5 ms·

Most of the Founders published under pseudonyms, even after the Revolution. Hamilton, Madison, Jay, Franklin - all had pseudonyms for their political writings.

by Animats 1mo ago

Most of the Founders published under pseudonyms, even after the Revolution. Hamilton, Madison, Jay, Franklin - all had pseudonyms for their political writings. The Federalist papers were signed "Publius". What Franklin did was in no way unusual for that group. In the US, anonymous speech is considered a core part of free expression, and is treated as a First Amendment right. That's a US perspective, stemming from US history. EU rights as to anonymous speech are weaker, and UK rights are weaker still. China has no right to anonymous speech at all.

embedding-shape 1mo ago
> That's a US perspective, stemming from US history. EU rights as to anonymous speech are weaker, It's interesting that on one hand you're right, in the US, anonymous speech receives near-absolute protection. In the EU, it's more of a "qualified right" than so absolute. But, on the other hand, in our modern age, EU seems better at defending against mandating backdoors or weakening end-to-end encryption violates the right to privacy (2024 Podchasov v. Russia), while the US is seemingly going the other way of adding more backdoors and weakening E2E encryption. So yes, on paper it seems like the US likes anonymous speech more than the EU, but in practice, it seems like the US is doing less to actually protect anonymous speech than the EU.
- hdgvhicv 1mo ago
  US free speech is qualified too - just in different ways. And even when free speech is protected, it doesn’t stop you receiving the consequences log being arrested or losing your job and home.
  - embedding-shape 1mo ago
    I feel like we're talking about different things here. I understand "free speech does not mean free of consequence", so if your employer doesn't like your opinions, you can get fired, that's all fine and dandy. But why you add that someone could be arrested for free speech? The whole point of free speech, at least for me, is that the government cannot arrest you for that, even if all the people around you see you as despicable or whatever. What is "free speech" for you actually?
    - hdgvhicv 1mo ago
      People get arrested and fined for speech quite a lot in the US. I guess that’s just a consequence https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/03/23/supreme-court-case-citizen-journalist-appeal/88086502007/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/03/23/supre... https://english.elpais.com/usa/2025-03-17/arrest-of-pro-palestinian-students-sparks-alarms-over-free-speech-it-reeks-of-mccarthyism.html https://english.elpais.com/usa/2025-03-17/arrest-of-pro-pale... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/feb/17/people-fired-punished-posting-charlie-kirk-death https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/feb/...
    - inigyou 1mo ago
      Indeed, that's why people sometimes say the US doesn't have free speech. But when people say that, they often get attacked, because duh, it says right there in the first amendment that it does! That's why they would instead say things like "the US has exceptions to free speech" or "the US doesn't have unqualified free speech" even though the truth is "the US doesn't have free speech"
  - yywwbbn 1mo ago
    [dead]
- dannyobrien 1mo ago
  Could you give examples of the US adding backdoors and weakening end-to-end encryption? I'll give you the almost-certain weakening of proposed crypto standards, and Clinton-era export controls, but I don't think I've seen any movement in that direction recently. The most successful attempts statutorily seem to be in the UK and the US. Also: the European Court of Human Rights, as a non-EU institution, doesn't have an enforcement mechanism, so I'm not sure it's a good example to give in defending against such proposals. For instance, Russia declined to respect that decision, and I don't think it's had much effect on the UK's backdoor regime.
  - embedding-shape 1mo ago
    > Could you give examples of the US adding backdoors and weakening end-to-end encryption? Do you really need examples of this? There are countless of them, some programs you cannot have missed are PRISM, STATEROOM and BULLRUN but there are more of them too.
    - Semaphor 1mo ago
      I must say I find it interesting you say "cannot have missed" as I never heard of stateroom or bullrun before
      - embedding-shape 1mo ago
        I guess not everyone read through the Snowden "revelations" back in 2013: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowden_disclosures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowden_disclosures > PRISM is a code name for a program under which the United States National Security Agency (NSA) collects internet communications from various U.S. internet companies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM > STATEROOM is the code name of a highly secretive signals intelligence collection program involving the interception of international radio, telecommunications and Internet traffic - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateroom_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateroom_(surveillance_progra... > Bullrun (stylized BULLRUN) is a clandestine, highly classified program to crack encryption of online communications and data - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullrun_(decryption_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullrun_(decryption_program)
- yywwbbn 1mo ago
  [dead]
- RA_Fisher 1mo ago
  Europeans use American iPhones and Android bc they wouldn’t add a backdoor. Didn’t the UK want a backdoor added?
  - anonymousiam 1mo ago
    Anybody who feels that their communications are secure on their mobile devices is deluded. There are countless access methods at many levels, even in the US. There are laws in every country (including the US) to ensure that communications can be monitored when such monitoring is "authorized."
- inigyou 1mo ago
  The US seems to generally take the approach that everything must be absolutely protected from the government, while European countries are fine with delegating things to the government and regulating things, and putting all the protections on the government itself, instead. It hasn't always worked well and may turn out to be naïve, but so has the US way. It's a bit like spreading your eggs between many ordinary baskets, or putting them all in one basket but making that basket as strong as you can. Neither one is obviously a better approach.
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
interludead 1mo ago
[flagged]
kodoman 1mo ago
From the UK are bill of rights from 1689 has a clause called free speech in it. When you actually look at it's free speech... for parliament and parliamentarians from the king, Citizens get no such right. We have a clause that is the right to bear arms, when you look at it predicated on being the a protestant and parliament allowing you. No one actually reads these things or the history surrounding it here because when you do you quickly realize how pathetic are 'glorious revolution' is how weak the the brave people petitioning a foreign king to come over to overthrow a king they did not like because he was a catholic and wanted more tolerance for Catholics. Not the biggest fan of where America is at the moment but American founding fathers are some of the most impressive people and the American revolution is incredible, where as are revolution is one of the saddest affairs in human history and it's continuation is a disaster in my opinion.
- binary132 1mo ago
  I pray there will be a light at the end of the tunnel soon, but I doubt it is possible without major political change.
- alt227 1mo ago
  Not being rude just trying to understand, but when you say 'are' do you mean 'our'?
  - kodoman 1mo ago
    Yes I also don't like the language of my country, 'are' sounds like 'our' so I mix them up, I apologize, at least you know I am not an LLM!
    - alt227 1mo ago
      No need to apologize, just wanted to clarify for understanding :)
- inigyou 1mo ago
  Have there been any new laws in the UK since 1689?
rcxdude 1mo ago
In the UK you do have certain 'moral rights' with respect to a piece of writing you've made, and one of them is essentially a right to anonymity/pseudonymity for that work. Somewhat notably JK Rowling won a case about it when the books she released under a pen name were revealed to be hers.
MisterMower 1mo ago
Anonymous speech separates ideas from the reputation of the person stating them. It forces the reader to consider the ideas themselves openly, without using the heuristic of “which party does this person belong to” or “do I like this person”. There are some ideas that are not popular but need to be heard, and anonymous speech allows those ideas to be heard without the speaker being tarred and feathered for their supposed wrongthink. Anyone who seeks to erode anonymous speech is no friend of liberty.

by Animats 1mo ago

embedding-shape 1mo ago

> That's a US perspective, stemming from US history. EU rights as to anonymous speech are weaker, It's interesting that on one hand you're right, in the US, anonymous speech receives near-absolute protection. In the EU, it's more of a "qualified right" than so absolute. But, on the other hand, in our modern age, EU seems better at defending against mandating backdoors or weakening end-to-end encryption violates the right to privacy (2024 Podchasov v. Russia), while the US is seemingly going the other way of adding more backdoors and weakening E2E encryption. So yes, on paper it seems like the US likes anonymous speech more than the EU, but in practice, it seems like the US is doing less to actually protect anonymous speech than the EU.

hdgvhicv 1mo ago
US free speech is qualified too - just in different ways. And even when free speech is protected, it doesn’t stop you receiving the consequences log being arrested or losing your job and home.
- embedding-shape 1mo ago
  I feel like we're talking about different things here. I understand "free speech does not mean free of consequence", so if your employer doesn't like your opinions, you can get fired, that's all fine and dandy. But why you add that someone could be arrested for free speech? The whole point of free speech, at least for me, is that the government cannot arrest you for that, even if all the people around you see you as despicable or whatever. What is "free speech" for you actually?
  - hdgvhicv 1mo ago
    People get arrested and fined for speech quite a lot in the US. I guess that’s just a consequence https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/03/23/supreme-court-case-citizen-journalist-appeal/88086502007/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/03/23/supre... https://english.elpais.com/usa/2025-03-17/arrest-of-pro-palestinian-students-sparks-alarms-over-free-speech-it-reeks-of-mccarthyism.html https://english.elpais.com/usa/2025-03-17/arrest-of-pro-pale... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/feb/17/people-fired-punished-posting-charlie-kirk-death https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/feb/...
  - inigyou 1mo ago
    Indeed, that's why people sometimes say the US doesn't have free speech. But when people say that, they often get attacked, because duh, it says right there in the first amendment that it does! That's why they would instead say things like "the US has exceptions to free speech" or "the US doesn't have unqualified free speech" even though the truth is "the US doesn't have free speech"
- yywwbbn 1mo ago
  [dead]
dannyobrien 1mo ago
Could you give examples of the US adding backdoors and weakening end-to-end encryption? I'll give you the almost-certain weakening of proposed crypto standards, and Clinton-era export controls, but I don't think I've seen any movement in that direction recently. The most successful attempts statutorily seem to be in the UK and the US. Also: the European Court of Human Rights, as a non-EU institution, doesn't have an enforcement mechanism, so I'm not sure it's a good example to give in defending against such proposals. For instance, Russia declined to respect that decision, and I don't think it's had much effect on the UK's backdoor regime.
- embedding-shape 1mo ago
  > Could you give examples of the US adding backdoors and weakening end-to-end encryption? Do you really need examples of this? There are countless of them, some programs you cannot have missed are PRISM, STATEROOM and BULLRUN but there are more of them too.
  - Semaphor 1mo ago
    I must say I find it interesting you say "cannot have missed" as I never heard of stateroom or bullrun before
    - embedding-shape 1mo ago
      I guess not everyone read through the Snowden "revelations" back in 2013: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowden_disclosures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowden_disclosures > PRISM is a code name for a program under which the United States National Security Agency (NSA) collects internet communications from various U.S. internet companies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM > STATEROOM is the code name of a highly secretive signals intelligence collection program involving the interception of international radio, telecommunications and Internet traffic - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateroom_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateroom_(surveillance_progra... > Bullrun (stylized BULLRUN) is a clandestine, highly classified program to crack encryption of online communications and data - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullrun_(decryption_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullrun_(decryption_program)
yywwbbn 1mo ago
[dead]
RA_Fisher 1mo ago
Europeans use American iPhones and Android bc they wouldn’t add a backdoor. Didn’t the UK want a backdoor added?
- anonymousiam 1mo ago
  Anybody who feels that their communications are secure on their mobile devices is deluded. There are countless access methods at many levels, even in the US. There are laws in every country (including the US) to ensure that communications can be monitored when such monitoring is "authorized."
inigyou 1mo ago
The US seems to generally take the approach that everything must be absolutely protected from the government, while European countries are fine with delegating things to the government and regulating things, and putting all the protections on the government itself, instead. It hasn't always worked well and may turn out to be naïve, but so has the US way. It's a bit like spreading your eggs between many ordinary baskets, or putting them all in one basket but making that basket as strong as you can. Neither one is obviously a better approach.

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

interludead 1mo ago

[flagged]

kodoman 1mo ago

From the UK are bill of rights from 1689 has a clause called free speech in it. When you actually look at it's free speech... for parliament and parliamentarians from the king, Citizens get no such right. We have a clause that is the right to bear arms, when you look at it predicated on being the a protestant and parliament allowing you. No one actually reads these things or the history surrounding it here because when you do you quickly realize how pathetic are 'glorious revolution' is how weak the the brave people petitioning a foreign king to come over to overthrow a king they did not like because he was a catholic and wanted more tolerance for Catholics. Not the biggest fan of where America is at the moment but American founding fathers are some of the most impressive people and the American revolution is incredible, where as are revolution is one of the saddest affairs in human history and it's continuation is a disaster in my opinion.

binary132 1mo ago
I pray there will be a light at the end of the tunnel soon, but I doubt it is possible without major political change.
alt227 1mo ago
Not being rude just trying to understand, but when you say 'are' do you mean 'our'?
- kodoman 1mo ago
  Yes I also don't like the language of my country, 'are' sounds like 'our' so I mix them up, I apologize, at least you know I am not an LLM!
  - alt227 1mo ago
    No need to apologize, just wanted to clarify for understanding :)
inigyou 1mo ago
Have there been any new laws in the UK since 1689?

rcxdude 1mo ago

In the UK you do have certain 'moral rights' with respect to a piece of writing you've made, and one of them is essentially a right to anonymity/pseudonymity for that work. Somewhat notably JK Rowling won a case about it when the books she released under a pen name were revealed to be hers.

MisterMower 1mo ago

Anonymous speech separates ideas from the reputation of the person stating them. It forces the reader to consider the ideas themselves openly, without using the heuristic of “which party does this person belong to” or “do I like this person”. There are some ideas that are not popular but need to be heard, and anonymous speech allows those ideas to be heard without the speaker being tarred and feathered for their supposed wrongthink. Anyone who seeks to erode anonymous speech is no friend of liberty.