-
On the internet no one should know if you're a dog. On the internet, if you run an influential and high impact publication that thousands of people regularly reference, there is a reasonable consideration that people should know who you are. It is not a must. But still.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 23 Favorites
Mood +1 🙂
-
More significantly: if you use your anonymity to create art, then that's a reasonable use and expectation for keeping it.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 6 Favorites
Mood 0
-
If you use your anonymity to heavily criticize swaths of society and large movements and even individuals and that anonymity gives you power to continue doing so without accountability, the bar for a reporter preserving your anonymity is higher.On twitter.com
❤️ 10 Favorites
Mood -2 🙁
-
This isn't a double standard. This is journalism at work. In reporting on a blog that publishes controversial content you amplify it. A good editorial process should require consideration of what maintaining anonymity of that author means while increasing their audience...Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 7 Favorites
Mood +1 🙂
-
When a reporter makes the call to preserve anonymity of a subject or source it isn't a neutral decision. Anonymity is a deviation from baseline reporting, one that is granted often, but (when in a good process) only with consideration. Anonymity is neither bad or good by default.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 8 Favorites
Mood +4 🙂
-
Granting it shouldn't be automatic by any means and anyone could easily argue that anonymous sources have become significantly overused in the last five-ish years. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be thoughtful or considered.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 6 Favorites
Mood +3 🙂
-
The greatest tools and value a large publication can provide is amplification. To report on someone anonymously is to provide their opinions & voice amplification while placing their interests above the interests of transparency. A good editorial process balances those interests.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 6 Favorites
Mood +9 🙂
-
I think the q than becomes: do they use their position of anonymity as a lever to securely create criticism against the non-anonymous while fundamentally isolating themselves from feedback or consideration. Will amplifying them then accelerate that imbalance? What are the risks?Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 4 Favorites
Mood -4 🙁
-
One of those risks might be danger to the subject. We should minimize harm. But what if that anonymity preserves power? What if that power is used to negatively impact society? What if they create danger for others? Where is the most harm?Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 4 Favorites
Mood -10 🙁
-
There are some comparisons to specific criminal behavior that are overblown for the purpose of this thread, but do make that argument bluntly. We grant anonymity to victims but not abusers. Reasonable. When the power differential is less obvious, the question is more difficult.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 5 Favorites
Mood -6 🙁
-
If you were to take a... rational... view of this the q to ask is: why shouldn't someone be required to stand, personally, behind their views? Especially when so many of the groups they criticize are themselves backed by people who take the risks of being public figures?...Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 5 Favorites
Mood -3 🙁
-
I am not familiar w/the article or the total corpus of publication under question here, but as someone who has always acted w/the expectation my identity is attachable to my web activity, I think the bar for anonymity for self-published authors w/impact on the web should be highPermalink On twitter.com
❤️ 4 Favorites
Mood 0
-
& the higher the impact, the higher the bar. & the type of impact also impacts that bar. & the way anonymity is used also impacts that bar. & the community the author cultivates also impacts that bar. In journalism anonymity is a privilege. Who gets it is a decision.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 6 Favorites
Mood 0
-
SPJ's code of ethics puts this logic in plain language, defining what makes a public figure as those "who seek power, influence or attention." Does a subject meet that bar? If so they should be considered as needing to reach a high bar for anonymity, instead of it being assumed.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 4 Favorites
Mood +1 🙂
-
Generally, I wish that we could have a more anonymous (for lack of a better term) Discourse, because the need for people to converse without bias based on their identity becoming the filter many view the conversation through has only become more obvious. But that isn't happening.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 6 Favorites
Mood 0
-
What is happening is a plague of anonymous folk using anonymity to harass, 'just ask' questions that doubt the humanity of others, create and reinforce misinformation, doubt facts, and destabilize the non-anonymous conversations that happen elsewhere.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 5 Favorites
Mood -10 🙁
-
Now you may not be doing that (or you may), but you live in a world where this is reality. Now we must deal with the consequences. And one of those consequences is an ever higher bar to reach to reasonably get anonymity.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 4 Favorites
Mood +1 🙂
-
I do wish that editorial teams were more transparent in this process. But, make no mistake, it is a process, there are considerations, there is a balance of priorities and ethics, and it is part of that job.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 5 Favorites
Mood -2 🙁
-
This thread is continuing to get feedback so, to add some extra dimension, I took my essay on what counts as doxxing & when it is justifiable out from behind my newsletter paywall. - startedwithatweet.substack.com/p/doxing-for-great-justicePermalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood 0
-
Anyway, it is impossible to really understand the situation without knowing the wider context of the article, but I thought it might be useful to put out my framework for how I understand and parse stuff like this.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +4 🙂