The argument against anonymous posting is that one is entitled to confront
one's accuser and even sue them. The argument in favor of anonymous posting >is that it prevents retribution against whistle blowers and other purveyors >of difficult truths. Privacy and free speech are mutually exclusive as the >Greek word for privacy is cognate with idiot as openness was the way >Athenians got to the truth. Under common law you could use whatever name you >wanted provided it wasn't fraudulent; only with entitlements and other >pretence of officialdom did identity matter and become thievable. But the >elitist emperor of officialdom is without clothes and doesn't matter. During >the 1990s scientific advancement and collaboration soared because of open >crowd sourcing, which now has been suppressed in the name of moderation and >curation. Those that were bothered by free speech got hissy fits and found >endless moral arguments to supress it. There was even an anonymous "biotech >rumor mill" and adventurous biohackers. Officialdom suppresses innovation >with incrementalist satisficing lest it overturn the elite priveleges of >officialdom. Your labor union can see your party and voting history to see if >you are loyal to them, so why shouldn't we know the perversions of our >children's schoolteachers, like abortion.
When voting was open not secret,
most people sold their votes. You could find out what your neighbor's tax was >so you could contest the equity of your own. Swiss bank privacy owed to the >nazi era.
On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 16:33:24 -0000 (UTC),
vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
The argument against anonymous posting is that one is entitled to confront
one's accuser and even sue them. The argument in favor of anonymous posting
is that it prevents retribution against whistle blowers and other purveyors
of difficult truths. Privacy and free speech are mutually exclusive as the
Greek word for privacy is cognate with idiot as openness was the way
Athenians got to the truth. Under common law you could use whatever name you
wanted provided it wasn't fraudulent; only with entitlements and other
pretence of officialdom did identity matter and become thievable. But the
elitist emperor of officialdom is without clothes and doesn't matter. During
the 1990s scientific advancement and collaboration soared because of open
crowd sourcing, which now has been suppressed in the name of moderation and
curation. Those that were bothered by free speech got hissy fits and found
endless moral arguments to supress it. There was even an anonymous "biotech
rumor mill" and adventurous biohackers. Officialdom suppresses innovation
with incrementalist satisficing lest it overturn the elite priveleges of
officialdom. Your labor union can see your party and voting history to see if
you are loyal to them, so why shouldn't we know the perversions of our
children's schoolteachers, like abortion.
Because opinions are not perversions.
The unresolvable issue is: the difference between what may be said
and what should be said.
Should we immerse ourselves in falsehood so that some truth can come
through that otherwise might not? So that those who want to believe
lies can get their jollies?
Notice I did say the issue cannot be resolved.
In any case, that has nothing to do with being anonymous. A fallacy
teacher once upon a time said, all quotes should be anonymous so that
they can be considered based on their merits alone. It makes no
difference whether a streetperson said it or einstein said it. It can
still be either true or false or unclear.
When voting was open not secret,
most people sold their votes. You could find out what your neighbor's tax was
so you could contest the equity of your own. Swiss bank privacy owed to the
nazi era.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 17:36:29 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
4 files (8,203K bytes) |
| Messages: | 184,412 |
| Posted today: | 1 |