Jump to content

LES/EV nightlife under attack


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 808
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Suddenly the booming nightlife scene below and above Houston on the East Side isn't popular any more. At least with some local residents, who have organized a coalition to agitate the licensing autho

I lived through a lot of this in Soho, London in the late 1980s and 1990s. It is infuriating when laundromats close down to be replaced by identikit sushi bars and lounges. But when you choose to li

E-mail just received from an activist:     The 7-Eleven will replace Bar on A. I thought we wanted fewer bars.   (Of course, the serious point is that if you drive out bars, they won't be rep

These people would rather have the neighborhood crumble to the ground than, god forbid, build or renovate anything.

This is what I hear a lot from people on the LES.

 

I can't believe they tore down (or are tearing down) the old Essex St. Market building. Or that old fire house on Broome St.

 

Jesus - they were pieces of shit that served no useful purpose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Wilfrid: I can't see why anyone would think that EVGrieve is entitled to anonymity. Others who apparently knew or suspected who he was, elected not to "out" him, which was their choice. But the information was there in plain sight (as Flock's piece describes). The EVGrieve website is currently privately registered, but in the past, the blogger had registered it under his own name. That little mistake was all it took to unmask him. Which shows it's really hard to be truly anonymous on the Internet, if someone is determined enough to find you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh you pre-internet generation people. It doesn't matter. I was being facetious earlier. Whatever. Public doxxing is just plainly unacceptable by modern internet standards. It's just one of those rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Wilfrid: I can't see why anyone would think that EVGrieve is entitled to anonymity. Others who apparently knew or suspected who he was, elected not to "out" him, which was their choice. But the information was there in plain sight (as Flock's piece describes). The EVGrieve website is currently privately registered, but in the past, the blogger had registered it under his own name. That little mistake was all it took to unmask him. Which shows it's really hard to be truly anonymous on the Internet, if someone is determined enough to find you.

Yes, you can ask u.e. about that!

 

Whether or not he deserves to remain anonymous is a fair question. But the beef I have here is that he agreed to be interviewed when she promised not to out him and then did it. That, to me, is beneath contempt.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not he deserves to remain anonymous is a fair question. But the beef I have here is that he agreed to be interviewed when she promised not to out him and then did it. That, to me, is beneath contempt.

 

It's a little unclear – to me, at least – exactly what occurred.

 

Elasser says: "I eventually agreed to answer some questions via email for the story, but only once I felt convinced that the outlet wasn't trying to out me. I was ultimately wrong."

 

The words, I felt convinced that the outlet wasn't trying to out me, fall a little short of, They promised not to out me.

 

The reporter says, "I didn’t want to publish a piece if it would hurt his personal life, or if he would shut the blog down as a result." And: "I wouldn’t write a story about who he was if it meant he’d stop publishing."

 

So it's a little unclear to me what she intended to do, if Elasser hasn't pre-empted her by outing himself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, I don't see where he says I was speaking on the understanding that I wouldn't be named. It's all very murky. If so, one would be looking for comment from the NYU school of journalism (the blog is still written by students as far as I can see).

 

ETA: And he's a professional journalist, so like wake up man.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As he keeps saying, he had been looking for an excuse to out himself for years.

 

He says that, but (1) I don't believe him (2) it's still no excuse for that journalist's action, which obviously does not serve the public good. (3) what taion said - remember that you're used to living in a world where it's genuinely hard to find stuff out, and once you take that hurdle away things are only kept civil by people not abusing the data they can find out easily.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like, imagine what it would take in the past to expose him - probably at least $5k in PI fees or even more to file a bogus lawsuit against his leaflet, both with possible legal ramifications. Now it's $20 for WhoisPro and some idiot who works for the school newspaper. So ethics needs to correspondingly evolve.

 

Extend that to Goog/FB/NSA/Uber and everyone else who knows everything about you and you can see why ethics need to evolve to reflect a new economic reality of information. (not that it was ever nice to do this)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny. On the one hand, in the past there were telephone books, from which you could get just about everybody's street address and phone number.

 

Now, you can't do that: it's almost impossible to find a personal phone number if it isn't given to you, and finding somebody's street address is a pain.

 

OTOH, finding out personal information about people is ridiculously easy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy to blame the journalist, but she was assigned the story, it would have been edited, and a decision would have been taken, I assume by Dan Maurer, to publish it. This is a New York magazine operation now.

 

Maybe it's because I'm on the other side of the fence, but I'm cautious about embracing the idea that reporters and editors should suppress information without a very good reason. If EVG were perceived as running a reactionary, pro-gentrification blog, people would be cheering the unmasking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read much of this thread or any of the articles. But I'll comment anyway:

 

 


 

I find it hard to believe that he didn't say something to the effect of "I'll answer some questions only if I have your word that you wont reveal my identity." (Or, the other way, that she didn't offer "I will not reveal your identity.")

 

 

Edit: A friend of mine was dating a guy who writes silly "Carrie Bradshaw" puff articles for an on-line magazine. In one article, he used her as an example of something. He didn't refer to her by name, but his discription included fairly specific personal facts so that any of her friends (and many acquiaintances) knew it was her. He never told her that he would not write about her (apparently, he often refers to people he knows) and she never asked him not to. My friends and I disagree strongly about whether what he did was wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...