One thing I like about bluesky is how easy it makes switching alts - you just click your avatar. You can have one for professional and one for politics, etc.
Some sights like reddit makes this such a pain, unless you use old reddit with browser extensions.
An interesting new biography on Benjamin Franklin just came out:
"He Did Not Conquer: Benjamin Franklin’s Failure to Annex Canada" by Madelaine Drohan[1].
There is no shortage of American biographies of Franklin that sometimes border on hagiography. This one, which is well-timed thanks to current events, is from a Canadian historian and perspective. Drohan makes the case that this perspective has been lacking until now. Victors usually write the history, but Franklin was no victor when it came to his many failed attempts to incorporate Canada into the U.S.. Franklin spent a rather large portion of his life in this endeavour and failed continually. He deserves to be portrayed a bit more honestly by the side that won by remaining free of U.S. control.
Throughout his newspaper career Franklin railed against the evils of papist Canada, whipping up fear and aggression whenever it was convenient or beneficial to himself, despite having no problems living with a Catholic landlady when he was in Britain. This biography goes into considerable detail about Franklin's early career as a newspaper man and how he parlayed this into influence into political power, with the help of good ol' anti-Canadian outrage now and then! He led the occupation of Montreal during the American revolution, but failed to secure the supplies or money his forces needed and resorted to thievery, which got him promptly kicked out. As an elder statesman he tried to negotiate a peace with Britain and France that would have left Canada in the U.S.'s hands, but again, failed.
While he was a talented polymath, Franklin's most exceptional talent was self-promotion. He is admired by Americans, in large part, because of his own portrayal of himself. Yet, Canada remains independent.
Mexico is an independent country because the US elite belatedly realised that adding millions of brown citizens would be a bad idea. Canada is an independent country because it had the British empire backing them.
That’s… not really accurate. Some factions in the US flirted with taking over more or even all of Mexico for the grand total of like, a few months, and even then it never would have passed Congress. Additionally “the US elite” is a flawed and inaccurate understanding of mid-1800s politics as even the most basic of historical understanding will tell you. It’s mostly regional politics and economic constituencies, not class struggle. You’re just projecting modern thought and dynamics onto the past.
Yeah, interestingly, even though many Americans believe in an office called "King of England", that is not actually one of his titles in the modern world.
What most biographies forget to mention is that Franklin was also member of the Hellfire club, which is described as [1],
> Members would drink vast quantities of alcohol and gorge themselves on food. Drunkenness was a prerequisite of The Hellfire Club. They’d dabble in most of the seven deadly sins to be honest – with gluttony, greed and lust being regular activities. Add in a smattering of gambling, fornicating and blasphemy, and you get the idea of a night at the Hellfire Club.
And,
> When we say ‘poking fun’, they were all about dressing as monks, performing parodies of religious ceremonies and making mock sacrifices to Bacchus and Venus. Along with that there was huge amounts of boozing, feasting, entertaining prostitutes and sharing pornographic materials.
Fascinating. TIL. One wonders what we common folk would think of such activities. Would we treat Benjamin Franklin as some kind of modern Thiel-adjacent debauch who thinks himself far too smart?
Or would canceling old Benjy actually have created a better world? Perhaps a man moderated by a society more observant and inclined to police might have been even more influential? I suppose we will never know but it is entertaining to consider the counterfactual.
If you've never been to a party like that, I dare to say you've missed out. These days they'd be open to the public but not well advertised. They also wouldn't do all of those things at the same party.
But not all members of society are treated like a symbol whose behavior and manners we ought to revere and draw inspiration from. In such scenarios, pointing out that they were flawed is to humanize them.
It's clear that there was something that compelled you to write "yeah, so what?" as a rebuttal. But I can't tell if that came from a need to protect Franklin's public image, and to what end.
Throughout human history, there has been sparse evidence of historical figures which we draw (correctly) inspiration and admiration. I'll never forget reading Marcus Aurelius' Meditations where he was writing down in his journal how he was struggling to keep his sexual attraction to young boys at bay, who were also probably slaves. And he's still considered one of the five good emperors of Rome.
I'm not writing this to say whether any of them deserve it. I'm just pointing out that abuse of power isn't something new, and its expression isn't always known. For those people, the difference wasn't in their desires but that they had the power to act on them with no one batting an eye, and if they noticed they'd just walked it off.
Biographies forget to mention it since there’s no evidence of him belonging to any such club. Also those clubs reputation is probably highly exaggerated. Your main source is some London tourist guide -site, so doesn’t seem you did exactly stellar research here.
If you are interested in rich elites of the time doing strange and sordid festivitoes, I recommend studying the life of Peter the Great of Russia, who really was not very great at all as a person, but his drinking parties were literally insane and deadly. Empire and Rest is Hostory has great podcasts on him and there’s several good biographies available in English.
If you want to rebuke me, then come with arguments. Just questioning the source is no counter argument. “Bad” sources can provide accurate information and “good” sources can provide inaccurate information. We need to go beyond mere categorization by source and use logic instead (which computer scientists know) to find what is true and what is not.
Also that some other person was possibly wicked doesn’t counter my point either. Both can be wicked at the same time according to basic logic since the one doesn’t exclude the other.
What logic supports that Franklin was a member of Hellfire Club? From what premises can we deduct that it is unquestionably true? Or perhaps we inductively come into that conclusion based on the fact that he knew the founder, and some site on the internet - with plenty of reason to exaggerate - says so? If any source is equally valid, I can just quickly write an html-file that says Franklin was an alien from other planet, and then it is up to you to prove it wrong. Where’s the logic in that?
When discussing a historic figure, we usually base our claim on primary sources (such as Franklin or other people at the time either directly saying he was member of the club, or there being a member register or other such clear evidence) or at least on primary sources that we can trust to base their research on primary sources and strong evidence. Otherwise we could just say anything about anything. Maybe Abraham Lincoln was part of Hell’s Angels.
And my example of Peter The Not-So-Great’s debauchery of course is not rebuke, rather it is an example that real history gives far more interesting examples of behaviour you describe and is a million times crazier that anything anyone can fantasise. Therefore we don’t need to make up stories.
> What logic supports that Franklin was a member of Hellfire Club?
According to the book The Hellfire Clubs by Evelyn Lord (2010),
"A key figure and someone who could have been a link between
British hell-fire clubs and colonial America was Benjamin Franklin.
Franklin was intimate with Sir Francis Dashwood and other
Medmenham Friars in England, and an attack on Cotton Mather
in 1721 by Benjamin’s brother James in his newspaper the New
England Courant had resulted in Mather calling the Franklins and
their friends a ‘Hell-Fire Club’.[59]
The date is significant, as this is the year that the Duke of
Wharton’s alleged Hell-Fire Club was in operation. We know that
the Franklin was aware of this club as on 6 May 1721 the New
England Courant had published an account of the London club taken
from Applebee’s Journal, which, being sensational news of blasphemy
and supposed sexual orgies, boosted the circulation of Franklin’s
paper considerably. News of the Hell-Fire Club and the King’s
proclamation against scandalous clubs was also published in Boston.
Tavern rumour suggested that Boston had its own Hell-Fire Club,
of which James Franklin was alleged to be a prominent member.[60]"
Also one of the Hellfire Caves was named in honor of Benjamin Franklin, namely Franklin's Cave.
Also Francis Dashwood was the founder of the Hellfire Club and he and Franklin were good friends.
So all in all, there seems to be no conclusive evidence proving that Benjamin Franklin was a member of the Hellfire Club, but it is also hard to make the argument that he for certain was not a member or never visited a gathering. Given that he was friends with the founder, who also named one of the caves after him, it is likely that he at least visited one event.
[59]: C.A. Lopez and E.W. Herbert, The Private Franklin, 1975, 12.
[60]: J.A.L. Leman, The Life of Benjamin Franklin, Vol. I: 1706–1730, 2005,
110–11, 133
> So all in all, there seems to be no conclusive evidence
This is what I am saying. Can you provide me with conclusive evidence that you are not a member of Hell’s Angels? Because if you can’t, there’s always a doubt about your character… This is why the burden of broof is on the one making the claim.
It works the same in historical research. Basically you have hearsay and a tavern rumour, but that is hardly any evidence of anything. This is why biographers and real historians hardly discuss it. There’s no proof and besides, it kinda is not that interesting anyway. Of course Franklin could have visited every meeting, but then any proof of it has disappeared. But occam’s razor would conclude, that he probably just wasn’t interested in the whole thing.
Franklin corresponded from time to time with Sir Francis Dashwood, the founder of the Order of the Friars of St Francis of Wycombe, the most infamous of the hellfire clubs. There is no evidence that Franklin actually was a member of the club or partook of its activities.
Benajamin Franklin is a rather fascinating fellow.
Most of us know him from the image that appears on biographies and in textbooks: Franklin with bald pate, round spectacles, and a grandfatherly expression on his face, dispensing homespun wisdom like "early to bed, early to rise", etc, etc.
I.e., he is known as basically the ideal early American pioneer; humble, hard-working, virtuous, and a fount of a practical worldly wisdom; working late in his printing shop, setting up volunteer organisations for his fellow citizens, and otherwise being an all-round good guy.
When Franklin was sent to Paris to act as Ambassador for the new United States, many Americans became concerned at what France was doing to him. France was vastly more wealthy and populous than the US at that time, and Paris was notorious as the home of a decadent, libertine elite.
Stories gradually dripped out that Franklin had become quite a party hound, shmoozing with aristocrats and becoming sucked into French high society. He had replaced his modest colonial attire with the height of French aristocratic fashion and powdered wigs. He became a regular in Paris salons and frequently hosted lavish parties in his own residences.
(Indeed, he was already well-known in European intellectual circles for his work on electricity -- Kant called him the "modern Prometheus" -- and so quickly found himself invited to the most exclusive social events, meeting everyone from artists and writers to courtesans and the mistresses of powerful aristocrats.)
Thomas Jefferson -- himself a strong advocate of plain American virtue over decadent European corruption -- was seriously concerned that Franklin was losing his moral compass across the Atlantic. His concerns were only somewhat allayed by the fact that Franklin was securing multiple diplomatic coups, cementing the support of the French monarchy against the British.
(The French Empire was a vital ally of the early US; from the French POV, they were engaged in a titanic struggle for the New World against Britain and Spain, and an independent America was a useful tool in that struggle. But not much prevented France or Spain from carving out chunks of the newly independent US, and Franklin knew America was in a highly vulnerable position between the three imperial powers.)
At any rate, a few years later Franklin returned to Philadelphia and soon reverted to his humble colonial ways, dressing modestly, living simply and acting as a pillar of local society. After his return most dismissed the stories from France as either rumours, greatly exaggerated, or even outright fabrications. The stories didn't fit the Franklin they knew, and besides, the man had evidently secured great advantages for his home country, so why scrutinise his behaviour?
Hindsight tells a different story. As a young man living in London Franklin had learned the hard way the importance of learning to deal with people and the difficulty of adapting to local cultures. (For example, as a young apprentice in a London printing shop, he unknowingly earned the ire of his work colleagues by refusing to contribute to their daily beer budget.)
By his later years he had become a master of social adaptation. In America he acted as a humble, dedicated citizen, devoted to his public duties. In Britain before the revolution he dressed and acted as an ideal English gentleman. When posted in France, he quickly realised the plain-living ways that were encouraged in America would only alienate the French aristocracy, so he adapted his style once again.
It's quite an unusual episode that reveals a more complex, unconventional side to a rather fascinating man.
Most of the Founders published under pseudonyms, even after the Revolution. Hamilton, Madison, Jay, Franklin - all had pseudonyms for their political writings. The Federalist papers were signed "Publius". What Franklin did was in no way unusual for that group.
In the US, anonymous speech is considered a core part of free expression, and is treated as a First Amendment right. That's a US perspective, stemming from US history. EU rights as to anonymous speech are weaker, and UK rights are weaker still. China has no right to anonymous speech at all.
> That's a US perspective, stemming from US history. EU rights as to anonymous speech are weaker,
It's interesting that on one hand you're right, in the US, anonymous speech receives near-absolute protection. In the EU, it's more of a "qualified right" than so absolute. But, on the other hand, in our modern age, EU seems better at defending against mandating backdoors or weakening end-to-end encryption violates the right to privacy (2024 Podchasov v. Russia), while the US is seemingly going the other way of adding more backdoors and weakening E2E encryption.
So yes, on paper it seems like the US likes anonymous speech more than the EU, but in practice, it seems like the US is doing less to actually protect anonymous speech than the EU.
Could you give examples of the US adding backdoors and weakening end-to-end encryption? I'll give you the almost-certain weakening of proposed crypto standards, and Clinton-era export controls, but I don't think I've seen any movement in that direction recently. The most successful attempts statutorily seem to be in the UK and the US.
Also: the European Court of Human Rights, as a non-EU institution, doesn't have an enforcement mechanism, so I'm not sure it's a good example to give in defending against such proposals. For instance, Russia declined to respect that decision, and I don't think it's had much effect on the UK's backdoor regime.
> Could you give examples of the US adding backdoors and weakening end-to-end encryption?
Do you really need examples of this? There are countless of them, some programs you cannot have missed are PRISM, STATEROOM and BULLRUN but there are more of them too.
> PRISM is a code name for a program under which the United States National Security Agency (NSA) collects internet communications from various U.S. internet companies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM
So none of these are mandated backdoors, or weakening end-to-end encryption. They're examples of the intelligence services pursuing signals collection. Mandated backdoors would be something like the the United States' (as far as we know) failed attempts to compel companies to insert code to allow third parties to enter and read their communications, or the UK's (as far as we know) long-postponed attempts to add ghost devices to Apple and Meta's e2e communication systems.
I'm not so much asking as a gotcha, as modern examples of this kind of backdoor (or published encryption weaknesses) would be a big deal. I realise that there are many other tactics that states, especially the US, pursue that undermine privacy online. These just seemed weirdly specific to projects that the US has, in fact, failed to pull off for years: compelled insertion of code, and deliberately weakened encryption.
(ObContext: I worked at EFF during the Snowden revelations, and worked on understanding the impact of PRISM, and Bullrun specifically.)
Anybody who feels that their communications are secure on their mobile devices is deluded. There are countless access methods at many levels, even in the US.
The US seems to generally take the approach that everything must be absolutely protected from the government, while European countries are fine with delegating things to the government and regulating things, and putting all the protections on the government itself, instead. It hasn't always worked well and may turn out to be naïve, but so has the US way.
It's a bit like spreading your eggs between many ordinary baskets, or putting them all in one basket but making that basket as strong as you can. Neither one is obviously a better approach.
From the UK are bill of rights from 1689 has a clause called free speech in it. When you actually look at it's free speech... for parliament and parliamentarians from the king, Citizens get no such right. We have a clause that is the right to bear arms, when you look at it predicated on being the a protestant and parliament allowing you. No one actually reads these things or the history surrounding it here because when you do you quickly realize how pathetic are 'glorious revolution' is how weak the the brave people petitioning a foreign king to come over to overthrow a king they did not like because he was a catholic and wanted more tolerance for Catholics.
Not the biggest fan of where America is at the moment but American founding fathers are some of the most impressive people and the American revolution is incredible, where as are revolution is one of the saddest affairs in human history and it's continuation is a disaster in my opinion.
Of course that is not my point. Yes we have the humans rights act Etc that provides rights, but much much later and contested. My primary point is that the bill of rights is one of the important parts of are constitution where as human rights or any other documents is not constitutional.
I also think are revolution is not particularly rousing and that freedom of speech and such is still very tenuous.
In the UK you do have certain 'moral rights' with respect to a piece of writing you've made, and one of them is essentially a right to anonymity/pseudonymity for that work. Somewhat notably JK Rowling won a case about it when the books she released under a pen name were revealed to be hers.
Anonymous speech separates ideas from the reputation of the person stating them. It forces the reader to consider the ideas themselves openly, without using the heuristic of “which party does this person belong to” or “do I like this person”. There are some ideas that are not popular but need to be heard, and anonymous speech allows those ideas to be heard without the speaker being tarred and feathered for their supposed wrongthink. Anyone who seeks to erode anonymous speech is no friend of liberty.
62 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 5.0 ms ] threadi know some very very interesting people whose x is anon
The almanac itself is public record.
Some sights like reddit makes this such a pain, unless you use old reddit with browser extensions.
"He Did Not Conquer: Benjamin Franklin’s Failure to Annex Canada" by Madelaine Drohan[1].
There is no shortage of American biographies of Franklin that sometimes border on hagiography. This one, which is well-timed thanks to current events, is from a Canadian historian and perspective. Drohan makes the case that this perspective has been lacking until now. Victors usually write the history, but Franklin was no victor when it came to his many failed attempts to incorporate Canada into the U.S.. Franklin spent a rather large portion of his life in this endeavour and failed continually. He deserves to be portrayed a bit more honestly by the side that won by remaining free of U.S. control.
Throughout his newspaper career Franklin railed against the evils of papist Canada, whipping up fear and aggression whenever it was convenient or beneficial to himself, despite having no problems living with a Catholic landlady when he was in Britain. This biography goes into considerable detail about Franklin's early career as a newspaper man and how he parlayed this into influence into political power, with the help of good ol' anti-Canadian outrage now and then! He led the occupation of Montreal during the American revolution, but failed to secure the supplies or money his forces needed and resorted to thievery, which got him promptly kicked out. As an elder statesman he tried to negotiate a peace with Britain and France that would have left Canada in the U.S.'s hands, but again, failed.
While he was a talented polymath, Franklin's most exceptional talent was self-promotion. He is admired by Americans, in large part, because of his own portrayal of himself. Yet, Canada remains independent.
[1]https://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2025/12/how-vain-an-attempt...
The first step towards Canada being recognizable as its own country happened in 1867 nearly a century after Franklin's death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada#Personifica...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada#Foreign_vis...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom...
> Members would drink vast quantities of alcohol and gorge themselves on food. Drunkenness was a prerequisite of The Hellfire Club. They’d dabble in most of the seven deadly sins to be honest – with gluttony, greed and lust being regular activities. Add in a smattering of gambling, fornicating and blasphemy, and you get the idea of a night at the Hellfire Club.
And,
> When we say ‘poking fun’, they were all about dressing as monks, performing parodies of religious ceremonies and making mock sacrifices to Bacchus and Venus. Along with that there was huge amounts of boozing, feasting, entertaining prostitutes and sharing pornographic materials.
[1]: https://www.walks.com/blog/hellfire-club-london/
Or would canceling old Benjy actually have created a better world? Perhaps a man moderated by a society more observant and inclined to police might have been even more influential? I suppose we will never know but it is entertaining to consider the counterfactual.
These activities are still around today with all members of society.
It's clear that there was something that compelled you to write "yeah, so what?" as a rebuttal. But I can't tell if that came from a need to protect Franklin's public image, and to what end.
Throughout human history, there has been sparse evidence of historical figures which we draw (correctly) inspiration and admiration. I'll never forget reading Marcus Aurelius' Meditations where he was writing down in his journal how he was struggling to keep his sexual attraction to young boys at bay, who were also probably slaves. And he's still considered one of the five good emperors of Rome.
I'm not writing this to say whether any of them deserve it. I'm just pointing out that abuse of power isn't something new, and its expression isn't always known. For those people, the difference wasn't in their desires but that they had the power to act on them with no one batting an eye, and if they noticed they'd just walked it off.
Not that far from what we have today.
If you are interested in rich elites of the time doing strange and sordid festivitoes, I recommend studying the life of Peter the Great of Russia, who really was not very great at all as a person, but his drinking parties were literally insane and deadly. Empire and Rest is Hostory has great podcasts on him and there’s several good biographies available in English.
Also that some other person was possibly wicked doesn’t counter my point either. Both can be wicked at the same time according to basic logic since the one doesn’t exclude the other.
When discussing a historic figure, we usually base our claim on primary sources (such as Franklin or other people at the time either directly saying he was member of the club, or there being a member register or other such clear evidence) or at least on primary sources that we can trust to base their research on primary sources and strong evidence. Otherwise we could just say anything about anything. Maybe Abraham Lincoln was part of Hell’s Angels.
And my example of Peter The Not-So-Great’s debauchery of course is not rebuke, rather it is an example that real history gives far more interesting examples of behaviour you describe and is a million times crazier that anything anyone can fantasise. Therefore we don’t need to make up stories.
According to the book The Hellfire Clubs by Evelyn Lord (2010),
"A key figure and someone who could have been a link between British hell-fire clubs and colonial America was Benjamin Franklin. Franklin was intimate with Sir Francis Dashwood and other Medmenham Friars in England, and an attack on Cotton Mather in 1721 by Benjamin’s brother James in his newspaper the New England Courant had resulted in Mather calling the Franklins and their friends a ‘Hell-Fire Club’.[59]
The date is significant, as this is the year that the Duke of Wharton’s alleged Hell-Fire Club was in operation. We know that the Franklin was aware of this club as on 6 May 1721 the New England Courant had published an account of the London club taken from Applebee’s Journal, which, being sensational news of blasphemy and supposed sexual orgies, boosted the circulation of Franklin’s paper considerably. News of the Hell-Fire Club and the King’s proclamation against scandalous clubs was also published in Boston. Tavern rumour suggested that Boston had its own Hell-Fire Club, of which James Franklin was alleged to be a prominent member.[60]"
Also one of the Hellfire Caves was named in honor of Benjamin Franklin, namely Franklin's Cave.
Also Francis Dashwood was the founder of the Hellfire Club and he and Franklin were good friends.
Then the organization that currently operates the caves writes that "Benjamin Franklin, a great friend of Sir Francis, was also a visitor to the Caves." (https://www.westwycombeestate.co.uk/the-hellfire-caves)
So all in all, there seems to be no conclusive evidence proving that Benjamin Franklin was a member of the Hellfire Club, but it is also hard to make the argument that he for certain was not a member or never visited a gathering. Given that he was friends with the founder, who also named one of the caves after him, it is likely that he at least visited one event.
[59]: C.A. Lopez and E.W. Herbert, The Private Franklin, 1975, 12.
[60]: J.A.L. Leman, The Life of Benjamin Franklin, Vol. I: 1706–1730, 2005, 110–11, 133
This is what I am saying. Can you provide me with conclusive evidence that you are not a member of Hell’s Angels? Because if you can’t, there’s always a doubt about your character… This is why the burden of broof is on the one making the claim.
It works the same in historical research. Basically you have hearsay and a tavern rumour, but that is hardly any evidence of anything. This is why biographers and real historians hardly discuss it. There’s no proof and besides, it kinda is not that interesting anyway. Of course Franklin could have visited every meeting, but then any proof of it has disappeared. But occam’s razor would conclude, that he probably just wasn’t interested in the whole thing.
You made the original claim (that Franklin was a member); now the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1972/02/27/archives/the-hellfire-clu...
[2] Ashe, Geoffrey. The Hell-Fire Clubs: A History of Anti-Morality. Great Britain: Sutton Publishing, 2005, p. 121
Most of us know him from the image that appears on biographies and in textbooks: Franklin with bald pate, round spectacles, and a grandfatherly expression on his face, dispensing homespun wisdom like "early to bed, early to rise", etc, etc.
I.e., he is known as basically the ideal early American pioneer; humble, hard-working, virtuous, and a fount of a practical worldly wisdom; working late in his printing shop, setting up volunteer organisations for his fellow citizens, and otherwise being an all-round good guy.
When Franklin was sent to Paris to act as Ambassador for the new United States, many Americans became concerned at what France was doing to him. France was vastly more wealthy and populous than the US at that time, and Paris was notorious as the home of a decadent, libertine elite.
Stories gradually dripped out that Franklin had become quite a party hound, shmoozing with aristocrats and becoming sucked into French high society. He had replaced his modest colonial attire with the height of French aristocratic fashion and powdered wigs. He became a regular in Paris salons and frequently hosted lavish parties in his own residences.
(Indeed, he was already well-known in European intellectual circles for his work on electricity -- Kant called him the "modern Prometheus" -- and so quickly found himself invited to the most exclusive social events, meeting everyone from artists and writers to courtesans and the mistresses of powerful aristocrats.)
Thomas Jefferson -- himself a strong advocate of plain American virtue over decadent European corruption -- was seriously concerned that Franklin was losing his moral compass across the Atlantic. His concerns were only somewhat allayed by the fact that Franklin was securing multiple diplomatic coups, cementing the support of the French monarchy against the British.
(The French Empire was a vital ally of the early US; from the French POV, they were engaged in a titanic struggle for the New World against Britain and Spain, and an independent America was a useful tool in that struggle. But not much prevented France or Spain from carving out chunks of the newly independent US, and Franklin knew America was in a highly vulnerable position between the three imperial powers.)
At any rate, a few years later Franklin returned to Philadelphia and soon reverted to his humble colonial ways, dressing modestly, living simply and acting as a pillar of local society. After his return most dismissed the stories from France as either rumours, greatly exaggerated, or even outright fabrications. The stories didn't fit the Franklin they knew, and besides, the man had evidently secured great advantages for his home country, so why scrutinise his behaviour?
Hindsight tells a different story. As a young man living in London Franklin had learned the hard way the importance of learning to deal with people and the difficulty of adapting to local cultures. (For example, as a young apprentice in a London printing shop, he unknowingly earned the ire of his work colleagues by refusing to contribute to their daily beer budget.)
By his later years he had become a master of social adaptation. In America he acted as a humble, dedicated citizen, devoted to his public duties. In Britain before the revolution he dressed and acted as an ideal English gentleman. When posted in France, he quickly realised the plain-living ways that were encouraged in America would only alienate the French aristocracy, so he adapted his style once again.
It's quite an unusual episode that reveals a more complex, unconventional side to a rather fascinating man.
For some reason few web pages, blogs or even tweets are written in this style.
I have a couple of articles up on https://intellectualsilkroad.substack.com/ but I should get busy writing more!
In the US, anonymous speech is considered a core part of free expression, and is treated as a First Amendment right. That's a US perspective, stemming from US history. EU rights as to anonymous speech are weaker, and UK rights are weaker still. China has no right to anonymous speech at all.
It's interesting that on one hand you're right, in the US, anonymous speech receives near-absolute protection. In the EU, it's more of a "qualified right" than so absolute. But, on the other hand, in our modern age, EU seems better at defending against mandating backdoors or weakening end-to-end encryption violates the right to privacy (2024 Podchasov v. Russia), while the US is seemingly going the other way of adding more backdoors and weakening E2E encryption.
So yes, on paper it seems like the US likes anonymous speech more than the EU, but in practice, it seems like the US is doing less to actually protect anonymous speech than the EU.
Also: the European Court of Human Rights, as a non-EU institution, doesn't have an enforcement mechanism, so I'm not sure it's a good example to give in defending against such proposals. For instance, Russia declined to respect that decision, and I don't think it's had much effect on the UK's backdoor regime.
Do you really need examples of this? There are countless of them, some programs you cannot have missed are PRISM, STATEROOM and BULLRUN but there are more of them too.
> PRISM is a code name for a program under which the United States National Security Agency (NSA) collects internet communications from various U.S. internet companies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM
> STATEROOM is the code name of a highly secretive signals intelligence collection program involving the interception of international radio, telecommunications and Internet traffic - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateroom_(surveillance_progra...
> Bullrun (stylized BULLRUN) is a clandestine, highly classified program to crack encryption of online communications and data - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullrun_(decryption_program)
I'm not so much asking as a gotcha, as modern examples of this kind of backdoor (or published encryption weaknesses) would be a big deal. I realise that there are many other tactics that states, especially the US, pursue that undermine privacy online. These just seemed weirdly specific to projects that the US has, in fact, failed to pull off for years: compelled insertion of code, and deliberately weakened encryption.
(ObContext: I worked at EFF during the Snowden revelations, and worked on understanding the impact of PRISM, and Bullrun specifically.)
[0] https://blog.cr.yp.to/20251004-weakened.html
Didn’t the UK want a backdoor added?
It's a bit like spreading your eggs between many ordinary baskets, or putting them all in one basket but making that basket as strong as you can. Neither one is obviously a better approach.
Also no right to non-anonymous speech
Not the biggest fan of where America is at the moment but American founding fathers are some of the most impressive people and the American revolution is incredible, where as are revolution is one of the saddest affairs in human history and it's continuation is a disaster in my opinion.
I also think are revolution is not particularly rousing and that freedom of speech and such is still very tenuous.