5 ms·

We should not reveal the creator. Stop it.

by chrisdbaldwin 11y ago

amyjess 11y ago
Please stop trying to censor journalists. We have a free press for a reason.
- 100timesthis 11y ago
  we should also have freedom of speech then.
  - krapp 11y ago
    this is free speech - as long as no one gets arrested for expressing an opinion. Free speech doesn't mean no one gets to disagree with you in a public forum. https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
    - 100timesthis 11y ago
      I never said it was, and I never asked amyjess not to express his opinion, I was just pointing out that screaming against censorship is completely irrelevant with the parent post, I tough this was pretty clear.
      - juliangregorian 11y ago
        How did you look at the username "amyjess" and then decide "this person clearly prefers to be addressed by male pronouns"?
        amyjess 11y ago
        The charitable explanation is that they don't pay attention to usernames (I'm guilty of this too) and default to male pronouns for everyone. The sinister explanation is that they dug through my post history, saw that I'm trans (I'm very open about it, and in fact I've been discussing my name change in another thread this morning), and decided to misgender me either out of bigotry or just to be hurtful. I'm not sure which one to believe.
        100timesthis 11y ago
        right, that's the deal, if you make a interesting comments I check your other comments, if you make a stupid one why would I bothered? your comment was stupid,I didn't check your comments, just copy-pasted your name, and really. anyway believe what you want, I don't need any "charitable" explanations
      - 100timesthis 11y ago
        juliangregorian I can't reply to your comment so I reply here: I didn't even read the name, I'm not interested gender when I talk to someone online I just defaulted into "his". Was just a curiosity or are you implying I'm being sexist?
        juliangregorian 11y ago
        Bullshit, you typed out the name, so I know you definitely read it. And yeah, defaulting to 'his' is exactly sexist (it's a rather mild form of it, but still).
        dragonwriter 11y ago
        > Bullshit, you typed out the name, so I know you definitely read it. You can cut and past the name from the header of a post without reading it, and without typing it out. > And yeah, defaulting to 'his' is exactly sexist (it's a rather mild form of it, but still). Adherence to the English convention of using the masculine grammatical gender for subjects of unknown sex/gender identity might bother some readers, but is only "sexist" by an understanding of sexism that trivializes the term and robs it of substantial meaning.
        juliangregorian 11y ago
        > You can cut and past the name from the header of a post without reading it, and without typing it out. Oh really. We are talking about four words here. So are we squinting or something, because you have to be illiterate to not read that incidentally. > Adherence to the English convention of using the masculine grammatical gender for subjects of unknown sex/gender identity might bother some readers, but is only "sexist" by an understanding of sexism that trivializes the term and robs it of substantial meaning. Oh brother. Nope, you're the one redefining. See the myriad examples of "avoiding sexist language" style guides. Just because someone isn't getting raped doesn't mean there's no sexism.
        100timesthis 11y ago
- zdkl 11y ago
  we also have a right to privacy which the entity behind Satoshi chose to excercise, shouldn't that entitle him to some discretion?
  - vasilipupkin 11y ago
    I am not sure we do have a right to privacy in some generic sense. We have a right to privacy in certain very well defined situations and not in others
  - danso 11y ago
    So...what right is that? I mean, specifically, in case law? When people do something that causes a substantial effect in the public sphere, they are seen as (at the very least) as a "limited public figure" and in the U.S., journalists have a large amount of protection in the freedom to report on such people.
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      Satoshi would be that public figure. This Nick guy so far is not. He has a right to privacy.
      - SamReidHughes 11y ago
        No he doesn't (legally speaking, which I assume is the framework you're adopting based on your use of the term "public figure"). It's totally legal to report facts or opinions about random people. Standards for libel and the burden of proof are different but truth is still a defense.
      - danso 11y ago
        That's not a right to privacy...at least as precedent is concerned. Once you've done something that has a public impact, or even, involved in something that is now in the public attention, a U.S. news organization can make the case that information about you is of public interest. Take the Amtrak engineer in the recent Philadelphia crash...as far as I can tell, he most definitely would like to remain out of the spotlight. Yet, because he happened to be the engineer at the time of the crash -- whether or not we know that he directly or even indirectly contributed to the crash -- news orgs have some legal protection in scrutinizing his life, including where he went to school, his job history, and any public social media postings. Sometimes privacy is accorded out of tradition or convention...for example, the identity of a rape victim who is testifying in a court case is public information, though it is rarely reported except under special circumstances. But in this case, the victim did not intentionally put themselves in this position of public interest, but because court cases are considered to be important for the public to know about, the victim's identity is considered public information. It should be said that nothing is completely cut and dry, there's always a tension between the public's right to know and privacy. But the right of privacy is usually afforded to victims and for people whom public exposure would cause greater harm than censorship -- i.e. the identity of witnesses in a state case. Bitcoin's creator does not seem to fall into this category.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- 6d0debc071 11y ago
  A normative statement isn't necessarily an attempt to censor someone. You can be for someone having a class of freedoms, which includes the freedom to do things you don't approve of, while disapproving of the manner in which they choose to exercise that freedom.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  This is a completely irrelevant statement.

We should not reveal the creator. Stop it.

amyjess 11y ago

Please stop trying to censor journalists. We have a free press for a reason.

100timesthis 11y ago
we should also have freedom of speech then.
- krapp 11y ago
  this is free speech - as long as no one gets arrested for expressing an opinion. Free speech doesn't mean no one gets to disagree with you in a public forum. https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
  - 100timesthis 11y ago
    I never said it was, and I never asked amyjess not to express his opinion, I was just pointing out that screaming against censorship is completely irrelevant with the parent post, I tough this was pretty clear.
    - juliangregorian 11y ago
      How did you look at the username "amyjess" and then decide "this person clearly prefers to be addressed by male pronouns"?
      - amyjess 11y ago
        The charitable explanation is that they don't pay attention to usernames (I'm guilty of this too) and default to male pronouns for everyone. The sinister explanation is that they dug through my post history, saw that I'm trans (I'm very open about it, and in fact I've been discussing my name change in another thread this morning), and decided to misgender me either out of bigotry or just to be hurtful. I'm not sure which one to believe.
        100timesthis 11y ago
        right, that's the deal, if you make a interesting comments I check your other comments, if you make a stupid one why would I bothered? your comment was stupid,I didn't check your comments, just copy-pasted your name, and really. anyway believe what you want, I don't need any "charitable" explanations
    - 100timesthis 11y ago
      juliangregorian I can't reply to your comment so I reply here: I didn't even read the name, I'm not interested gender when I talk to someone online I just defaulted into "his". Was just a curiosity or are you implying I'm being sexist?
      - juliangregorian 11y ago
        Bullshit, you typed out the name, so I know you definitely read it. And yeah, defaulting to 'his' is exactly sexist (it's a rather mild form of it, but still).
        dragonwriter 11y ago
        > Bullshit, you typed out the name, so I know you definitely read it. You can cut and past the name from the header of a post without reading it, and without typing it out. > And yeah, defaulting to 'his' is exactly sexist (it's a rather mild form of it, but still). Adherence to the English convention of using the masculine grammatical gender for subjects of unknown sex/gender identity might bother some readers, but is only "sexist" by an understanding of sexism that trivializes the term and robs it of substantial meaning.
        juliangregorian 11y ago
        > You can cut and past the name from the header of a post without reading it, and without typing it out. Oh really. We are talking about four words here. So are we squinting or something, because you have to be illiterate to not read that incidentally. > Adherence to the English convention of using the masculine grammatical gender for subjects of unknown sex/gender identity might bother some readers, but is only "sexist" by an understanding of sexism that trivializes the term and robs it of substantial meaning. Oh brother. Nope, you're the one redefining. See the myriad examples of "avoiding sexist language" style guides. Just because someone isn't getting raped doesn't mean there's no sexism.
        100timesthis 11y ago
zdkl 11y ago
we also have a right to privacy which the entity behind Satoshi chose to excercise, shouldn't that entitle him to some discretion?
- vasilipupkin 11y ago
  I am not sure we do have a right to privacy in some generic sense. We have a right to privacy in certain very well defined situations and not in others
- danso 11y ago
  So...what right is that? I mean, specifically, in case law? When people do something that causes a substantial effect in the public sphere, they are seen as (at the very least) as a "limited public figure" and in the U.S., journalists have a large amount of protection in the freedom to report on such people.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    Satoshi would be that public figure. This Nick guy so far is not. He has a right to privacy.
    - SamReidHughes 11y ago
      No he doesn't (legally speaking, which I assume is the framework you're adopting based on your use of the term "public figure"). It's totally legal to report facts or opinions about random people. Standards for libel and the burden of proof are different but truth is still a defense.
    - danso 11y ago
      That's not a right to privacy...at least as precedent is concerned. Once you've done something that has a public impact, or even, involved in something that is now in the public attention, a U.S. news organization can make the case that information about you is of public interest. Take the Amtrak engineer in the recent Philadelphia crash...as far as I can tell, he most definitely would like to remain out of the spotlight. Yet, because he happened to be the engineer at the time of the crash -- whether or not we know that he directly or even indirectly contributed to the crash -- news orgs have some legal protection in scrutinizing his life, including where he went to school, his job history, and any public social media postings. Sometimes privacy is accorded out of tradition or convention...for example, the identity of a rape victim who is testifying in a court case is public information, though it is rarely reported except under special circumstances. But in this case, the victim did not intentionally put themselves in this position of public interest, but because court cases are considered to be important for the public to know about, the victim's identity is considered public information. It should be said that nothing is completely cut and dry, there's always a tension between the public's right to know and privacy. But the right of privacy is usually afforded to victims and for people whom public exposure would cause greater harm than censorship -- i.e. the identity of witnesses in a state case. Bitcoin's creator does not seem to fall into this category.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
6d0debc071 11y ago
A normative statement isn't necessarily an attempt to censor someone. You can be for someone having a class of freedoms, which includes the freedom to do things you don't approve of, while disapproving of the manner in which they choose to exercise that freedom.
s73v3r 11y ago
This is a completely irrelevant statement.