Blind Injustice: Theorizing Anonymity and Accountability in Modern Democracies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anonymity is one of the great enigmas in the history of Western philosophy. The possibility of acting anonymously – without fear of repercussions or accountability – can appear either as liberating or destabilizing, depending on the circumstances. Whereas anonymity is often lauded as a symbol of solidarity among activists, a source of protection for hackers and whistleblowers, and a small price to pay for genuinely free speech, other observers regard it with trepidation as encouraging rashness and abuses of power. Our goals in this article are two-fold. First, we aim to elucidate several dimensions of anonymity, including the variety of forms it takes as well as its potential uses and abuses. Second, we seek to develop a normative framework through which to evaluate contemporary cases in which anonymity plays a central role. Drawing upon several episodes from the history of political thought, we identify three factors relevant to assessing any particular claim to anonymity; we conclude with a discussion of anonymity’s role in campaign finance reform in the United States and anti-masking law in Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".