I had a bunch of thoughts on this situation, enough that I wrote them up as a post. Unfortunately your response came out while I was writing and I didnât see it, but I think doesnât change much?
In addition to your three paths forward, I see a fourth one: you extend the policy to have the moderators (or another widely-trusted entity) make decisions on when there should be exceptions in cases like this, and write a bit about how youâll make those decisions.
There may be a fifth, which could be seen as a bit of a cop-out.
Itâs not clear to me whether the mods claim jurisdiction over deanonymizing conduct that doesnât happen on the Forum. I think the answer here is that claiming such jurisdiction here would be inappropriate.
As far as I know, it wouldnât violate the rules of X, Facebook, or most other sites to post that â[Real Names] have been spreading malicious lies about things that happened when they were Nonlinear employees.â It certainly would not violate the rules of a state or federal court to do that in a court complaint. The alleged harm of Alice and Chloe spreading malicious lies about Kat, Emerson, and Nonlinear existed off-the-Forum prior to anything being published on the Forum. I donât see why Benâs act of including those allegations in a Forum post creates off-Forum obligations for Nonlinear et al. (or anyone else) that did not exist prior to Benâs post. Alice and Chloe, and people in similar situations, have to accept that many fora exist that do not have norms against this kind of conduct.[1]
If there is no jurisdiction over off-Forum naming here, it seems that the people who want Alice and Chloe named can do so in other places, and everyone who wants to know will know soon enough. If thatâs the case, Iâm not sure whetherâat least in these circumstances [2] -- Jeffâs suggestion offers enough added value to justify the rather significant costs of the mods adjudicating this particular matter in a reasonably thorough manner. If the names can be plastered all over X and Facebook, and ~everyone who cares to know will find out that way, does it make a huge amount of difference whether or not the names are also on the Forum? Under those circumstances, declining to adjudicate because the question would be of limited practical importance would be justifiable.
I express no opinion as to whether the mods could legitimately exercise broader jurisdiction over attempting to disclose the identity of a Forum poster, where the only relevant conduct was on-Forum.
This isnât about the Forum mods as as representatives of the Forum, but instead as the most obvious trusted community members (possibly in consultation with CH) to make a decision.
What centralized adjudication avoids is each person having to make their own judgment about whether deanonymization is appropriate in a given circumstance. Letâs say NL starts posting the real names on Twitter: should I think poorly of them for breaking an important norm or is this an exception? Is that an unreasonable unilateral escalation of this dispute? Should I pressure them not to do this?
That approach certainly does offer some significant advantages, but I think itâs a lot harder to pull off. Willâs three options, the narrower version of mod discretion (which is limited to whether A/âC can be named on the Forum), and my fifth option (declining to allow in this case because if people decide to name, everyone will find out whether itâs on the Forum or not) are all open to the mods because they are mods.
The possibility of a centralized adjudication that is recognized as binding in all places requires outside buy-in. I think it needs either (1) the consent of every party directly in interest or (2) the consent of Nonlinear, broad community support, and the centralized adjudicatorâs willingness to either release the names themselves or allow widespread burner accounts naming them.
Option (1) is basically arbitration on the consent of the parties; they would be free to choose the mods, Qualy, a poll, or a coin flip. Alice and Chloe would consent to being named if the arbitrators chose, and Nonlinear would agree to not name if the arbitrators ruled against them.[1] If the arbitrators rule for naming, no one should judge Nonlinear because it would have named Alice and Chloe with their consent. If they rule against naming and Nonlinear did it anyway, everyone should judge them for breaking their agreement. And thereâs a strong argument to me that we bystanders should honor the decision of those directly involved on a resolution.
But reaching an agreement to arbitrate may be challenging. A rational party would not consent to arbitrate unless it concluded its interests were expected to be better off under arbitration than the counterfactual. Settlements can be mutually beneficial, but I am not yet convinced arbitration would be in Alice and Chloeâs interests. So long as a substantial fraction of the community would judge Nonlinear for naming, it probably will not do so. So the status quo for Alice and Chloe would be a win vs. an uncertain future in arbitration.
The other, less certain option is that Nonlinear and the significant majority of the community consented to abide by the arbitration result. Even here, there is a risk that the arbitration process may become a no-win scenario for Nonlinear. If enough community members reserve their right to independently and adversely judge Nonlinear for naming, then it is in a pickle even if it âwinsâ the arbitration.
A possible workaround might be either that the arbitration panel itself will release the names if it rules against Alice and Chloe, or that it will allow untraceable anonymous posters to flood the Forum with their names. In other words, if Alice and Chloe do not consent, and there is a contingent of anti-namers in the community, then any blowback for releasing needs to fall on someone other than Nonlinear.
The possibility of a centralized adjudication that is recognized as binding in all places requires outside buy-in.
I think you might be thinking too formally? We sometimes have things that work because we decide to respect an authority that doesnât have any formal power. If you make a film you donât have to submit it to the MPAA to get a rating, and if you run a theater you donât have to follow MPAA ratings in deciding whether someone is mature enough to be let into an R-rated movie, but everyone just goes along with the system.
Iâm imagining that the Forum mods would make a decision for the Forum, and then weâd just go along with it voluntarily even off the Forum, as long as they kept making reasonable decisions.
Iâm not seeing any real consensus on what standard to apply for deanonymizing someone. I think a voluntary deference model is much easier when such a consensus exists. If youâre on board with the basic decision standard, itâs easier to defer even when you disagree with the application in a specific case. In sports, the referees usually get the call right, and errors are evenly distributed between your team and your opponents. But if you fundamentally disagree with the decision standard, the calls will go systematically against your viewpoint. Thatâs much harder to defer to, and people obviously have very strong feelings on either side.
I donât think the MPAA is a great analog here. Iâd submit that the MPAA has designed its system carefully in light of the wholly advisory nature of its rulings. Placing things on a five-point continuum helps. I think only a small fraction of users would disagree more than one rating up/âdown from where the MPAA lands. So rarely would an end user completely disagree with the MPAA outcome. Where an end user knows that the MPAA grades more harshly/âleniently than they do, the user can mentally adjust accordingly (as they might when they learn so many Harvard College students get 4.0s?)
And itâs easy for end users to practically opt out of the MPAA system without any real social sanction; if a theater owner decides to admit ten-year olds to R-rated movies with a signed parental consent, that is really none of my business. If a parent decides to take a seven-year old to one, that is also none of my business as long as the child is non-disruptive. The MPAA system is resilient to 20-30% of the population opting out, if they so chose.[1]
So I donât think the features that make the MPAA system workable as a voluntary-deference system are likely to transfer over well to this context.
Itâs harder for filmmakers to opt outâbut they also got a lot out of the system, too. Mild self-regulation is preferable to government regulation, especially back in days when the First Amendment was not enforced with the same rigor it is today.
Jeffâthanks very much for sharing the link to that post. I encourage others to read itâitâs fairly short. It nicely sets out some of the difficulties around anonymity, doxxing, accusations, counter-accusations, etc.
I canât offer any brilliant solutions to these issues, but I am glad to see that the risks of false or exaggerated allegations are getting some serious attention.
Thanks for sharing this!
I had a bunch of thoughts on this situation, enough that I wrote them up as a post. Unfortunately your response came out while I was writing and I didnât see it, but I think doesnât change much?
In addition to your three paths forward, I see a fourth one: you extend the policy to have the moderators (or another widely-trusted entity) make decisions on when there should be exceptions in cases like this, and write a bit about how youâll make those decisions.
There may be a fifth, which could be seen as a bit of a cop-out.
Itâs not clear to me whether the mods claim jurisdiction over deanonymizing conduct that doesnât happen on the Forum. I think the answer here is that claiming such jurisdiction here would be inappropriate.
As far as I know, it wouldnât violate the rules of X, Facebook, or most other sites to post that â[Real Names] have been spreading malicious lies about things that happened when they were Nonlinear employees.â It certainly would not violate the rules of a state or federal court to do that in a court complaint. The alleged harm of Alice and Chloe spreading malicious lies about Kat, Emerson, and Nonlinear existed off-the-Forum prior to anything being published on the Forum. I donât see why Benâs act of including those allegations in a Forum post creates off-Forum obligations for Nonlinear et al. (or anyone else) that did not exist prior to Benâs post. Alice and Chloe, and people in similar situations, have to accept that many fora exist that do not have norms against this kind of conduct.[1]
If there is no jurisdiction over off-Forum naming here, it seems that the people who want Alice and Chloe named can do so in other places, and everyone who wants to know will know soon enough. If thatâs the case, Iâm not sure whetherâat least in these circumstances [2] -- Jeffâs suggestion offers enough added value to justify the rather significant costs of the mods adjudicating this particular matter in a reasonably thorough manner. If the names can be plastered all over X and Facebook, and ~everyone who cares to know will find out that way, does it make a huge amount of difference whether or not the names are also on the Forum? Under those circumstances, declining to adjudicate because the question would be of limited practical importance would be justifiable.
I express no opinion as to whether the mods could legitimately exercise broader jurisdiction over attempting to disclose the identity of a Forum poster, where the only relevant conduct was on-Forum.
That is, enough people who know of their identity appear to be motivated to share it.
This isnât about the Forum mods as as representatives of the Forum, but instead as the most obvious trusted community members (possibly in consultation with CH) to make a decision.
What centralized adjudication avoids is each person having to make their own judgment about whether deanonymization is appropriate in a given circumstance. Letâs say NL starts posting the real names on Twitter: should I think poorly of them for breaking an important norm or is this an exception? Is that an unreasonable unilateral escalation of this dispute? Should I pressure them not to do this?
That approach certainly does offer some significant advantages, but I think itâs a lot harder to pull off. Willâs three options, the narrower version of mod discretion (which is limited to whether A/âC can be named on the Forum), and my fifth option (declining to allow in this case because if people decide to name, everyone will find out whether itâs on the Forum or not) are all open to the mods because they are mods.
The possibility of a centralized adjudication that is recognized as binding in all places requires outside buy-in. I think it needs either (1) the consent of every party directly in interest or (2) the consent of Nonlinear, broad community support, and the centralized adjudicatorâs willingness to either release the names themselves or allow widespread burner accounts naming them.
Option (1) is basically arbitration on the consent of the parties; they would be free to choose the mods, Qualy, a poll, or a coin flip. Alice and Chloe would consent to being named if the arbitrators chose, and Nonlinear would agree to not name if the arbitrators ruled against them.[1] If the arbitrators rule for naming, no one should judge Nonlinear because it would have named Alice and Chloe with their consent. If they rule against naming and Nonlinear did it anyway, everyone should judge them for breaking their agreement. And thereâs a strong argument to me that we bystanders should honor the decision of those directly involved on a resolution.
But reaching an agreement to arbitrate may be challenging. A rational party would not consent to arbitrate unless it concluded its interests were expected to be better off under arbitration than the counterfactual. Settlements can be mutually beneficial, but I am not yet convinced arbitration would be in Alice and Chloeâs interests. So long as a substantial fraction of the community would judge Nonlinear for naming, it probably will not do so. So the status quo for Alice and Chloe would be a win vs. an uncertain future in arbitration.
The other, less certain option is that Nonlinear and the significant majority of the community consented to abide by the arbitration result. Even here, there is a risk that the arbitration process may become a no-win scenario for Nonlinear. If enough community members reserve their right to independently and adversely judge Nonlinear for naming, then it is in a pickle even if it âwinsâ the arbitration.
A possible workaround might be either that the arbitration panel itself will release the names if it rules against Alice and Chloe, or that it will allow untraceable anonymous posters to flood the Forum with their names. In other words, if Alice and Chloe do not consent, and there is a contingent of anti-namers in the community, then any blowback for releasing needs to fall on someone other than Nonlinear.
One complexity is that, to the extent that Alice and/âor Chloe allegedly slandered other people, there are other potential parties in interest.
I think you might be thinking too formally? We sometimes have things that work because we decide to respect an authority that doesnât have any formal power. If you make a film you donât have to submit it to the MPAA to get a rating, and if you run a theater you donât have to follow MPAA ratings in deciding whether someone is mature enough to be let into an R-rated movie, but everyone just goes along with the system.
Iâm imagining that the Forum mods would make a decision for the Forum, and then weâd just go along with it voluntarily even off the Forum, as long as they kept making reasonable decisions.
Iâm not seeing any real consensus on what standard to apply for deanonymizing someone. I think a voluntary deference model is much easier when such a consensus exists. If youâre on board with the basic decision standard, itâs easier to defer even when you disagree with the application in a specific case. In sports, the referees usually get the call right, and errors are evenly distributed between your team and your opponents. But if you fundamentally disagree with the decision standard, the calls will go systematically against your viewpoint. Thatâs much harder to defer to, and people obviously have very strong feelings on either side.
I donât think the MPAA is a great analog here. Iâd submit that the MPAA has designed its system carefully in light of the wholly advisory nature of its rulings. Placing things on a five-point continuum helps. I think only a small fraction of users would disagree more than one rating up/âdown from where the MPAA lands. So rarely would an end user completely disagree with the MPAA outcome. Where an end user knows that the MPAA grades more harshly/âleniently than they do, the user can mentally adjust accordingly (as they might when they learn so many Harvard College students get 4.0s?)
And itâs easy for end users to practically opt out of the MPAA system without any real social sanction; if a theater owner decides to admit ten-year olds to R-rated movies with a signed parental consent, that is really none of my business. If a parent decides to take a seven-year old to one, that is also none of my business as long as the child is non-disruptive. The MPAA system is resilient to 20-30% of the population opting out, if they so chose.[1]
So I donât think the features that make the MPAA system workable as a voluntary-deference system are likely to transfer over well to this context.
Itâs harder for filmmakers to opt outâbut they also got a lot out of the system, too. Mild self-regulation is preferable to government regulation, especially back in days when the First Amendment was not enforced with the same rigor it is today.
Jeffâthanks very much for sharing the link to that post. I encourage others to read itâitâs fairly short. It nicely sets out some of the difficulties around anonymity, doxxing, accusations, counter-accusations, etc.
I canât offer any brilliant solutions to these issues, but I am glad to see that the risks of false or exaggerated allegations are getting some serious attention.