6 ms·

Not true at all. The weakest members of society benefit from acting collectively, anonymity is a great thing if you're trying to hide your fortune. Peter Thiel

Not true at all. The weakest members of society benefit from acting collectively, anonymity is a great thing if you're trying to hide your fortune. Peter Thiel has more to gain from anonymity than a MeToo member. There's a reason why your address and taxes paid are public information in Sweden. Moving things into the public sphere, transparency, and protection by the law is what helps weak people. Anonymity is a tool of power, always has been.

qiskit 5y ago
> Peter Thiel has more to gain from anonymity than a MeToo member. Is that why peter thiel not anonymous? Is there a reason why he goes on TV and gives interviews? > There's a reason why your address and taxes paid are public information in Sweden. What is the reason? > Anonymity is a tool of power, always has been. Is that why the witness protection provides anonymity? Is that why many rape victims are provided with anonymity? How come you are anonymous then? Because you have so much wealth and power?
- Barrin92 5y ago
  >Is that why peter thiel not anonymous? Most of his financial dealings are well hidden. Took until last year for propublica to figure out that he was stashing billions into a Roth IRA somehow. So when it comes to things that matter, he very much tries to be. Transparency brings crime and inequality to light. Sweden publicizes these things because it means you can see disparity clearly. Donors to political parties can't hide. Their information is on display. Someone who makes 8 bucks an hour doesn't gain anything from financial anonymity. Lobbyists, politicians, oligarchs do. And the reason why we need to have people in witness protection or hide rape victims is because we can not get to their assailants. The fact that with a movement like MeToo say, women collectively started to expose powerful people was significantly better than having to individually hide.
  - qiskit 5y ago
    > Most of his financial dealings are well hidden. That is privacy, not anonymity. > Donors to political parties can't hide. In the US, we have anonymity for small donors. If you donate less $200 I think you can remain anonymous. > And the reason why we need to have people in witness protection or hide rape victims is because we can not get to their assailants. No. Even if the assailants are in jail, we provide anonymity/protection in case the assailants have associates who might do harm. > The fact that with a movement like MeToo say, women collectively started to expose powerful people was significantly better than having to individually hide. The MeToo had the backing of powerful people/establishment. That's why it worked. Not because of a handful of women. There was political protection provided by the elites. A handful of women doing MeToo in a different environment might get them jailed or even killed. I agree with you to some degree. I believe politicians and the powerful should not have anonymity and highly limited privacy. I believe that the general public should absolutely have anonymity. I disagree with your extreme blanket policy of denying anonymity to everyone.
HWR_14 5y ago
You speak about anonymity vs openness, but focus on the financial sphere. Not the internet. Lots of disenfranchised people thrive on anonymity. Gay people in homophobic regimes. Religious minorities. Union organizers. Possibly soon, Ukrainian freedom fighters. Free speech requires anonymous speech.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Only as long as the government is benign. Nothing convinces me that any government is benign and acting in anyone's best interests other than the 1% and the interests of the pols themselves. There is a reason why warrants are need to search through my "papers". This should be extended to the internet. There is no reason to give up anonymity because the cons of that GREATLY outweigh the pluses. Governments should not be given 100% surveillance powers. The fact that China and other authoritarian systems demand this of their citizens should be in the forefront of everyone's minds.
- Kim_Bruning 5y ago
  And even if we accept that a particular Democratic government is beyond reproach today, doesn't mean some dictatorial neighbors mightn't come visit one day and install a different government.

qiskit 5y ago

> Peter Thiel has more to gain from anonymity than a MeToo member. Is that why peter thiel not anonymous? Is there a reason why he goes on TV and gives interviews? > There's a reason why your address and taxes paid are public information in Sweden. What is the reason? > Anonymity is a tool of power, always has been. Is that why the witness protection provides anonymity? Is that why many rape victims are provided with anonymity? How come you are anonymous then? Because you have so much wealth and power?

Barrin92 5y ago
>Is that why peter thiel not anonymous? Most of his financial dealings are well hidden. Took until last year for propublica to figure out that he was stashing billions into a Roth IRA somehow. So when it comes to things that matter, he very much tries to be. Transparency brings crime and inequality to light. Sweden publicizes these things because it means you can see disparity clearly. Donors to political parties can't hide. Their information is on display. Someone who makes 8 bucks an hour doesn't gain anything from financial anonymity. Lobbyists, politicians, oligarchs do. And the reason why we need to have people in witness protection or hide rape victims is because we can not get to their assailants. The fact that with a movement like MeToo say, women collectively started to expose powerful people was significantly better than having to individually hide.
- qiskit 5y ago
  > Most of his financial dealings are well hidden. That is privacy, not anonymity. > Donors to political parties can't hide. In the US, we have anonymity for small donors. If you donate less $200 I think you can remain anonymous. > And the reason why we need to have people in witness protection or hide rape victims is because we can not get to their assailants. No. Even if the assailants are in jail, we provide anonymity/protection in case the assailants have associates who might do harm. > The fact that with a movement like MeToo say, women collectively started to expose powerful people was significantly better than having to individually hide. The MeToo had the backing of powerful people/establishment. That's why it worked. Not because of a handful of women. There was political protection provided by the elites. A handful of women doing MeToo in a different environment might get them jailed or even killed. I agree with you to some degree. I believe politicians and the powerful should not have anonymity and highly limited privacy. I believe that the general public should absolutely have anonymity. I disagree with your extreme blanket policy of denying anonymity to everyone.

HWR_14 5y ago

You speak about anonymity vs openness, but focus on the financial sphere. Not the internet. Lots of disenfranchised people thrive on anonymity. Gay people in homophobic regimes. Religious minorities. Union organizers. Possibly soon, Ukrainian freedom fighters. Free speech requires anonymous speech.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

Only as long as the government is benign. Nothing convinces me that any government is benign and acting in anyone's best interests other than the 1% and the interests of the pols themselves. There is a reason why warrants are need to search through my "papers". This should be extended to the internet. There is no reason to give up anonymity because the cons of that GREATLY outweigh the pluses. Governments should not be given 100% surveillance powers. The fact that China and other authoritarian systems demand this of their citizens should be in the forefront of everyone's minds.

Kim_Bruning 5y ago
And even if we accept that a particular Democratic government is beyond reproach today, doesn't mean some dictatorial neighbors mightn't come visit one day and install a different government.