That's the fatal part of the argument It's not like I'm personally emailing his patient list telling them to drop him as a provider It's saying that having the information *available online* is unethical and harmful
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @mssilverstein and
It's saying that if they Google his name and find his blog and read his own words as he posted them for consumption by the public, this will harm his reputation That they're too dumb/ignorant/crazy/brainwashed by wokeness to make that decision, they must be protected from it
2 replies 4 retweets 63 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @mssilverstein and
It is astonishingly condescending and hypocritically self-serving It's a disqualifying position in and of itself
1 reply 2 retweets 55 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @mssilverstein and
If you prefer to write pseudononymously you should have that option. Is that seriously the point being debated here?
5 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GabrielObray @arthur_affect and
If the argument is "the media has the right to publicly identify anybody who writes anonymously, anybody who doesn't want to be identified just fears accountability," then what are we even doing here?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GabrielObray @arthur_affect and
do you realise how fucking little effort he actually put in, and that he got his friends to vanish his surname from their blogs just days before he posted his "I AM BEING SILENCED!!!!" post
1 reply 2 retweets 35 likes -
Replying to @davidgerard @GabrielObray and
You are a black and white thinker and have exactly the kind of attitude that I reject: that Scott was fair game because his OPSEC wasn't perfect. Also, do you have evidence for your claim?
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NotoriousAapje @davidgerard and
If his name was such a big secret then why have I, someone who has never been within 100 miles of him irl and openly despises him and most of the people he knows, known it since 2014
3 replies 2 retweets 39 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @NotoriousAapje and
Anyway this, itself, is black and white thinking, absurdly so Extrapolated even a little way out it makes the concept of journalism impossible - "You're NOT ALLOWED to say things about me I don't want said"
3 replies 2 retweets 27 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @NotoriousAapje and
This whole argument reminds me of the (slightly bizarre) rule at Wikipedia that it's a community violation to publicly acknowledge (on or off site) a Wikipedian's off-site identity if that Wikipedian doesn't want it acknowledged, *even if it is widely known*.
2 replies 4 retweets 13 likes
I've been talking all day about how absurdly self-serving online communities are about this shit The story of u/violentacrez on Reddit should speak for itself -- "doxing" him was in Reddit's eyes far far worse than him running r/Creepshots
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @AB9RF and
The most damning thing about these online communities is how transparently and explicitly they see their own userbase as the only actual *people* in the world and everyone else is some form of "content"
1 reply 8 retweets 20 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @NotoriousAapje and
That's definitely true for Wikipedia. The same community that makes it an offense of the highest order to expose any personal fact about one of their own will turn around and doxx the hell out of anyone they don't like, and laugh gleefully at the consequences.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.