Doxxing discussion out of Market Action

[bhzmark]

Then I can only conclude that we have a radically different notion of what it means to live in a free society. It’s no coincidence that the reason you give why anonymity is bad per se, is exactly the same that despotic and authocratic regimes use to legitimize regulations that squash unregulated reporting, introduce mandatory licenses for bloggers and more.

Many here are mistaking anonymity with unaccountability and their own judgments with judicial due process. When you claim MS is guilty of a crime and therefore it is right to deprive him of his rights without judicial review, well that is not the society I would want to live in. And that’s entirely regardless of the fact if you are actually right on his guilt.

Fossi can state his opinions and write whatever he wants, up to the limits on speech through the laws of defamation, securities manipulation, and contractual interference etc. And he can try to remain anonymous. He can post things about his opinion of what he think Tesla is hiding or not disclosing in their financial statements.

But others can also post their opinions and write things, subject to the same laws, including for instance, they can post things about their opinion of what Fossi/MS is hiding or not disclosing especially when that is relevant to the credibility of Fossi.

That is truly living in a free society with appropriate protections for freedom of expression and the benefits of the marketplace of ideas.

 

[neroden]

So the responsible journalistic standards way for Seeking Alpha to publish Mr. Fossi under a pseudonym would have been to put a big disclaimer at the bottom saying either:
"We have granted Montana Skeptic anonymity because the family office he manages investments for would fire him immediately if they knew he was publishing these pieces"
or
"We have granted Montana Skeptic anonymity because he fears libel lawsuits for publishing these pieces"
or
"We have granted Montana Skeptic anonymity because he wants to avoid disclosing conflicts of interest in his investments"

I think any one of these would have caused him to be given far, far less credence by the gullible bears who read his stuff. I blame Seeking Alpha; there are always crazy dishonest people trying to commit libel and harassment, but they gave him a *platform*.

 

[ValueAnalyst]

So the responsible journalistic standards way for Seeking Alpha to publish Mr. Fossi under a pseudonym would have been to put a big disclaimer at the bottom saying either:
"We have granted Montana Skeptic anonymity because the family office he manages investments for would fire him immediately if they knew he was publishing these pieces"
or
"We have granted Montana Skeptic anonymity because he fears libel lawsuits for publishing these pieces"
or
"We have granted Montana Skeptic anonymity because he wants to avoid disclosing conflicts of interest in his investments"

I think any one of these would have caused him to be given far, far less credence by the gullible bears who read his stuff. I blame Seeking Alpha; there are always crazy dishonest people trying to commit libel and harassment, but they gave him a *platform*.

Doxxing MS has emboldened bears, and not "caused him to be given far, far less credence," so your entire post has already been proven wrong.

 

[bhzmark]

emboldened bears,

What does that mean?

 

[neroden]

Yeah, so the person publishing anonymously (for no clear reason) on Seeking Alpha disagrees with the idea that at a real journalistic outlet, it should be necessary to provide a reason why anonymity was granted. ValueAnalyst, I don't trust you either, and I do wonder why you're hiding your identity.

 

[ValueAnalyst]

Yeah, so the person publishing anonymously (for no clear reason) on Seeking Alpha disagrees with the idea that at a real journalistic outlet, it should be necessary to provide a reason why anonymity was granted. ValueAnalyst, I don't trust you either, and I do wonder why you're hiding your identity.

Why are you hiding your identity?

 

[ValueAnalyst]

What does that mean?

Emboldened, meaning shorts have been just as loud and certain of their position pre and post-doxx.

 

[neroden]

Why are you hiding your identity?

I'm not. It is completely trivial to figure out my name; the only reason I don't write it is to avoid Google searches picking it up here rather than picking up my personal website, and in a minor effort to avoid spam. I've been using the same ID online since it was assigned to me in *college* (last name, first initial). I have absolutely no illusions about being anonymous here. I'm not. If I were trying to hide my identity, I would not use a handle which has been associated with my real name online for literally decades.

 

[mongo]

Yeah, so the person publishing anonymously (for no clear reason) on Seeking Alpha disagrees with the idea that at a real journalistic outlet, it should be necessary to provide a reason why anonymity was granted. ValueAnalyst, I don't trust you either, and I do wonder why you're hiding your identity.

Having ventured into the world of $TSLA(Q) Twitter, I do not take anonymity as a sign of anything other that self-protection, assuming the person is willing to stick by their posts in real life also.

If the person is not willing to stand by their posts, perhaps they should not be making them...

If I had what I believed to be truthful posts and Elon threatened to sue, I would not remove them. If I had truthful posts and someone threatened my person, I would wish for anonymity.

 

[schonelucht]

Tell me how I, an investor in TSLA and therefore impacted by this miscreant Fossi can sue him when I'm in Estonia, he's in the US. How would that work out? I go to the local police here in Estonia and make a claim of an internet anonymous guy writing libel or slander about a company (both in US) that affects my investment. How would that work? How could I sue or report him in US being a citizen of Estonia? The only true recourse I have would be to oust him and get him to stop doing it online somehow or getting the masses to know who he is to discredit him. There really is no other realistic option.

Just being impacted is not enough to give you the right to retaliate. Let's say by chance you'd sit next to Montana Skeptic, does that give you the right to punch him in the face? No, that'd be absurd. Why would you have the right to violate his other human rights? The legal system is far from perfect but anything else is objectively worse.

That is truly living in a free society with appropriate protections for freedom of expression and the benefits of the marketplace of ideas.

I disagree on a philosophical level here. Private witchhunts stiffled that marketplace of ideas in societies as diverse as 50eras USA and current Turkey. Your freedom ends where it infringes upon another one's freedom and all that jazz.

Regardless, this website simple does not allow you to name the guy and his employer in its Terms of Service.

You agree to not use the Service to: [...] upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is [...] invasive of another's privacy

 

[ValueAnalyst]

I'm not. It is completely trivial to figure out my name; the only reason I don't write it is to avoid Google searches picking it up here rather than picking up my personal website, and in a minor effort to avoid spam. I've been using the same ID online since it was assigned to me in *college* (last name, first initial). I have absolutely no illusions about being anonymous here. I'm not. If I were trying to hide my identity, I would not use a handle which has been associated with my real name online for literally decades.

Good for you. I wish you best of luck in your personal endeavors. As for me, I believe that people have a right to privacy, that it's fine if you choose to not trust me, and that doxxing makes it less likely for future skeptics/whistleblowers to come forward with valuable information under anonymity. I am *in no way* saying that what MS did was right; it was not. Two wrongs, however, do not make a right. The end does not justify the means. Often, the means end up being the end or make the end unattainable.

 

[neroden]

You don't really understand what privacy is, schonelucht. I think that is all that needs to be said.

The one thing which was totally out of line was the person who was saying something about Mr. Fossi's personal family history, which is irrelevant and a private matter. That was an invasion of privacy.

Connecting an "anonymous" figure making *public investment claims* ***for profit*** with the real-world name associated with him and revealing *undisclosed conflicts of interest* in his *investment related job* doesn't even impact on privacy at all. None of that is in the sphere of privacy. Mr. Fossi made his investment employment and conflicts of interest into a public matter when he started making published, *paid* investment articles -- not just forum comments, mind you, but articles where he got *paid per click*.

 

[neroden]

I should perhaps share some personal reference to explain why I feel so strongly about this. When I was a kid, I was harrased and assaulted (in person) by people who ran and hid. I never knew their names. I had to convince an authority figure to follow me around until I managed to *spot* them and say "Yeah, it's that guy. No I have no idea what his name is," before I could actually get anything done about it. This took a very long time (over a year).

Anonymity can be used as a tool for abuse. When this happens, anonymity *must* be removed. The people attacking me had *no* right to hide their identities. They hid their identities because those in power REALLY don't want to do the work to respond to "Some guy attacked me and I have no idea who it was, though I suppose I might recognize him if I saw him again". It's worse online.

 

[jhm]

Then I can only conclude that we have a radically different notion of what it means to live in a free society. It’s no coincidence that the reason you give why anonymity is bad per se, is exactly the same that despotic and authocratic regimes use to legitimize regulations that squash unregulated reporting, introduce mandatory licenses for bloggers and more.

Many here are mistaking anonymity with unaccountability and their own judgments with judicial due process. When you claim MS is guilty of a crime and therefore it is right to deprive him of his rights without judicial review, well that is not the society I would want to live in. And that’s entirely regardless of the fact if you are actually right on his guilt.

Where exactly do I get the right to assume a fake identity and not bear any accountability for what I do under that fake identity? Judicial due process is only possible once my true identity is linked with my fake identity.

 

[AWDtsla]

Doxxing MS has emboldened bears, and not "caused him to be given far, far less credence," so your entire post has already been proven wrong.

Really? Because I've noticed a sharp drop in hourly FUD since he was held accountable.

 

[AWDtsla]

Tesla And Montana Skeptic: Our Response | Seeking Alpha

I'm not even going to bother to login in comment, but if I did I would say "Your website is hot garbage". We can exclude all TSLA coverage for that opinion.

 

[Esme Es Mejor]

https://jalopnik.com/get-a-load-of-this-ridiculous-story-about-how-elon-musk-1827842961

Update 6:13 p.m.: Tesla spokesperson Dave Arnold sent along a statement, seemingly confirming some of the situation and, using Skeptic’s real name, said Skeptic’s employer “is a longtime Tesla supporter and was one of the first to purchase a Model S.”​

That doesn’t confirm Montana Skeptic’s story.

 

[EinSV]

It's fascinating how little regard those who are defending Larry Fossi have for retail investors -- especially unsophisticated investors -- who might have been influenced by Fossi's voluminous publications on Seeking Alpha.

By concealing his identity he was able to successfully hide his significant conflicts of interest due to substantial oil and gas industry interests.

This guy is managing a billion dollar plus fund and trying to manipulate sentiment through an anonymous internet persona and people are saying that is a good thing? It's completely absurd.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant -- and it has sent him scurrying for cover. Seeking Alpha would be wise to follow normal journalistic standards and require its authors to publish their identities except in extreme circumstances. Otherwise it will continue to be a breeding ground for stock manipulators with hidden agendas and undisclosed interests.

 

[Esme Es Mejor]

It's fascinating how little regard those who are defending Larry Fossi have for retail investors -- especially unsophisticated investors -- who might have been influenced by Fossi's voluminous publications on Seeking Alpha.

By concealing his identity he was able to successfully hide his significant conflicts of interest due to substantial oil and gas industry interests.

This guy is managing a billion dollar plus fund and trying to manipulate sentiment through an anonymous internet persona and people are saying that is a good thing? It's completely absurd.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant -- and it has sent him scurrying for cover. Seeking Alpha would be wise to follow normal journalistic standards and force its authors to publish their identities except in extreme circumstances. Otherwise it will continue to be a breeding ground for stock manipulators with hidden agendas and undisclosed interests.

I’d just like to add that no harm has been done to him. He hasn’t been punished. He’s simply been told to stop being an internet troll of a company that his boss is a big supporter of. Or continue trolling that company and find a new boss.

I’d also like to add that it should stay that way. No one should give out his address or phone number, and no one should say anything to or about any friends, relatives, or loved ones— past or present.

 

[Cosmacelf]

Fossi hasn’t been punished, yet. It is possible another shoe will drop soon and he will be out of a job. We don’t know the details of his employment relationship, we don’t know if he’s been directing his employers funds to short TSLA and we don’t know his employer’s thoughts on this whole episode. If he does get fired, I’d just like to stake a position ahead of time that it would be Fossi’s fault and Fossi’s alone. If Fossi was acting contrary to his employers wishes and was hiding that fact, that’s a self inflicted wound.