Jump to content

LES/EV nightlife under attack


Recommended Posts

 

"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.

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

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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...