4 ms·

> Now, I think there is little room for taking issue with point A. If we're at the point where Journalists can't discuss the views of people in their own space,

> Now, I think there is little room for taking issue with point A. If we're at the point where Journalists can't discuss the views of people in their own space, I have very little hope for a future environment of open and honest discourse. Really? There's very little hope for an environment of open and honest discourse without doxing people?

TOMDM 5y ago
Sorry, I misrepresented the situation due to ignorance. Doxxing people is condemnable, journalists discussing each others views alone is not.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  I think doxxing is a tool. It can be used in condemnable ways. It's also used in virtuous ways; for example, to determine whether what appears to be grassroots activism is astroturfing (https://www.businessinsider.com/astroturfing-grassroots-movements-2011-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/astroturfing-grassroots-move...).
colinmhayes 5y ago
There is no open and honest discourse without knowing who you are talking to.
- amadeuspagel 5y ago
  Strange that you say this on HN, a forum that allows pseudonymous accounts. Is the discourse here not open and honest? Less open and honest then on facebook? Regardless, if you think an open and honest discourse requires knowing who people are, you should have an explicit policy to that effect. You should not use private data entrusted to you to dox people.
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    Perhaps I should've said good faith discourse, because yes, I do not believe continuous good faith political discourse is possible when people can hide behind pseudonymity. Most political discussions online devolve into bad faith because there are no consequences. Not having anonymity is the first step toward ensuring good faith.
    - spoonjim 5y ago
      What does "good faith" mean? Does it mean "honest"? For example, I, the real actual me, think that the US should vastly reduce the number of unskilled immigrants it admits, strongly secure its borders, tighten the eligibility criteria for asylum, and deport anyone found crossing the border illegally. However, on Facebook or LinkedIn I would never say this as I would get Francesca Viola'd. So it's actually my real name identity that speaks in "bad faith" and only my pseudonymous identities (on HN, Reddit, and in the voting booth) that speak in "good faith."
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Some of the best discourse I've had has been with folks I have no way of identifying. Some of the worst I've seen was under their real names (including one I knew as a leadership role in a local Scouting group, and another prominent local businessman) on Nextdoor.

TOMDM 5y ago

Sorry, I misrepresented the situation due to ignorance. Doxxing people is condemnable, journalists discussing each others views alone is not.

shadowgovt 5y ago
I think doxxing is a tool. It can be used in condemnable ways. It's also used in virtuous ways; for example, to determine whether what appears to be grassroots activism is astroturfing (https://www.businessinsider.com/astroturfing-grassroots-movements-2011-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/astroturfing-grassroots-move...).

colinmhayes 5y ago

There is no open and honest discourse without knowing who you are talking to.

amadeuspagel 5y ago
Strange that you say this on HN, a forum that allows pseudonymous accounts. Is the discourse here not open and honest? Less open and honest then on facebook? Regardless, if you think an open and honest discourse requires knowing who people are, you should have an explicit policy to that effect. You should not use private data entrusted to you to dox people.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  Perhaps I should've said good faith discourse, because yes, I do not believe continuous good faith political discourse is possible when people can hide behind pseudonymity. Most political discussions online devolve into bad faith because there are no consequences. Not having anonymity is the first step toward ensuring good faith.
  - spoonjim 5y ago
    What does "good faith" mean? Does it mean "honest"? For example, I, the real actual me, think that the US should vastly reduce the number of unskilled immigrants it admits, strongly secure its borders, tighten the eligibility criteria for asylum, and deport anyone found crossing the border illegally. However, on Facebook or LinkedIn I would never say this as I would get Francesca Viola'd. So it's actually my real name identity that speaks in "bad faith" and only my pseudonymous identities (on HN, Reddit, and in the voting booth) that speak in "good faith."
ceejayoz 5y ago
Some of the best discourse I've had has been with folks I have no way of identifying. Some of the worst I've seen was under their real names (including one I knew as a leadership role in a local Scouting group, and another prominent local businessman) on Nextdoor.