Hacker News Reader

Comment by iab | Hacker News Reader

> I didn’t post or share this. Someone found it and spread it and that’s perfectly okay,

Doesn’t seem ok, does it? I guess I am confused. What does “didn’t post” mean in this context?

It seems like, given that this is the only post by the account, they made an unrelated-to-their-public-face account and posted something deeply personal technically publicly visible to an account with no attention paid to it, and then somebody came upon it and shared it widely.

(It's also possible that medium has a "drafts" feature with unlisted-but-accessible posts that they kept it in and someone somehow found a link to it? I don't know, I don't use medium, just spitballing scenarios that fit.)

I don't quite understand the desire of people to post something somewhere public but not at the same time, but I have seen people do it before. (That is, I understand the desire when you are, for example, deliberately attempting to circulate information that would be troublesome if linked to you, but less so when you don't actually want it to propagate?)

Thinking more on it, I suppose it might be akin to a long-form version of the catharsis some people found from things like PostSecret, wherein people's short snippet darkest secrets were anonymously shared for other people to consume without being linked to the originating party.

> what you’re reading is essentially a diary entry

This seems like how I treat semi-public content I write not intended for an audience. Sure it’s technically available to the public, but it wasn’t intended to be consumed by the public. I’m obscure, my content is usually obscure, it being spotted and becoming more widespread is unexpected and makes me reconsider lack of caution in anything I might have said for my own purposes.

Then why post it online?

Reused alias on a different site, that now identifies you publicly through social media.

Because many forms of human social norms include a “private but not strongly so” register with neither the friction and psychological barriers of ‘true’ secrecy nor the overt exposure of publicity, and in fact a huge amount of communication takes place in that register, such as most conversation among groups socializing in public spaces.

In the digital world, this hits a wall of “the security mechanisms don't integrate with the nuances of human social understanding directly” and gets split off into “posts that are technically public but not really addressed to the public” and “invite-only areas which would probably be okay being somewhat more open but lack a good way of moderating this without leaving things open all the way”.

But why not just write her diary in a word document?

If it is online, it is public. I’m not understanding why that wasn’t the expectation here.

Me? Because clicking “submit” sometimes feels more committed than clicking “save”.

But… why use an blog to keep a private diary you don’t want to share? Why not just open up a text file on your computer, or even put pen to paper?

I answered you. It’s fine if that’s not satisfying.

I don’t think you did answer my question, which was why use an online platform at all for something private. But my question was to the author of the article / diary entry anyway, not you.

Is this really the the thing to focus on? Awful lot of fascinating content in there otherwise.

I feel bad about my initial response. I related personally to it, but then I related that back instead of what I really think should be said: yes it’s okay. The author said it’s okay. You should trust her judgment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com