Why is every Bay Area event imposing Chatham House rules?
74 comments
·January 11, 2025bawolff
ryandrake
If you really believe something, say it loudly and proudly and sign your name to it. If you're not willing to have it attributed to you because it will make you look bad, then maybe you should take a moment to think about where those beliefs come from.
TheBruceHimself
Well, there is a matter of safety, and not wanting to be harassed for your opinions. Some debates are so heated that an opinion stated either way is going to expose you to potential violence if not, just verbal abuse through various channels. I think even though you should be honest about your opinion, it’s obviously better to avoid that harm so why not be anonymous?
Personally, I’ve also found that stating your opinion, and having it recorded and known to everyone, makes it very hard for you to change your mind. We’re very harsh to people who do change their mind in such circumstances because the first thing we see is a record of them saying the opposite, and then we ask them to explain themselves and judge them like it’s some kind of fault in their character. There are opinions I had when I was 18 years old that I think abhorrent. I don’t want to be associated with them. I’m very happy there’s no record of me having these opinions. I don’t want to have to explain my past like that just to hold the opinions I have in the present. I have found that process never really ends — i’m regularly changing my opinions on beliefs overtime . I wonder what opinions I have now I will look back on with shame. so I try to make sure that I don’t have anything recorded for the end of times under my name just in case I want to distance myself.
bawolff
How do you make progress on beliefs if you have to be 100% on board with every view you express?
MichaelZuo
Isn’t there a danger that if the rule is selectively enforced, for whatever reasons, that it will actually decrease the credibility of the participants/organizers?
cmdli
Alternatively, it’s a way for bad faith actors to spread their beliefs while not having to worry about their reputation. Many people with power are only hurt through public opinion, so this is the way they try to gain control over that.
mmooss
It's nothing impressive. It's secrecy and corruption; it's the modern trend of power grabs and exclusivity (withholding information) over efficiency, productivity, intelligence, and all the benefits of an open, free society. It just has a fancy British name to give it legitimacy.
You want liquidity and lots of exposure in any marketplace, including the one of ideas. Ideas without sunshine tend to rot and fester. That might be why there are so many obviously stupid ones these days.
aliasxneo
People are not bound to follow this rule, correct? As in, there's no legal consequence?
> Instead, his groups have moved to signing NDAs or explicitly stating that conversations are not to be shared externally.
This seems a bit better, albeit with more work.
seabass-labrax
If the rule is given as a condition of attendance, then it could reasonably be considered a contractual obligation. The event organizer could then sue for damages on the basis of breach of contact. The extent of those damages would be related to how much reputational damage the venue or event organizer suffered, and the potential loss of future attendance caused by that.
In addition, both the subject of a secret conversation and the participants of that conversation could sue someone for disclosing the discussion on the basis of libel. My understanding of USA law is that libel has a very high threshold and is therefore rarely litigated, but in other jurisdictions, such as the UK, libel can be as simple as saying something true with the intent to hurt the subject's reputation.
Many people try to put as much as possible into bespoke, written contracts, but usually a mixture of common law and implicit contracts is adequate to litigate almost anything considered harmful by society. I doubt the NDA is actually needed as long as the Chatham House rule is made clear.
JumpCrisscross
> seems a bit better, albeit with more work
Are the NDAs signed between attendees and the host? That puts the host in the awkward position of having to enforce the NDAs, even if the injured party is one of the guests.
bawolff
Not everything has to be legal. The consequence is you don't get invited back and some people might think less of you.
Legally enforcing every social norm is dystopian.
aliasxneo
> Legally enforcing every social norm is dystopian.
But I didn't say that? I was genuinely unsure of whether this was something that could be taken to court if someone violated it. If it's socially bound, and the purpose is to increase free speech, I find that less compelling in today's culture.
sp527
> Legally enforcing every social norm is dystopian
Persecuting people for their beliefs by exploiting loopholes (e.g. blast on social media, bully their employer, etc) is also pretty dystopian, don't you think?
And it's not like the persecutors ever give you the full story. For example, the reporting on Meta ending DEI didn't want you to know their rather logical view of the situation (discrimination on the basis of immutable characteristics is wrong). What fraction of people actually believe in giving a boost to certain candidates purely on the basis of race? Certainly not enough for the persecutors to allow that argument to be broadcast widely.
bawolff
> Persecuting people for their beliefs by exploiting loopholes (e.g. blast on social media, bully their employer, etc) is also pretty dystopian, don't you think?
Sometimes it can be. More than one thing can be dystopian.
01HNNWZ0MV43FF
> there’s a liberating and freeing quality to the idea that this is a safe space for me to say unpopular things and not get labeled as a conservative or racist,” Lederer said.
Tantalizing, now I really wonder what he said.
jorams
> this is a safe space for me to say unpopular things and not get labeled as a conservative
The first one is confusing. The US is a very conservative country. It just elected a very conservative president. Statistically like 40% of voters call themselves conservative.
seabass-labrax
If you look at voting maps for the 2024 USA Presidential Election, you can see that there is a blue band of Democratic voters right down the coast, including the Bay Area. The Bay Area in particular appears to have a very different culture to most of the USA, although I have never been there so cannot confirm that statement personally. I don't think that many Democratic party members consider themselves conservative, whereas a large proportion of Republican party members do.
mmooss
I thought conservatives were against safe spaces?
davidgerard
looks like he just told us
ryandrake
Exactly. "I really want to say conservative or racist things but don't want to be considered conservative or racist by the public!"
dinkumthinkum
My guess is something mundane that everyone agreed with 5 years ago and the vast majority still do but silently.
tasty_freeze
Can you give some examples? I'm out of the loop. Personally, I am trying to think of something I could say five years ago that I can't say now.
JumpCrisscross
> Can you give some examples?
I was at a party recently where someone argued hard-shell tacos are racist.
More seriously, one could probably express a broader range of views--correct or not--on Israel and Palestine five years ago than one might be comfortable expressing (or even asking about) now.
itbeho
Vaccine Safety
JSTrading
Are Chatham House Rules just a way for people to hedge their bets? If they say something controversial, rude, offensive, or downright dodgy, they can hide behind anonymity. But if it’s a hit or something clever, insightful, or widely praised—they’re quick to claim credit. Convenient, isn’t it?
michaelt
> [At] an intimate dinner party in Los Altos Hills, Brex Supper Club salons, [...] the rules of the house are increasingly Chatham.
What a strange comment.
If after attending a dinner party people are repeating everything they heard, in public, with attribution - then that dinner party absolutely was not intimate.
JumpCrisscross
> If after attending a dinner party people are repeating everything they heard, in public, with attribution - then that dinner party absolutely was not intimate
It's still helpful if you're bringing together groups of people who don't know (and thus may surprise) each other to lay the ground rules. I'd be quite upset if I held a birthday party, which may go to 30 or 40 people, and learned that something (possibly quite inappropriate) that had been said was being tweeted or whatever.
motohagiography
It means don't front, slander, or gossip about the people who welcomed you, and especially on social media. not sure why it's hard to act like they're going to be invited back. just try not to be the one who has to be told.
more_corn
So people feel free to speak candidly?
mmooss
Or irresponsibly, ignorantly, stupidly, recklessly ...
Arainach
This isn't about people speaking candidly. It's about not hurting the feelings of people who do and work on bad things and allowing them to still get invited to events without fearing any consequences for their actions.
It's the same reason Kissinger still got invites to Manhattan social events (and, bizarrely, Clinton campaign events) long after it was known that he was a traitor and a war criminal.
khazhoux
No, I think it’s about not having to fear being retweeted publicly for what you intended to be private discussions.
sneak
No. The Chatham House Rule only bars the attribution of the statements, not the sharing of the statements or the things they contain.
It’s not simply for privacy or nondisclosure. You are free to disclose, the discussions are not private.
JumpCrisscross
> not hurting the feelings of people who do and work on bad things
Yes, the Chatham House Rule is practically designed to exclude people who have an immutable black-and-white worldview.
mmooss
How so? It would seem to encourage people to say thoughtless, shallow things, among more open things.
lysace
Well duh.
givemeethekeys
They need to discuss how to unwind 20 years of equality, MeToo, DEI bullshit without being quoted for having the wrong opinion.
The bullwhip effect applied to sociology is in full swing.
laidoffamazon
Which wrong opinion are you most afraid of divulging?
batch12
Which opinions are not wrong? Is it every one I don't hold or is there a database of rightthink I can reference? How can we have discussions and change minds if we can't communicate what we really think?
Temporary_31337
How about South Africa not doing so well currently? It could be viewed through a racial lens but it means you can’t objectively discuss and hopefully help the situation. IMO this is exactly an example of where such closed rules may legitimately help. In the process of brainstorming you are bound to say something stupid or illegal but that’s the whole idea of brainstorming- to throw ideas and see what sticks
aliasxneo
> In the process of brainstorming you are bound to say something stupid or illegal but that’s the whole idea of brainstorming- to throw ideas and see what sticks
That's a great point. One thing I've not enjoyed in modern corporate culture is the mental gymnastics required to usher out a statement that couldn't be interpreted as offensive to anyone on the planet. It's not like I'm _trying_ to be offensive, but as the number of rules governing speech increases, it becomes difficult to have conversations that are not laden with newspeak.
Removing that cognitive load is bound to leave more brainpower for the task at hand.
manquer
> South Africa not doing so well currently?
Unless it is group of South African expats why should we brainstorming?
Is South Africa asking for help ? Either for ideas or for money? Or is there genocide or other basic human rights abuses that we cannot but intervene.
The presumption that we can solve or think about their problems better than them is where it is offensive not what is being said, people are more than capable of finding their own solutions to their own problems.
TMWNN
>How about South Africa not doing so well currently?
I recently read a book review that discussed South Africa today. One of the many points it made about the dire state of things is that the air force planes that flew overhead during Mandela's inauguration were, a decade later, completely inoperable. <https://www.thepsmiths.com/p/review-south-africas-brave-new-...>.
bawolff
Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the grandparent's views, i think this comment demonstrates why the gp might feel cautious about giving their honest views on the subject.
01HNNWZ0MV43FF
I've always just given my honest views online under pseudonyms.
Like that I think gasoline should cost more.
ben_w
Surely this is a question where no answer can be simultaneously true and well-considered? (EDIT: and specific).
If they think bees are secretly plotting to overthrow the Welsh government, but are afraid to say so, they're not going to willingly reveal that they have anti-apiary tendencies in response to a direct question.
givemeethekeys
I was about to provide a fairly large list, but maybe something general is better:
You know that there is a "wrong opinion" that'll get you in trouble when you and conservatives begin to nod in agreement with George Carlin, even though you've always thought of yourself as liberal.
You might even be an immigrant and a person of color who prefers to date the same sex, and yet, you're going to keep your mouth shut because anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion.
khazhoux
Any opinion which is even slightly critical of MeToo and DEI programs.
addicted
I have no idea whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but this is not freedom of speech, for the obvious reason that its based entirely on the limitation of speech, in this case, the freedom to truthfully state who said something.
I’m not a free speech absolutist, so that’s not a negative for me, but it’s extremely annoying to see a lot of people pretend to be pro free speech by policing what others might say about them.
rlpb
"Free speech" is normally about a government restriction on speech. Most people don't take it to mean temporary restrictions during specific private events.
For example, at a funeral, the norm is not to speak ill of the dead (or any other time, for that matter), and if you break that rule, you might find yourself socially excluded. But that has nothing to do with the concept of "free speech".
The same goes for some kind of proceeding where you are not permitted to speak, or some situation where you are given information in confidence, or your signing of an NDA.
bawolff
In the usa context yes, but i think its wrong to hold that the concept in general is soley about governments.
E.g. if someone beats you up due to a view you expressed, i consider that a free speech issue.
rlpb
> E.g. if someone beats you up due to a view you expressed, i consider that a free speech issue.
If the police beat you up, then that's a freedom of speech issue (as well as police abuse, etc), since one might argue that the government is suppressing your speech.
If a private citizen beats you up, then I disagree; it's merely a matter of assault. That's illegal anyway and your speech had little to do with it. If someone beats me up for looking at them the wrong way, I'd hardly argue that it's a "looking the wrong way" issue.
I appreciate that you consider otherwise, and of course it's subjective so your view is as valid as mine. I'm just identifying that I think your concept is "creep" that has occurred over time for some subset of people, spawned by a principle that never originally included what you now include in the concept.
Aaargh20318
Free speech only means you are not prevented from expressing yourself. It does not mean freedom from consequences.
While I don’t condone violence that is not the only possible consequence. If you call me an asshole that is your right, but if I disinvite you from the party I was planning as a result that is not a ‘free speech issue’.
JumpCrisscross
> "Free speech" is normally about a government restriction on speech
No, this is the First Amendment. Free speech as a value is much broader [1].
blackeyeblitzar
I don’t think it is just about government restriction. Free speech and censorship are general principles that apply to everything. But personally, I don’t think asking for confidentiality at a private event is a violation of free speech principles. On the other hand, large privately owned tech platforms that practice censorship disguised as moderation, should be criticized because they are effectively the new public square.
defrost
The Chatham House Rule is about
\0 in the context of a specific meeting or gathering ..
\1 the freedom to speak one's mind and say whatever it is you wish to say,
\2 the constraint that no third party shall repeat your words without your permission, quote you out of context, report what you said and the company in which you said it, etc.
There's no legal binding or specific prosecution in the original context, simply a literal "Gentleman's Agreement" and the general social implication that should you make and then violate such an agreement then you will likely be excluded from similar events and such company in future.
It arose from diplomatic ranks and is a polite form of the parallel convention Snitches get Stitches.
In the UK Foreign Affairs sphere the rule is often exercised to advance a piece of policy via rumour and backtalk, nobody officially directly states that (for example) the military may be bought into play in some region, none the less word gets out that such a thing is being considered by those that can make it happen, subsequently someone folds their position and trade resumes (maybe).
bawolff
Being able to chose who you associate with and who you do not associate is usually part and parcel with free speech.
I'd agree with you about the NDA bit. Using courts to enforce seems anti-free speech
However the milder version of it, where if someone violates the rule they aren't invited back, hardly seems like a free speech issue. Free speech doesn't mean you have to stay friends with someone who told your secrets to a third party. Free speech means you can say whatever you want, but it also means you can not talk to whomever you want.
Seems pretty obvious why in a world where if you misspeak or say something ill considered it can be all over twitter and have serious personal and professional ramifications.
Regardless of how well meaning people are in their desire to hold people to account for bad views, it does have a chilling effect, and you can't learn if you don't have a safe place to make mistakes.