Hacker News Reader

Comment by burnished | Hacker News Reader

That sounds like a pretty fair position. It does seem difficult, on the other hand, because I don't think we really have mechanisms to protect whistleblowers as a society. The options seem like stay silent, speak out anonymously (clearly subject to abuse), or speak out publicly with the threat of retribution. None of these feel like great options.

View on HN

This is a role that I think journalists have more traditionally played. Source is known to the journalist but anonymous to the public and the public then chooses whether to trust the named journalist who is representing the nameless source.

However, with forums, I'm not sure how that would work. Maybe having verified accounts reporting on behalf of anonymous accounts, because the current way, I just have to trust an anonymous account and with how easy it is to defame people anonymously because of no ultimate accountability, I tend to view anonymous posts skeptically. With the journalist way, there isn't anonymity but rather veiled identity, because it's ultimately traceable.

Having anybody be able to create a noise of slanderous comments seems like absolutely worst option to me.

I personally back my posts by my real name and I think this is fair. If I did not feel safe posting something important, I would make sure to include proofs. If I can't include either, I keep my mouth shut.

Well you're a stronger person than me!

I'm not trying to be slanderous or have a hit piece. They've clearly been immensely succesful (much more than me!). However, there is a veneer around Patrick and Stripe that needs to be broken. So many founders and employees look up to a false image that has been purposely crafted and is completely false. I'm not going to say that Patrick and John are bad people - but they're definitely not good, honest or kind. And they are definitely not who their online profiles, hn and the media would portray. Is an anonymous post the best way to show this - absolutely not, so down for other ideas.

Just today I was reading a post that said "Stripe is a startup no one seems to hate" [0]. No matter how you cut it, that's clearly incorrect based on the discussion here. So, I fully believe this is a PR engine in motion.

[0] https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/11-big-things-the-35b-st...

Maybe speak to a prominent journalist anonymously?

That’s a privileged stance that is not always practical. When you’re subjected to injustice (or just not-cool move) by a party with significant power imbalance, and known history of retaliation, what do you do? Just sit silently and take it?

Be it professional or social, many people are disadvantaged in their ability to express their opinions freely without retaliation, and any “you have nothing to hide or you’re just a coward” attitude only comes off as insensitive to others.

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

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?

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."

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.

Well, for starters, what if I wanted to discredit any negative opinions, so I paid a team to work on that for me? Wouldn't that team want people to also post arguments like you are, where in principle it sounds reasonable (because your position is) but the source and scale were not?

Like, I could see some merit in convincing people that they aren't "allowed" to post anonymous criticism as a means of quieting bad press.

Well, I am not saying you are, but it's not really that hard to imagine that someone would pay a "troll farm" to write facially reasonable concerns that cast doubt on what are actually true allegations of misconduct. It's no less plausible than a competitors paying a troll farm to post false allegations.

Another possibility is that many more people come forward, making it less and less plausible that it's baseless slander.

When everyone's pseudonymous, how much credibility do multiple allegations have?

It depends; if we started hearing from long-active community members I would be inclined to think the allegations are pretty strong.

> If I did not feel safe posting something important

So far so good...

> I would make sure to include proofs.

Why do you imagine GP's comments could be made public under their own name if they included proof, given the concerns they have put forward? Their company could still be ruined by Stripe afterward, no amount of proof will change that. A court cannot force them to accept payment traffic as long as they pretend to refuse them for a different reason.

> If I can't include either, I keep my mouth shut.

This is how dictators and other perpetrators of abuse stay in power. In essence, you are colluding with them by keeping what they do a secret on purpose.

Actually, what you defend is how dictators work today. Throw unsubstantiated allegations around, make everything moot in deluge of conflicting information.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com