|
|
|
|
|
by TheOtherHobbes
2153 days ago
|
|
Pseudonymous publishing has a long and respected history. Criticising the wrong people, or arguing with the beliefs of a mob, can be physically dangerous. Anonymity gives writers of all kinds a platform to express an opinion without fear of violent reprisals from those who disagree. Journalists also need to protect useful sources - hence the cliche "...according to people familiar with the matter." As long as writers don't abuse this by promoting personal attacks on others, I'm completely fine with this. |
|
Well there's definitely a history of authors publishing pseudonymously. I don't know of a tradition of keeping the identities secret even after they've been revealed. Unless legally mandated as it is in come countries[0].
I mean someone afraid of getting killed for their writings would certainly not make it obvious who they are and then rely on others not mentioning it. There's certainly no tradition of that.
The whole phenomenon of "doxxing" as I understand it is something new. In the most radical form the ask seems to be that you should outright not mention any information about a person unless it has been explicitly volunteered to you for publishing.
I guess the problem here is many people publish publicly on the Internet not expecting much of anything. And then after they become notorious they may regret giving up their privacy. So there's a new push to create a stronger norm of what's considered private and who's considered a public figure.
[0] say some places will mandate redacting last names of people charged with crimes