5 ms·

First Glassdoor, then OpenTable. Who will dox us next - Reddit? Hacker News?

by hilux 3y ago

romanows 3y ago
Glassdoor didn't make a reviewer's name public, that seems to be a persistent misconception, although there are still things to fault them for. This link is claiming that OpenTable is going to publicly associate first names and profile photos with reviews. This seems much worse, if we're comparing cases.
zer00eyz 3y ago
I do not disagree with you. But critics of the past were never anonymous. If you review film or food or anything, and it got published you put your name next to it. You were proud of your opinion and how it was delivered. I think it's why video is more interesting to the current generation than text. It isnt that video is more appealing, it's much harder to be in(un?)-authentic when your face is out there.
- RIMR 3y ago
  >critics of the past were never anonymous That is a pretty bonkers thing to say about a review platform that has for many years been anonymous... Not to mention that influential pre-Internet food critics have often been anonymous/pseudonymous to avoid IRL recognition by restaurant owners, ensuring that they receive the same level of service their readers would get.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  > But critics of the past were never anonymous. If you review film or food or anything, and it got published you put your name next to it. Partially. You would -publish- with your name beside it, but you were anonymous when you went to the restaurant, so they wouldn't know you were a critic.
  - zer00eyz 3y ago
    In the case of restaurants this is true. It's to avoid special treatment. Unlike art, music, and film. Where "special treatment" would have to be bribery (and that does happen).
- jessriedel 3y ago
  Anonymous critique has been an important component of public discussion since before the printing press.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > But critics of the past were never anonymous. Er, yes, they often were either anonymous or pseudonymous. > If you review film or food or anything, and it got published you put your name next to it. It probably had a name next to it, because the publisher wanted to build a brand around the reviewer. It might well not be a name you used for any other purpose, though.
  - zer00eyz 3y ago
    Criticism has a LONG history: https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-16-critics-changed-way-art https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-16-critics-cha... SOme crazy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Sewell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Sewell Critics in art, books, music (live, recorded), film, and tv have become personalities in their own right. The plots, drama, name calling, shit slinging of criticism pushes it almost to the level of performance art itself. The anonymity of the the restaurant critic is in face not name. Its to avoid special treatment, bribes, questions of journalistic integrity. (and bribery in criticism is a whole topic in itself) I agreed with the poster above me, that Open table should stuff it. But that that does not change that they WANT to do it. Is there a good reason? Why is a great question to ask. Does every one need to be anonymous when reviewing products, dining, film, books, music? Is there a benefit from identity and candor? Would it change people's takes on things (the internet is filled with people behaving badly so I dont think so)? Maybe you want to be the critic of down and out eateries that I like to frequent, and Im going to follow your advice (or yours mine) because were identified and peers... (a social network of shitty eateries of sorts). I doubt open table is doing it for any of these reasons... there's something more basic there, what is a good question!
- jauntywundrkind 3y ago
  I want both the ability to sockpuppet, but also as a consumer of reviews, I very much would rank your opinion based on how much public persona you offer. Be anonymous! Fine! But I will be highly suspicious of your words unless I see aomg long track record I can evaluate against. Tat can all be anonymous too, but there needs to be a past with which to decypher & interpret you, to decide whether to take you seriously or not against. No history means no value. No probability there's not some agenda.
- exsomet 3y ago
  This doesn’t seem like an apples to apples comparison. If your review was being published, you probably did it professionally and were being compensated to be true and provide valuable feedback. That is a fundamentally different power dynamic than posting feedback on the internet with no compensation or protection against retaliation except for the promise of anonymity.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  ITT: rumors, gossip, and nom de plumes never existed.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
throwiforgtnlzy 3y ago
It's no longer an assured impossibility that if certain populist political-religious extremists attained power, they wouldn't impose censorship and mandate requiring licenses and identity verification to use the internet.
tennisflyi 3y ago
Neither have asked for it

First Glassdoor, then OpenTable. Who will dox us next - Reddit? Hacker News?

by hilux 3y ago

First Glassdoor, then OpenTable. Who will dox us next - Reddit? Hacker News?

Glassdoor didn't make a reviewer's name public, that seems to be a persistent misconception, although there are still things to fault them for. This link is claiming that OpenTable is going to publicly associate first names and profile photos with reviews. This seems much worse, if we're comparing cases.

zer00eyz 3y ago

I do not disagree with you. But critics of the past were never anonymous. If you review film or food or anything, and it got published you put your name next to it. You were proud of your opinion and how it was delivered. I think it's why video is more interesting to the current generation than text. It isnt that video is more appealing, it's much harder to be in(un?)-authentic when your face is out there.

RIMR 3y ago
>critics of the past were never anonymous That is a pretty bonkers thing to say about a review platform that has for many years been anonymous... Not to mention that influential pre-Internet food critics have often been anonymous/pseudonymous to avoid IRL recognition by restaurant owners, ensuring that they receive the same level of service their readers would get.
FireBeyond 3y ago
> But critics of the past were never anonymous. If you review film or food or anything, and it got published you put your name next to it. Partially. You would -publish- with your name beside it, but you were anonymous when you went to the restaurant, so they wouldn't know you were a critic.
- zer00eyz 3y ago
  In the case of restaurants this is true. It's to avoid special treatment. Unlike art, music, and film. Where "special treatment" would have to be bribery (and that does happen).
jessriedel 3y ago
Anonymous critique has been an important component of public discussion since before the printing press.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> But critics of the past were never anonymous. Er, yes, they often were either anonymous or pseudonymous. > If you review film or food or anything, and it got published you put your name next to it. It probably had a name next to it, because the publisher wanted to build a brand around the reviewer. It might well not be a name you used for any other purpose, though.
- zer00eyz 3y ago
  Criticism has a LONG history: https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-16-critics-changed-way-art https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-16-critics-cha... SOme crazy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Sewell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Sewell Critics in art, books, music (live, recorded), film, and tv have become personalities in their own right. The plots, drama, name calling, shit slinging of criticism pushes it almost to the level of performance art itself. The anonymity of the the restaurant critic is in face not name. Its to avoid special treatment, bribes, questions of journalistic integrity. (and bribery in criticism is a whole topic in itself) I agreed with the poster above me, that Open table should stuff it. But that that does not change that they WANT to do it. Is there a good reason? Why is a great question to ask. Does every one need to be anonymous when reviewing products, dining, film, books, music? Is there a benefit from identity and candor? Would it change people's takes on things (the internet is filled with people behaving badly so I dont think so)? Maybe you want to be the critic of down and out eateries that I like to frequent, and Im going to follow your advice (or yours mine) because were identified and peers... (a social network of shitty eateries of sorts). I doubt open table is doing it for any of these reasons... there's something more basic there, what is a good question!
jauntywundrkind 3y ago
I want both the ability to sockpuppet, but also as a consumer of reviews, I very much would rank your opinion based on how much public persona you offer. Be anonymous! Fine! But I will be highly suspicious of your words unless I see aomg long track record I can evaluate against. Tat can all be anonymous too, but there needs to be a past with which to decypher & interpret you, to decide whether to take you seriously or not against. No history means no value. No probability there's not some agenda.
exsomet 3y ago
This doesn’t seem like an apples to apples comparison. If your review was being published, you probably did it professionally and were being compensated to be true and provide valuable feedback. That is a fundamentally different power dynamic than posting feedback on the internet with no compensation or protection against retaliation except for the promise of anonymity.
red-iron-pine 3y ago
ITT: rumors, gossip, and nom de plumes never existed.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

throwiforgtnlzy 3y ago

It's no longer an assured impossibility that if certain populist political-religious extremists attained power, they wouldn't impose censorship and mandate requiring licenses and identity verification to use the internet.

tennisflyi 3y ago

Neither have asked for it