I wrote this in 2021 but the Chatham House rule is still bad. https://kendraalbert.com/chatamhouse
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kendraserra@dair-community.social
@kendraserra love this, just shared internally anew to what I imagine is a chorus of hear, hear!s
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from joebeone@techpolicy.social
@kendraserra @joebeone And ALSO as somebody who has participated in events under these rules where it would be harmful for my statements to be attributed to me (e.g., as a fed), I've found an unattributed quote plus a list of attendees makes it painfully obvious that I said the thing in question. So these rules aren't working at the other end of the spectrum, either.
I was 42 years old when I learned that Chatham House is a real place that exists.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from waldoj@mastodon.social
@waldoj I think people just don't want to make things confidential. And I get it but also it is not a good solution!
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kendraserra@dair-community.social
@kendraserra Do you think there's a version that achieves the same benefits without the problems? Something like opt-out attribution?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from elplatt@greatjustice.net
@elplatt I think that people use it as a shorthand for "we didn't actually want to develop a more complicated policy re: sharing information" and that anything good will be more case-by-case and specific!
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kendraserra@dair-community.social
@kendraserra Thank you for writing and sharing this wonderfully thoughtful piece! I had never heard of the Chatham House rule before, so I learned a lot. :)
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from scott@sfba.social This content has been proxied by September (ba2dc).Proxy Information
text/gemini