[EDIT: the article says more than this; see David’s response]
The article has “many of them asked that their alleged abusers not be named”. The article doesn’t name any of the alleged abusers, though, which makes me think the author decided to apply this even in cases where they weren’t asked to do so by the interviewees?
I’m this case we have someone who explicitly made the situation public on Twitter, including the name of their abuser. That seems like much stronger information about what they’re ok being public than what we have from the article?
No, the article has, directly after the passage in question, “TIME is not naming the man, like others in this story, due to the request of one or more women who made accusations against them, and who wanted to shield themselves from possible retaliation.”.
You cannot know why that line was written, and you will not know why until you have done more harm than you ever intended to. If the women in question want their words to be shared on this forum, they will share them. That is not a decision for you to make.
Thanks for pointing out that parenthetical; I’d forgotten that it was repeated and should have checked before writing above.
I’m still very confused on how to go from “doesn’t want the name included in Time” and “does want the name included in Twitter” to whether we should include the name in discussions on the EA Forum.
(Ex: I think it’s ok that I linked to the non-Forum original of a post that someone had deleted from the Forum, but I think maybe your argument here would say that I should be respecting their desire not to have it discussed on the Forum?)
I think it is much safer to mention someone who was named in the article than someone who wasn’t. Putting your name in TIME magazine isn’t a blanket invitation to discuss everything you have ever said or done, but redacting a name from TIME magazine is a strong request not to discuss the name or related details.
Let’s start with the basics and respect the request of women who asked that they and others not be named.
[EDIT: the article says more than this; see David’s response]
The article has “many of them asked that their alleged abusers not be named”. The article doesn’t name any of the alleged abusers, though, which makes me think the author decided to apply this even in cases where they weren’t asked to do so by the interviewees?
I’m this case we have someone who explicitly made the situation public on Twitter, including the name of their abuser. That seems like much stronger information about what they’re ok being public than what we have from the article?
No, the article has, directly after the passage in question, “TIME is not naming the man, like others in this story, due to the request of one or more women who made accusations against them, and who wanted to shield themselves from possible retaliation.”.
You cannot know why that line was written, and you will not know why until you have done more harm than you ever intended to. If the women in question want their words to be shared on this forum, they will share them. That is not a decision for you to make.
Thanks for pointing out that parenthetical; I’d forgotten that it was repeated and should have checked before writing above.
I’m still very confused on how to go from “doesn’t want the name included in Time” and “does want the name included in Twitter” to whether we should include the name in discussions on the EA Forum.
(Ex: I think it’s ok that I linked to the non-Forum original of a post that someone had deleted from the Forum, but I think maybe your argument here would say that I should be respecting their desire not to have it discussed on the Forum?)
I think it is much safer to mention someone who was named in the article than someone who wasn’t. Putting your name in TIME magazine isn’t a blanket invitation to discuss everything you have ever said or done, but redacting a name from TIME magazine is a strong request not to discuss the name or related details.
Let’s start with the basics and respect the request of women who asked that they and others not be named.