No, a kneejerk threat of libel still seems to me really bad, whether it’s legally permissable or not. Seems far worse epistemic damage than the thing it seeks to mitigate.
If people do this regularly I’d give to a legal defense fund for people to be able to post criticisms of org founders without fear.
If we aren’t able to criticise non-profits without fear of libel then how exactly are we supposed to hold each other to account.
This seems particularly clear in the case of non-anonymous posts like Ben’s. Ben posted a thing that risks damaging Nonlinear’s reputation. In the process, he’s put his own reputation at risk: Nonlinear can publicly respond with information that shows Ben was wrong (and perhaps negligent, unfair, etc.), causing us to put a lot less stock in Ben’s word next time around.
Alice and Chloe are anonymous, but by having a named individual vouch for them to some degree, we create a situation where ordinary reputational costs can do a good job of incentivizing honesty on everyone’s part.
No, a kneejerk threat of libel still seems to me really bad, whether it’s legally permissable or not. Seems far worse epistemic damage than the thing it seeks to mitigate.
If people do this regularly I’d give to a legal defense fund for people to be able to post criticisms of org founders without fear.
If we aren’t able to criticise non-profits without fear of libel then how exactly are we supposed to hold each other to account.
This seems particularly clear in the case of non-anonymous posts like Ben’s. Ben posted a thing that risks damaging Nonlinear’s reputation. In the process, he’s put his own reputation at risk: Nonlinear can publicly respond with information that shows Ben was wrong (and perhaps negligent, unfair, etc.), causing us to put a lot less stock in Ben’s word next time around.
Alice and Chloe are anonymous, but by having a named individual vouch for them to some degree, we create a situation where ordinary reputational costs can do a good job of incentivizing honesty on everyone’s part.