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
-
-
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 -
Replying to @AB9RF @arthur_affect and
I've always thought that rule was weird, but I know a lot of people who think it's perfectly reasonable. What I don't know is how widespread such notions about the right to control one's identity online are, beyond the frankly odd Wikipedia community. Is this generational?
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes
Reddit used to consider it one of their most critical, foundational principles Unfortunately when Adrian Chen forced the issue on them by "doxing" the moderator of r/Jailbait their attempt at enforcing this principle just made them look like pedophiles to the whole country
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @AB9RF and
It's interesting because while I fully believe accountability there mattered, I think it also exposes the thought line on why people see journalists as 'out to get' them. To the journalist, it's an article; to the subject, it's their life turning upside down.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ElianaCSummers @arthur_affect and
I've seen the same sort of thinking in how people interact with judges.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
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.