I want to point out that the existence of a libel law that is expensive to engage with, does practically nothing against the posting of anonymized callout posts. You can’t sue someone you can’t identify.
Love it or hate it: the more harshly libel law is enforced, the more I expect similar things to be handled through fully-anonymous or low-transparency channels, instead of high-transparency ones. And in aggregate, I expect an environment high on libel suits, to disincentivize transparent behavior or highly specific allegations (which risks de-anonymization) on the part of accusers, more strongly than it incentivizes epistemic carefulness.
This is one reason to be against encouraging highly litigious attitudes, that I haven’t yet seen mentioned, so I thought I’d briefly put it out there.
I want to point out that the existence of a libel law that is expensive to engage with, does practically nothing against the posting of anonymized callout posts. You can’t sue someone you can’t identify.
Love it or hate it: the more harshly libel law is enforced, the more I expect similar things to be handled through fully-anonymous or low-transparency channels, instead of high-transparency ones. And in aggregate, I expect an environment high on libel suits, to disincentivize transparent behavior or highly specific allegations (which risks de-anonymization) on the part of accusers, more strongly than it incentivizes epistemic carefulness.
This is one reason to be against encouraging highly litigious attitudes, that I haven’t yet seen mentioned, so I thought I’d briefly put it out there.