6 ms·

People are not bound to follow this rule, correct? As in, there's no legal consequence? > Instead, his groups have moved to signing NDAs or explicitly stating

People are not bound to follow this rule, correct? As in, there's no legal consequence? > Instead, his groups have moved to signing NDAs or explicitly stating that conversations are not to be shared externally. This seems a bit better, albeit with more work.

bawolff 2y ago
Not everything has to be legal. The consequence is you don't get invited back and some people might think less of you. Legally enforcing every social norm is dystopian.
- aliasxneo 2y ago
  > Legally enforcing every social norm is dystopian. But I didn't say that? I was genuinely unsure of whether this was something that could be taken to court if someone violated it. If it's socially bound, and the purpose is to increase free speech, I find that less compelling in today's culture.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    Anything can be taken to court. I expect, in general, people get mad at the person who broke the rule, they don't get invited back to future iterations, and they suffer reputational damage. When I've been in that sort of situation, the rule is made clear and no one breaks it--at least publicly.
- manquer 2y ago
  Only if they associate their name with the disclosure ? anonymous sources to media is pretty common way to share information.
  - bawolff 2y ago
    Given the chatham house rules specificly allow that, its kind of a moot point.
    - manquer 2y ago
      I should have been clearer. Anonymous source in the meeting leaking to news media that person X said something controversial in this summit . Since nobody would know the anonymous source itself , social norms like being shamed or not being invited in the future will not work is the point
- sp527 2y ago
  > Legally enforcing every social norm is dystopian Persecuting people for their beliefs by exploiting loopholes (e.g. blast on social media, bully their employer, etc) is also pretty dystopian, don't you think? And it's not like the persecutors ever give you the full story. For example, the reporting on Meta ending DEI didn't want you to know their rather logical view of the situation (discrimination on the basis of immutable characteristics is wrong). What fraction of people actually believe in giving a boost to certain candidates purely on the basis of race? Certainly not enough for the persecutors to allow that argument to be broadcast widely.
  - bawolff 2y ago
    > Persecuting people for their beliefs by exploiting loopholes (e.g. blast on social media, bully their employer, etc) is also pretty dystopian, don't you think? Sometimes it can be. More than one thing can be dystopian.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    What do you think “the marketplace of ideas” actually is, if not talking shit about people with shitty ideas? Such a ridiculously overloaded use of the word “persecution.”
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> seems a bit better, albeit with more work Are the NDAs signed between attendees and the host? That puts the host in the awkward position of having to enforce the NDAs, even if the injured party is one of the guests.
- falcor84 2y ago
  Don't you mean, the offending party?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    No. If you, me and Bob sign an NDA and I leak your secrets, you’re the injured party.
    - falcor84 2y ago
      So I'm still confused - why would the host feel awkward protecting the injured party? Am I missing some implication of enforcing the NDA?
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > why would the host feel awkward protecting the injured party? Suing is time-consuming and expensive.
seabass-labrax 2y ago
If the rule is given as a condition of attendance, then it could reasonably be considered a contractual obligation. The event organizer could then sue for damages on the basis of breach of contact. The extent of those damages would be related to how much reputational damage the venue or event organizer suffered, and the potential loss of future attendance caused by that. In addition, both the subject of a secret conversation and the participants of that conversation could sue someone for disclosing the discussion on the basis of libel. My understanding of USA law is that libel has a very high threshold and is therefore rarely litigated, but in other jurisdictions, such as the UK, libel can be as simple as saying something true with the intent to hurt the subject's reputation. Many people try to put as much as possible into bespoke, written contracts, but usually a mixture of common law and implicit contracts is adequate to litigate almost anything considered harmful by society. I doubt the NDA is actually needed as long as the Chatham House rule is made clear.

bawolff 2y ago

Not everything has to be legal. The consequence is you don't get invited back and some people might think less of you. Legally enforcing every social norm is dystopian.

aliasxneo 2y ago
> Legally enforcing every social norm is dystopian. But I didn't say that? I was genuinely unsure of whether this was something that could be taken to court if someone violated it. If it's socially bound, and the purpose is to increase free speech, I find that less compelling in today's culture.
- ghaff 2y ago
  Anything can be taken to court. I expect, in general, people get mad at the person who broke the rule, they don't get invited back to future iterations, and they suffer reputational damage. When I've been in that sort of situation, the rule is made clear and no one breaks it--at least publicly.
manquer 2y ago
Only if they associate their name with the disclosure ? anonymous sources to media is pretty common way to share information.
- bawolff 2y ago
  Given the chatham house rules specificly allow that, its kind of a moot point.
  - manquer 2y ago
    I should have been clearer. Anonymous source in the meeting leaking to news media that person X said something controversial in this summit . Since nobody would know the anonymous source itself , social norms like being shamed or not being invited in the future will not work is the point
sp527 2y ago
> Legally enforcing every social norm is dystopian Persecuting people for their beliefs by exploiting loopholes (e.g. blast on social media, bully their employer, etc) is also pretty dystopian, don't you think? And it's not like the persecutors ever give you the full story. For example, the reporting on Meta ending DEI didn't want you to know their rather logical view of the situation (discrimination on the basis of immutable characteristics is wrong). What fraction of people actually believe in giving a boost to certain candidates purely on the basis of race? Certainly not enough for the persecutors to allow that argument to be broadcast widely.
- bawolff 2y ago
  > Persecuting people for their beliefs by exploiting loopholes (e.g. blast on social media, bully their employer, etc) is also pretty dystopian, don't you think? Sometimes it can be. More than one thing can be dystopian.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  What do you think “the marketplace of ideas” actually is, if not talking shit about people with shitty ideas? Such a ridiculously overloaded use of the word “persecution.”
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> seems a bit better, albeit with more work Are the NDAs signed between attendees and the host? That puts the host in the awkward position of having to enforce the NDAs, even if the injured party is one of the guests.

falcor84 2y ago
Don't you mean, the offending party?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  No. If you, me and Bob sign an NDA and I leak your secrets, you’re the injured party.
  - falcor84 2y ago
    So I'm still confused - why would the host feel awkward protecting the injured party? Am I missing some implication of enforcing the NDA?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > why would the host feel awkward protecting the injured party? Suing is time-consuming and expensive.

seabass-labrax 2y ago

If the rule is given as a condition of attendance, then it could reasonably be considered a contractual obligation. The event organizer could then sue for damages on the basis of breach of contact. The extent of those damages would be related to how much reputational damage the venue or event organizer suffered, and the potential loss of future attendance caused by that. In addition, both the subject of a secret conversation and the participants of that conversation could sue someone for disclosing the discussion on the basis of libel. My understanding of USA law is that libel has a very high threshold and is therefore rarely litigated, but in other jurisdictions, such as the UK, libel can be as simple as saying something true with the intent to hurt the subject's reputation. Many people try to put as much as possible into bespoke, written contracts, but usually a mixture of common law and implicit contracts is adequate to litigate almost anything considered harmful by society. I doubt the NDA is actually needed as long as the Chatham House rule is made clear.