[willis936]

Wow.

It's almost like the missions of popular websites fall in line with protecting individuals against government-sponsored attacks on whistleblowers.

Witness protection isn't some flashy thing in movies. It's real and society benefits from it.

[cryptonector]

What are you talking about? The impeachment is over. Everyone knows the whistleblower's identity -- it can't be protected. Horse, barn, door.

[sangnoir]

I actively didn't want to know the identity of this whistle-blower. I wish parent had put the name at the end of the comment so I could skip it entirely.

I will not take part in some chilling-effect and/or stochastic terrorism effort (see Ping Pong Pizza incident); I understand why Google, wikipedia and Facebook wouldn't want to be party to that either.

[TechBro8615]

Maybe you shouldn’t venture outside of the curated Internet then. If you don’t want to read something, you’ll just have to stick to places like Facebook that delete it to protect your eyes from such dangerous words and ideas.

[sangnoir]

Do you avoid spoilers? I do, and that doesn't mean I'm "afraid of ideas". Actively avoiding certain information doesn't require a curated internet - it helps when other people respect that (spoiler tags/warnings and such).

I expect most people who hang out on HN would understand that there are no good outcomes when PII is in the wrong hands - that's not even a controversial idea.

[TechBro8615]

Interesting point, but I’m not sure the analogy holds up under scrutiny. You don’t want spoilers because they contain information that you do ultimately want to know.

A better analogy might be NSFL videos (people dying, mutilation etc.) I would be upset to find such a video auto playing in my feed. But I also think it’s a whole different level of offense compared to words on a page. And I know not to visit certain pages on 4chan, for example, if I want to avoid seeing such content. So do I benefit from using moderated platforms like Reddit instead? I would say yes. But then I would also suggest you need to apply the same logic to words on a page; if you don’t want to see them, stick to platforms that censor them for you.

Regarding PII, I’m not sure how you can argue that the name of a public figure is PII. The person in question is a “whistleblower” in some sense, but it’s very debatable whether he actually has any legal protections regarding others publicizing his name. As far as I know, he is not protected by WITSEC or any official, legal whistleblower statute or act. All censorship or omission of his name has been voluntary on the part of media organizations and social media platforms.

[sangnoir]

It wasn't an analogy, it was a single point that disproved the prior (my motivation is fear of ideas) as well as the solution (curated internet).

I vehemently disagree with the assumption that the act of whistleblowing transforms one into public figure.

edit: A better analogy would be a recipe for crack cocaine. I have 0 use for that knowledge, and I definitely won't spread it because at best, my audience will have no use for it either, or at worst, they'll act on it and I'll likely find their actions disagreeable. If I find a link that says "How to make crack in 10 steps", I won't click it. I won't appreciate it if someone randomly injects crack-cooking instructions in a discussion about baking soda or sodium perchlorate or whatever might be one of the ingredients.

[cryptonector]

It doesn't matter that you didn't want to know -- all the people whose knowing of this matters... know, they all know. If you wanted the whistleblower to avoid reprisals by having his identity kept secret, it's too late.

[sangnoir]

I clearly stated my 2 concerns. The chilling-effect (by sending a message to would-be whistleblowers that they'd be tarred and feathered) as well as a "Lone-wolf" taking matters into their own hands, as it were.

I have no control what you (or others) propagate, as is your right - but I will not be part of it. I understand why Facebook, Wikipedia and others won't either (they too, have 1A rights).

[cryptonector]

Nonsense. Being a whistleblower requires running some risks. It's a necessity. You can't really blow the whistle on crimes etc. without ever going public -- at some point there might be a trial and you'd have to testify, else it's not a proper trial.

And again, horse, barn, door. It's gone. It ain't coming back.

[im3w1l]

Anyone who wanted to harm Eric Ciaramella could find that his name is Eric Ciaramella with a minute of research. The notion that scrubbing the name Eric Ciaramella from the internet will protect Eric Ciaramella is laughable. The only thing censoring information about Eric Ciaramella does is inhibit debate.

[CamelCaseName]

1. I imagine state actors have better information than Wikipedia editors.

2. Leaving that aside, why permanently ban those who make such contributions to Wikipedia?

[dodobirdlord]

1. State actors also have a long and established history of abuses of power. We should not defer to what they have to say on issues related to their possible abuses.

2. Propensity for creating such a page is a strong indication of extremely poor judgement.

[anoraca]

Are most people who repeatedly try to edit Wikipedia with disallowed content banned?

[s_y_n_t_a_x]

.

[willis936]

>You don't get special agent treatment for being in WP.

Yes. You do. WISTEC covers their bases, but they can't force large organizations to play ball at a whim. Those organizations need to be willing to help. And it's heart warming to see that they are.

[anigbrowl]

What's more troubling is there's a list going around being used for censorship that citizens can't FOIA or see.

Citizenship has no bearing on the internal policies of private corporations. If you don't like the large corporate offerings, do without and use other services. Being a consumer of their services doesn't grant legal standing because you haven't suffered any definable injury.