3 ms·
What's said in private is a classic "they said, I said". It's not a legal danger. This article implies the danger is legal liability, which wouldn't explain so
by boredprograming 5y ago
What's said in private is a classic "they said, I said". It's not a legal danger. This article implies the danger is legal liability, which wouldn't explain so little willing to voice their views in private.
The only reasonable explanation is the poll is done on a very private or paranoid group
- grumple 5y agoWhen gossip, public shaming, and excommunication are commonplace, what's said in private matters a lot. Heresy - questioning the orthodoxy of today's doctrines - carries a high punishment these days.
- boredprograming 5y agoThey used to hang people for heresy, and they still do in some countries. I think "people will be upset with me" is pretty mild viewed in a historical lens
- MikeUt 5y ago> What's said in private is a classic "they said, I said". It's not a legal danger. This is false, even if we limit ourselves to only legal danger. If you say something to two people, and one of them repeats your words to the police, the police can easily ask the second person for confirmation. Add a few vague "lying to the police is very serious" threats, and there's a good chance the second person will betray you.
- boredprograming 5y agoThis kind of evidence is the weakest there is in court. I doubt it would go anywhere
- bellyfullofbac 5y agoYeah, the blog post, from a biased writer, makes the implication. The poll itself was quite neutral IMO. I wrote in another comment [1] why people might be wary about voicing their opinions, TL;DR: polarizing topics with staunch opinions from both sides (and about the other side) would lead to heated debates. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27514258 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27514258