world view, everybody (except the oppressed) is evil! Even when the oppressed is a cold blooded killer, it's an excuses - they did it, because they are oppressed. And this is how the Commies executed tens of million of people - they were imperialists and enemies of Communism and there was no chance for them; they were sentences as permanently damaged goods and deserved only a bullet! I mean, you sound like you think you have moral clarity to denounce someone as inhumane, and I guess this is how you lead in your conversational style. I'm talking about a technologically interconnected world where other nations and parties never have to agree to forget anything. Either we decide to excommunicate or suppress every nation and party that chooses to remember, or we decide what it means to coexist with those who remember. The humane way to do things is to decide how we should treat each other despite flaws, not stamp out every nation or peoples in the world that seeks to remember forever.
    - nikolay 5y ago
      Yes, if you sentence people as bad, because they've done something bad 15 years ago, and are binary in your judgements (people are they "good" or "bad" in certain aspects and can't transition between these two options), then, by all morals and definitions, you're inhumane not giving a chance and not willing to reassess. Everybody deserves a second chance, everybody has the right to have been wrong, and you should not judge and sentence with a bullet, but talk and see if they are the same person they presented themselves as decades ago.
      - threatofrain 5y ago
        Where do you find any indication of permanent moral judgment except in your own speech, where you so persistently talk about it? Aren't you the one talking about judging people in binary ways? Perhaps you are speaking from your own heart? I'm talking about co-existence between nations with different policies, a world where the US may not agree to forget everything Germany asks of them. > Just to remind you that your binary, i.e. inhumane, way of thinking is permanently documented here as well. I hope you regret this comment one day when the same binary approach is applied to you as well. People are expected to change today - and that's why people go in and out of jail. But in the liberal world view, everybody (except the oppressed) is evil! Even when the oppressed is a cold blooded killer, it's an excuses - they did it, because they are oppressed. And this is how the Commies executed tens of million of people - they were imperialists and enemies of Communism and there was no chance for them; they were sentences as permanently damaged goods and deserved only a bullet! So you lead with your sense of moral and conversational clarity. > then, by all morals and definitions, you're inhumane not giving a chance and not willing to reassess. And so you follow with your sense of moral and conversational clarity.

FridayoLeary 5y ago

>Someone who wrote a racist or anti-Semitic comment in 2007 could have evolved to deeper understanding Perhaps but i don't feel they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago
>Perhaps but i don't feel they deserve the benefit of the doubt. 14 years is a long time really, there are people who get the benefit of a doubt for murder after 14 years.
- zimpenfish 5y ago
  > there are people who get the benefit of a doubt for murder after 14 years They tend not to get put in charge of anti-murder departments, though, like this person being made Head Of Diversity.
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    well probably they tend not to get that because once you've done time in the U.S you're screwed whether it was for stealing a candy bar, dealing drugs, or murder. On the other hand the exception to that rule would be - I've known guys who were drug addicts, caught, go through rehabs, and become counselors and psychologists in the judicial system. Which is pretty close to the scenario under discussion. on edit - ok only know two guys who did that, but they exist.
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      But never police or doctors who can prescribe drugs.
      - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
        well sure, in America.
      - 5y ago

ipaddr 5y ago

The wise enough to not use their real name will survive. The culling of the real name begins. This is the literal killing of the 'you have nothing to hide' meme that goes to show you have something to hide.

syshum 5y ago
I am still baffled by the use of Real Names online.. As a late 70's child that got the internet when I was in my late teens it was unthinkable at that time to give anyone any personal info about you online. "Stranger Danger" and everyone online should be thought of as an axe murder was the dominant position I am not sure when or why this shift happen to where it was common for people to not only post their full personal info but also post real time location information about where they are and what they are doing... It is all baffling to me even today
- 8bitbuddhist 5y ago
  Facebook and other social networks (Google+ for example) played a huge role in this* by enforcing real name policies. It's more profitable to advertise to users when you know who they are, where they live, how they shop, what they eat, etc, and not just their screen name. * https://www.npr.org/2011/09/28/140879480/who-are-you-really-activists-fight-for-pseudonyms https://www.npr.org/2011/09/28/140879480/who-are-you-really-...
- rootsudo 5y ago
  Past twenty years, using your own name is authoritative and great for marketers to verify and validate you. With the rise of social media, no longer do you have to know basic html, or hosting.. or be in the community of random IRC people not trusting one another.
hollasch 5y ago
I use my real name precisely _because_ everything I say is being recorded. It's a guard against the foolish belief that any "anonymity" is real and can be relied on.

acituan 5y ago

> Someone who wrote a racist or anti-Semitic comment in 2007 could have evolved to deeper understanding and to a more compassionate worldview. But the writing remains forever, conveniently accessible. Not all writing is equal. There is a difference between let's say a tweet that was sent in during a flamewar versus a personal blog post that has been penned in the past and stayed published until today. The function of the latter is closer to a book, in that it explicitly aims to persist and communicate thoughts through time. If one changes, they could have taken the post down. If there was regret about the contents, one could have published an update/apology etc with the post. And the post wasn't picked from a web archive; it had stayed up until it the pushback reached career threatening levels. Yet there is still no evidence or apology in any medium that the person has actually changed their viewpoint. All we have is other people apologizing on their behalf with speculative redemption.

peoplefromibiza 5y ago
Coincidentally I was talking about that time that Tom Petty toured in the 80s using the confederate flag and then many years later he apologized for doing it, no more than an hour ago with a friend of mine More details here https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/10/03/tom-petty-used-the-confederate-flag-onstage-in-the-80s-then-he-took-a-stand-against-it/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/w... People do change and also understand when they do «downright stupid things», but we have to give them a chance to arrive at that point. If the post is still online, like the videos and photos of Tom Petty's 1985 tour, that could also be interpreted as a sign of honesty, it's also possible that the author forgot that he wrote it. I write a lot of things that I don't remember soon after. It happens to code as well, sometimes I ask myself «who's the genius that wrote this beautiful code» and I'm shocked when I find out it was me years ago, but most of the times I regret writing it.
nradov 5y ago
You're inventing an arbitrary difference where none exists. Twitter is literally a microblogging platform. There is no legal or moral difference between a Tweet versus a post on a different blogging platform such as Medium.

hilbert42 5y ago

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." Unfortunately, as we've seen from the many instances where utterers of comments have suffered the consequences, Cardinal Richelieu's famous quote has turned out to be truer than it ought to be—especially so in this internet age where ancient dirt is seemingly dragged up from anywhere. (This quote also tells us much about Richelieu's devious mind and I'd suggest that with this one line of his that he's told us more about himself than most six lines of many others!) One of the problems with the internet is being heard amongst the many voices so there's a tendency for people to use hyperbole and or exaggerate for the point of emphasis and yours truly is no exception (there are some comments of mine on the net that, in hindsight, I'd like to rephrase with more eloquence). :-) Expressing one's view is especially problematic with the net, as one has to be succinct and to the point if one's to be heard at all. Thus, more often than not, expediency wins out and only the raw message is heard sans nuances and without qualifications. That said, whether any of those scenarios is relevant in instance seems moot but I will say that generalizations of that sort aren't helpful as they're both dangerous to oneself and unfair to those about whom one has made comment. One cannot generalize as a whole about a nation, society etc. as within any group of people one will find a remarkably diverse range of views and beliefs. I have many Jewish friends and acquaintances and I can only say that I do not know of a more diverse group of people. If I were to generalize at all then the only reasonable comment I could make would be that they're all remarkably interesting individuals but each in different ways. The matter of whether some ancient and possibly intemperate remark is used against someone many years later is a troubling and vexed matter, especially so in this internet age. For starters, that person may have changed his or her mind in the intervening time. Then there's the issue of why someone has raised this matter after all that time not to mention the fact that once it's been raised and has gone viral across the net then the individual will have essentially no reasonable chance of ever defending himself or herself—whether his or her opinion is now right or wrong. Then there's the matter of Google protecting its corporate image so it's little wonder that he was dismissed (irrespective of his current beliefs or convictions). Unfortunately, that's the way things are. There is no easy answer to this matter. Fear of speaking out stifles free speech and we're seeing more and more self-censorship on the net day by day and it's truly worrying. Moreover, if one speaks out or expresses an opinion on any controversial matter then woes betide the consequences. In the days before the net and the sensational tabloid press there was a chance that a long-past dubious event from one's past may have gotten lost in the noise of old newspaper reports but the net has put a stop to that. Perhaps it's time to restate the age-old adage, which is to: 'Never discuss one's views on politics and religion as emotions run high and you'll surely make enemies.'