Those are how rights work: through obligation and enforcement. A right to know is a positive right [1], which means other people are compelled to provide it for you. E.g., I have a legal right to know the financials of publicly traded companies. If a company fails to honor my right, the SEC will come after them. First with lawyers, then with people with guns.
> Oh hey, another thing I didn't do!
I was referring to the behavior I was originally objecting to. But I'm not sure you didn't do that, because your point on "rights" seems to imply that Penny Kim is obligated to do more.
If you would like to make clear what you actually meant, I'd be glad to read it.
Seriously, is there a single shred of your being that believe that I was compelling this stranger to provide information...?
We both know that you can't believe that, so why are you arguing your point as if you do...? What offends you so much that some stranger on the internet said that it was right for this information to be out in the open? Are you just completely desperate to argue with a stranger over nothing and change the topic to argue semantics? Maybe try reddit?
A bunch of people were complaining about Penny's not naming names. I pointed out that she didn't do it for a reason. For her to do so could be very costly. I said that if people really wanted her to talk, they should offer to share in the costs by putting together a legal defense fund.
You then responded by saying I couldn't be serious, and talking about "this person" (presumably kelukelugames) and whether I thought they had "no rights to know" more.
Assuming you were serious, I expanded on what an actual "right to know" would mean, showing that the idea has significant implementation problems. If you meant something else, you could have cleared that up by saying what you did mean.
> What offends you so much that some stranger on the internet said that it was right
The reason I objected is that when people take a gift and are immediately critical that the gift was not larger, it discourages the giving of gifts. If we want more whistleblowers, we must make sure their experience of whistleblowing is a positive one. If all they hear is, "Y U NO GIVE MOAR", that is not a positive experience.
I think it's particularly important here because this instant entitlement is a perennial problem for open source project maintainers.
Does that make my motivations clearer?
> Are you just completely desperate to argue with a stranger
Pal, you are the one who responded to me, and you did it with a lot of attitude. The person I was responding to thought my point was reasonable. You appear to be the only one excited for an argument here.
"The reason I objected is that when people take a gift and are immediately critical that the gift was not larger, it discourages the giving of gifts. If we want more whistleblowers, we must make sure their experience of whistleblowing is a positive one. If all they hear is, "Y U NO GIVE MOAR", that is not a positive experience.
I think it's particularly important here because this instant entitlement is a perennial problem for open source project maintainers."
So basically you have a bunch of reasons why you're upset about this but none have even a remote relationship to the topic at hand? Because you feel open source software maintainers have a certain problem, by logical extension we must be facing the exact same thing in this totally different situation.
That you cannot see the relationship is not proof of no relationship, especially given your repeated struggles understanding my posts. And even if there were no relationship, my fondness for whistleblowers would have been enough to motivate the comment.
Those are how rights work: through obligation and enforcement. A right to know is a positive right [1], which means other people are compelled to provide it for you. E.g., I have a legal right to know the financials of publicly traded companies. If a company fails to honor my right, the SEC will come after them. First with lawyers, then with people with guns.
> Oh hey, another thing I didn't do!
I was referring to the behavior I was originally objecting to. But I'm not sure you didn't do that, because your point on "rights" seems to imply that Penny Kim is obligated to do more.
If you would like to make clear what you actually meant, I'd be glad to read it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights