Anthony Bonner Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 "all of them" is not a shortcut. It's exactly a shortcut! It's easier for me to be fair and be happy with my decisions if I don't try to figure out what sort of speakers should be safe from doxxing and which ones shouldn't. Otherwise I might decide that EVG is a jerk who I agree with who deserved to be doxxed, but that some controversial pseudonymous political writer that I follow and secretly agrees with deserves absolute privacy, and that's not a particularly consistent or admirable position to hold. this isn't a shady line here. He's an anti-gentrification blogger, not addressing transgender issues or something. You can't possibly see the world as that black and white. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
taion Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I do believe it is morally justified, because EVGrieve was himself often responsible for "outing" people, usually for the purpose of ridiculing and showering indignation upon them. If he engages in that behavior, and considers it proper (as he evidently did), then what right have we to presume that others cannot do the same? I believe that my moral obligations toward others are shaped by my own moral views, not by theirs. My moral obligations toward him are not really informed by what his moral beliefs seem to be. You don't get some magical moral waiver to be a jerk to someone just because he's a jerk. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
taion Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 this isn't a shady line here. He's an anti-gentrification blogger, not addressing transgender issues or something. You can't possibly see the world as that black and white. What's wrong with using categorical distinctions here? I don't see anything particularly appealing about saying that it's fine to dox urbanism bloggers, but bad to dox people writing about gender or race. I agree that the stakes in the former are much lower, so doxxing them doesn't inflict as much harm, but I don't think it matters that much. Easier not to waste brain cycles on consequentialist calculations there. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
oakapple Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I do believe it is morally justified, because EVGrieve was himself often responsible for "outing" people, usually for the purpose of ridiculing and showering indignation upon them. If he engages in that behavior, and considers it proper (as he evidently did), then what right have we to presume that others cannot do the same? I believe that my moral obligations toward others are shaped by my own moral views, not by theirs. My moral obligations toward him are not really informed by what his moral beliefs seem to be. You don't get some magical moral waiver to be a jerk to someone just because he's a jerk. But if you're really so convinced that he's a "jerk" to behave this way, then where was your indignation when EVGrieve was outing others? You can selectively define "jerk" any way you want, but we aren't obliged to share it. When the object of your defense is someone who behaved (by your definition) indefensibly, it's hard for me to get worked into a lather about it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
taion Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Oh, sure, it was wrong when EVG outed other people. But I don't regularly read EVG so I didn't see those posts, and we didn't talk about it. My condemnation is equal opportunity here - the opportunity just didn't arise initially. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wilfrid Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Just to be clear about what I am saying: I don't see any breach of journalistic ethics unless she explicitly granted him anonymity: and if she did, he's an experienced enough journalist to have said so more clearly. I don't think it was a great idea to expose him without a supporting reason; eg, and his identity affects what he writes in this way... But that's editorial judgment, not ethics. The idea that reporters should grant anonymity to just anyone--just because they're online?--without a pressing reason is so far from my understanding of the reporter's job that I don't really have any response, except that it's not a norm reporters recognize. Get the person's first and last name and spell them right is basic. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wilfrid Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Here's a good piece distinguishing reporting from doxxing)--read it all. http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-spring-2015/dangers-doxxing Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sneakeater Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 You see, taion believes that there's something called "the internet", that it's entirely new in human culture, and that its folkways trump all existing norms. He doesn't think this is "journalism"; he thinks this is "the internet." I tend to side with Evgeny Morozov on this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Steve R. Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I tend to side with Evgeny Morozov on this. What pseudonym does he post under on the board & why are you outing him? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
taion Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Morozov's a tool. I think the real difference is how easy it is for this stuff to spread these days. If it shows up in a little newsletter nobody reads, or requires digging through years of newspaper archives, then who really cares? If it's as readily available as a Google search, then it's a much bigger deal. It's a given now that almost anything tied to your real name can be found relatively easily online. That makes it a much bigger deal to link people's activities to their real names. My sympathies are not with the Newsweek or NY Times reporters mentioned in that RCFP piece. In general I just think privacy counts for a lot more now, because it's not like Google or the rest of the internet ever forget. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
taion Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Like, now anybody looking up Mr Elsasser on Google for whatever will know that he's EVG. You don't think that's qualitatively different from the pre-internet world, where it's much much harder to access that information? I think this attaches a qualitative difference to the significance of linking a pseudonym to a real name, and makes it much more likely for someone to suffer negative personal or professional repercussions. The tradeoffs really have changed. Besides, the "journalists" will all be out of business soon enough. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sneakeater Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 The difference is that you think that journalism is either a bad thing or illusory, whereas I think you're jettisoning valuable parts of human culture with insufficient consideration and for no good reason whatsoever. The world will NOT be better without professional journalism. I promise you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sneakeater Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (And this doesn't mean I think EVG should have been outted. I agree that's a serious thing.) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
oakapple Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Oh, sure, it was wrong when EVG outed other people. But I don't regularly read EVG so I didn't see those posts, and we didn't talk about it. My condemnation is equal opportunity here - the opportunity just didn't arise initially. But the thing is, if he hadn't been in the business of outing people, then: A) He probably woudn't have had any reason to conceal his name; and, B) If he had, it's doubtful anyone would've cared enough to try to unmask him. The vast majority of Mouthfuls posters do not disclose their full real names, and the fact goes unremarked. No one's gonna 'out' Sneakeater, because he likes the food at Chevalier and they don't; and if they did, there would be well-nigh 100% agreement that it was totally out of line. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
taion Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 The difference is that you think that journalism is either a bad thing or illusory, whereas I think you're jettisoning valuable parts of human culture with insufficient consideration and for no good reason whatsoever. The world will NOT be better without professional journalism. I promise you. I think professional journalism was a very good thing back when newspapers generated massive monopoly rents and could subsidize serious, high-brow reporting. There will still flaws, mostly owing to journalism being done by the sorts of people who chose to be journalists, but whatever. You could pretend that it wasn't just another business built around selling eyeballs for advertising revenue. I don't think something like Bedford & Bowery stands out from any number of amateur blogs. Maybe it did back when Wilfrid ran it. Who holds the banner for journalism these days? Vox Media? Their entire pitch is that they have a good CMS and can do native ads well. The markets and competition have already ruined everything. Maybe for the best. But at this point, it's more about picking up the pieces. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.