Comment by emodendroket

5 years ago

If this were a standard we stuck by any number of famous instances of gross misconduct would remain unknown to us.

9 comments

emodendroket

Reply
lmilcin  5 years ago

Think about this: without any proof or name to back the claim, the only purpose the post serves is to (possibly) slander a person.

As a bystander you have no way of knowing who is right. There is a huge disparity between the person being slandered and the person trying to post slander.

The person being slandered can't defend themselves due to either volume of it or just impossibility of proving you haven't done something.

On the other hand person posting slander can quickly create multiple usernames and crate a lot of "content" looking like a discussion.

An exception could be a criminal case (when it might be ok to both stay anonymous and not have a proof, because of an important reason like public safety). But even in such case Police or whatever other official will try to confirm the claim in some way.

---

emodendroket: I can't respond because I am being throttled by HN (for apparently posting low value content).

Again: how do you know these are actually separate people? Without any real name on it there is no way for you to know.

Do you think trolls haven't thought about it?

  • sombremesa  5 years ago

    It doesn't really matter who you are, you could still be a paid shill.

    Or do you have some way to definitively prove that you are not on pc's payroll?

    Paranoia goes both ways, and I think it's sufficient to just have the reader use their best judgement...otherwise we'll just always be in an endless spiral of "no puppet no puppet you're the puppet."

    • lmilcin  5 years ago

      How can I be a paid shill?

      I am not giving any facts or creating impression I know any facts.

      I am just discussing the general process of what is and what is not ok to post online anonymously.

      3 replies →