3 ms·
To me it sounds like a format worth considering in other places too. Thanks to the partial secrecy rules, they don't have to parrot populist talking points to r
by mrtksn 3y ago
To me it sounds like a format worth considering in other places too. Thanks to the partial secrecy rules, they don't have to parrot populist talking points to receive good press.
If you think about it, the internet used to be like that at some time in the past when the pseudonyms were the default and the content wasn't ranked by popularity or points.
- 23B1 3y agoI’m merely pointing out that ‘secretive’ is an accurate headline.
- dredmorbius 3y agoChatham House Rule, as others have pointed out, is based on this specific principle: Under the Chatham House Rule, anyone who comes to a meeting is free to use information from the discussion, but is not allowed to reveal who made any particular comment. It is designed to increase openness of discussion. The rule is a system for holding debates and discussion panels on controversial topics, named after the London headquarters of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, where the rule originated in June 1927. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule> The rule itself: When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed. Bilderberg apparently follow the CHR: Attendees are entitled to use information gained at meetings, but not attribute it to a named speaker (known as the Chatham House Rule). <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_meeting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_meeting> (Also mentioned in TFA.) Consider that it's possible, as has been rumoured, that people and organisations discuss topics on fora such as Hacker News under pseudonyms.