Anonymity: Difference between revisions
| Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
* [[Digital Wetwork]] | * [[Digital Wetwork]] | ||
== References == | |||
[[Category:Portal Topics]] | [[Category:Portal Topics]] | ||
[[Category:Sensemaking]] | [[Category:Sensemaking]] | ||
Revision as of 03:04, 14 September 2025
Eric Weinstein has expressed views on anonymity across various contexts, including social media, peer review, journalism, and blockchain technology. He describes anonymity as an amoral tool that can serve both constructive and destructive purposes.[1] [2] [3] [4] In social media discussions, he highlights its use by individuals such as whistleblowers, political dissidents, shy teenagers, and conservative teachers facing professional risks, while also noting its exploitation by bots, stalkers, harassers, predators, and institutional actors for astroturfing, fear-uncertainty-doubt campaigns, and reputation destruction. [1] [2] [3] [5] [6]
Eric argues against oversimplifying anonymity as inherently good or celebratory, emphasizing its complexity and potential for abuse against named individuals. [2] [3] [6] Regarding peer review in academia, he criticizes the reversal of anonymity norms, where reviewers are anonymous while authors are not, and deems it unethical to grant anonymity to rent-seekers who block work without risking their own positions, such as by "shorting" the ideas they reject. [7] [8] He also addresses anonymity in journalism, observing a shift where traditional protections like off-the-record assurances and source anonymity are less strictly upheld by younger, activist-oriented reporters. [9] [10]
More broadly, Eric calls for a distinct conversation on the intersection of internet anonymity, targeted behavior, and free speech amid societal tensions. [11] He supports anonymity for positive applications but opposes its use for harm, including intellectual infanticide and career theft in academic settings. [4] [12]
On X
Hey twitter. I see #CancelNYT trending. What's up with that?
[Starts to hear why]
Let me stop you. 10 years ago when the NYT gave you an assurance, it meant something. Now some of their people print off-the-record comments & mention what you said to other interviewees by name.
Let me stress that this is not yet universal. But there's a new informal change in professionalism and the culture of journalism/reporting. The new reporters and editors are often younger with an activist orientation. Off-the-record and anonymity used to be strict.
Not anymore.
The anonymity differential in peer review has been exactly reversed from what makes sense.
Not to mention, obviously so.
CLAIM: It is unethical to offer rent seekers anonymity w/ peer review if they refuse to risk profit 'shorting' what they block.
Related Pages
References
- β 1.0 1.1 https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1678454736062922752
- β 2.0 2.1 2.2 https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1678135432419368960
- β 3.0 3.1 3.2 https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1678129442365816833
- β 4.0 4.1 https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1613435898200469507
- β https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1678127496565514240
- β 6.0 6.1 https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1229795521776123904
- β https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/55469441726693377
- β https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/5759528816
- β https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1177342271500349440
- β https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1177342270867042304
- β https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1966839630235324528
- β https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1221584948072611840
