3 ms·

This is not new. Many of the mailing lists that dominated the discourse of the early Internet in the 1990s operated under a similar rule. The novelty is that it

This is not new. Many of the mailing lists that dominated the discourse of the early Internet in the 1990s operated under a similar rule. The novelty is that it disappeared almost entirely for decades. The original purpose (on the Internet) was to create a space where complex ethical and moral questions could be explored and discussed in depth without risk of someone taking a hypothetical statement out of context to slander you, as people are wont to do. It would be orders of magnitude worse in this current age of people obsessed with generating click-bait for engagement, which wasn’t a thing back then. I personally found that environment to be intellectually stimulating and rigorous, I miss the standard of discourse of those days. Chatham House Rule is going back to the old Internet, which valued novel insight and reasoned discourse highly, before the masses took over the Internet. The purpose was not to enable edgelords. Rational defense of ideas, statements, and hypotheses was expected and table stakes. Related rules of that era, such as Crocker’s Rule[0], placed responsibility on the reader to address uncomfortable or offensive feedback in the most dispassionate way possible. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12881288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12881288

inglor_cz 2y ago
Chatham House Rule goes back to 1927, a pre-transistor era. It seems that already back then, during the early radio era, it was recognized that people dwell on "shocking sound bites" too much, at the cost of thinking things through.
vr46 2y ago
Agreed - This article is wrong at the beginning, Chatham House Rules are not a gag, they allow everyone to talk FREELY. I have been to many classes and forums under this rule, not least at Chatham House in St James Square, and it means that the speakers can speak freely, name names, without hedging or fudging or perambulating around the shrubbery. You can report whatever you like, but not who said it. I have heard so many truths in these discussions that were 15 years before their time - the behaviour of Mohammed Al-Fayed, for example - which carry much more weight when you hear them from an eyewitness, even if they do not wish to be named.
- edanm 2y ago
  > Agreed - This article is wrong at the beginning, Chatham House Rules are not a gag FYI gag as in "gag order" not gag as in a joke. In case anyone else was confused about this as I was :)
  - vr46 2y ago
    I didn't mean gag as joke, it was a direct reference to the article, but I see that people might be confused.
    - edanm 2y ago
      Yeah, I wasn't criticizing or anything, that's why I wrote it as clarification. I assumed other people like me might read your comment without having read the article.
- sillyfluke 2y ago
  I like how the parent points out that it was a similar rule and not explicitly stated as "Chatham House Rules". >This is not new. Many of the mailing lists that dominated the discourse of the early Internet in the 1990s operated under a similar rule. The novelty is that it disappeared almost entirely for decades. Anecdotally, I believe this rule was followed implicitly and often subconsciously and probably through some of the peak blogosphere era, despite blogs being accessible by the general public at the time. People were still looking for their tribe to escape the intellectual, creative, or censored dullness of their local surroundings. The concept of ratting out people who were looking for the same thing would not occur to most people. They prized the discussion they couldn't have elsewhere more than the specific points being made. It'd be like the pilgrims going back to England and complaining to the English about all the other crazy heretics in the new world. The whole thing started disapearing when going "viral" on social media started becoming a thing.
justin66 2y ago
> Many of the mailing lists that dominated the discourse of the early Internet in the 1990s operated under a similar rule. What lists are you referring to? I don't remember this ever coming up.

inglor_cz 2y ago

Chatham House Rule goes back to 1927, a pre-transistor era. It seems that already back then, during the early radio era, it was recognized that people dwell on "shocking sound bites" too much, at the cost of thinking things through.

vr46 2y ago

Agreed - This article is wrong at the beginning, Chatham House Rules are not a gag, they allow everyone to talk FREELY. I have been to many classes and forums under this rule, not least at Chatham House in St James Square, and it means that the speakers can speak freely, name names, without hedging or fudging or perambulating around the shrubbery. You can report whatever you like, but not who said it. I have heard so many truths in these discussions that were 15 years before their time - the behaviour of Mohammed Al-Fayed, for example - which carry much more weight when you hear them from an eyewitness, even if they do not wish to be named.

edanm 2y ago
> Agreed - This article is wrong at the beginning, Chatham House Rules are not a gag FYI gag as in "gag order" not gag as in a joke. In case anyone else was confused about this as I was :)
- vr46 2y ago
  I didn't mean gag as joke, it was a direct reference to the article, but I see that people might be confused.
  - edanm 2y ago
    Yeah, I wasn't criticizing or anything, that's why I wrote it as clarification. I assumed other people like me might read your comment without having read the article.
sillyfluke 2y ago
I like how the parent points out that it was a similar rule and not explicitly stated as "Chatham House Rules". >This is not new. Many of the mailing lists that dominated the discourse of the early Internet in the 1990s operated under a similar rule. The novelty is that it disappeared almost entirely for decades. Anecdotally, I believe this rule was followed implicitly and often subconsciously and probably through some of the peak blogosphere era, despite blogs being accessible by the general public at the time. People were still looking for their tribe to escape the intellectual, creative, or censored dullness of their local surroundings. The concept of ratting out people who were looking for the same thing would not occur to most people. They prized the discussion they couldn't have elsewhere more than the specific points being made. It'd be like the pilgrims going back to England and complaining to the English about all the other crazy heretics in the new world. The whole thing started disapearing when going "viral" on social media started becoming a thing.

justin66 2y ago

> Many of the mailing lists that dominated the discourse of the early Internet in the 1990s operated under a similar rule. What lists are you referring to? I don't remember this ever coming up.