Jump to content

LES/EV nightlife under attack


Recommended Posts

It doesn't matter. In the same sense that one should also not be intolerant toward bigots. Or whatever.

 

His privacy matters specifically because he's writing publicly about stuff that people care about. Nobody cares who "taion" because "taion" doesn't say anything of any import. And whether he respects others' privacy is irrelevant - we got rid of outlawry in RL contexts some centuries ago, as I recall.

Sorry....no, with extreme prejudice. Once he makes himself a public figure, he is not entitled to retain his anonymity. Others who favor his viewpoint might extend him that courtesy. There's no guarantee that everyone will — and in fact, it's probably for the best that someone decided it was time to challenge that.

 

(Of course, had he not put his name into a publicly accessible database linked to his domain name, he might not have been discovered, but that's how it goes.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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

And if there are personal or professional repercussions for writing about, say, unpopular political beliefs? Right now there's no effective way to protect people's ability to do so short of maintaining a strong norm of respecting and upholding the pseudonymity of such writers.

 

You may not find this something worth protecting, but I do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And if there are personal or professional repercussions for writing about, say, unpopular political beliefs? Right now there's no effective way to protect people's ability to do so short of maintaining a strong norm of respecting and upholding the pseudonymity of such writers.

 

You may not find this something worth protecting, but I do.

What I am saying, is that pseudonymity is not new to the Internet. There is a long history of people concealing their names so that they can take unpopular positions; there is also a long history of them being outed.

 

If you make yourself a public figure on controversial issues, you have to assume that someone will try to discover your identity, and unless you have been very skillful about concealing it, they will probably succeed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd care a lot less about anonymity if we didn't have this sort of thing: http://www.newstatesman.com/sarah-ditum/2014/03/when-did-no-platform-become-about-attacking-individuals-deemed-disagreeable

 

That sort of thing is not okay, but in the near term, making it expensive to violate privacy for those who at least try to keep it is something concrete that can be done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's different about the Internet, is that there are millions of people contributing to discussion boards with names like "taion" and "Sneakeater". There isn't really a pre-Internet equivalent of this phenomenon. I agree that there is a strong newly-minted norm that we don't expose these folks' identities.

 

EVGrieve much more closely resembles any number of pre-Internet public figures who attempted (with varying success) to conceal their identities. He is no more entitled to the expectation of anonymity than anyone ever was.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why, because he had a blog that people read?

 

There's no practical value in hiding who "taion" or "oakapple" are. Your real name is in your signature here, and mine is linked to this handle elsewhere. And even George Mendes knows who "Sneakeater" is.

 

The only people that anybody would have any practical interest in doxxing are bloggers with audiences expressing controversial views. If I started a blog with pictures of puppies, it wouldn't matter. If I started a blog where I made intemperate political rants, it would.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why, because he had a blog that people read?

I don't see how a blog is fundamentally different from its pre-Internet equivalents that have been around for centuries, such as anonymous newspapers and pamphlets.

 

There's no practical value in hiding who "taion" or "oakapple" are. Your real name is in your signature here, and mine is linked to this handle elsewhere. And even George Mendes knows who "Sneakeater" is.

 

Every message board commenter decides how "anonymous" he wants to be. Sneakeater isn't anonymous at all in restaurants. But if I addressed him here by his real name (which I do know), I can assure you he would be extremely unhappy. He doesn't want his message board posts to return on an Internet search, if a client googles him.

 

Others are more serious about readers not knowing who they are, which was why it seemed like a Big Deal when Ulterior Epicure unmasked himself a few years ago. Then, there's Jim Leff, who posts under his real name, but goes to great lengths not to be photographed. It's a personal decision.

 

I'm at the other extreme: my real name is in my sig, so "oakapple" isn't anonymous in any sense whatsoever. (I probably would've handled it more like Sneakeater did, if I were starting again, but by the time I figured that out, I was already far too well known as oakapple for me to take it back.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not aware that there was a general consensus on the Internet that it is wrong to "out" people (espeically people who present themselves as something analogous to a journalists who chose to be anonymous. (Although I agreed that in most instances it would be a shitty thing to do.) I dont doubt you, I'm just surprised. I would have thought that the normal expectation on the Internet is that everyone should assume that they will run into an asshole.

 

On the other hand, since the Internet for the first time gives hoi polloi* the ability to voice their opinion to the masses, why shouldn't they give up their "right" to anonimity when they exploit it?

 

*see Wilf, I pay attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like you said - the difference is that now if someone gets doxxed, search will turn it up forever. I think the form of the consequences and the incentives have changed qualitatively.

 

There's no magic to preserve anonymity online, so I'm not sure what we're arguing about. I'm just saying that the reception that B&B got for doxxing EVG is predictable, understandable, and in a way promotes things that I think are important.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm at the other extreme: my real name is in my sig, so "oakapple" isn't anonymous in any sense whatsoever. (I probably would've handled it more like Sneakeater did, if I were starting again, but by the time I figured that out, I was already far too well known as oakapple for me to take it back.)

The same thing happened to me. When I first started posting on CH back in 1999 most of the posters used their real names. Those were more innocent times. Later, some of the female posters acquired stalkers and the rest of us realized that using our real names could become a liability.

 

By that time my CH identity was well established and I was vain enough not to want to start over under a new handle. Luckily my real name is the equivalent of "John Smith."

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only people that anybody would have any practical interest in doxxing are bloggers with audiences expressing controversial views. If I started a blog with pictures of puppies, it wouldn't matter. If I started a blog where I made intemperate political rants, it would.

 

There was an attempt last year to dox Darth, even though he has only brought us pups, kittens, and Photoshop. Is this not why we can't have nice things?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. Leads to a very simple, clear, bright-line rule that even deontologists could be happy with.

 

Don't dox anyone. Bring down hell on anybody who does.

 

Except that it's a well-nigh non-existent rule. The fact that some think it exists, does not make it exist. People believe in UFOs too.

 

I assume the writer can live with nasty comments at the bottom of an article, if that's the hell you are referring to.

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...