Yet we concluded that the public has a deep interest in understanding the identity and career of a figure with his profound and enduring influence on culture, the art industry and international political discourse. In so doing, we applied the same principle Reuters uses everywhere. The people and institutions who seek to shape social and political discourse are subject to scrutiny, accountability, and, sometimes, unmasking. Banksy’s anonymity – a deliberate, public-facing, and profitable feature of his work – has enabled him to operate without such transparency.
It's just a coincidence that unmasking prevents them from doing what they do. It's one thing to unmask a violent arsonist. Or someone gobbling up 2/3 of the world's wealth. Or is buying...
It's just a coincidence that unmasking prevents them from doing what they do.
It's one thing to unmask a violent arsonist. Or someone gobbling up 2/3 of the world's wealth. Or is buying politicians.
It's another when it's an artist.
It'd be nice if Rueters applied this level of journalism where it would challenge those in power instead of the ones inspiring those whom are not.
I have a genuine question. Did you read the article? Banksy no longer goes by his old legal name and now in fact has one of the most common legal names in the UK. Or has in fact changed it again...
I have a genuine question. Did you read the article?
Banksy no longer goes by his old legal name and now in fact has one of the most common legal names in the UK. Or has in fact changed it again possibly. I don't actually think that this article will impede banksy's ability to do art in any significant way.
But I could be misreading the situation
Edit: to be clear, I don't necessarily think this article needs to be written or posted, but frankly his identity was revealed almost 20 years ago. Everyone just denied it. So I don't know. Beyond being a celebrity in general, it is not clear to me that he's actually facing any real threat of prosecution or persecution at this point in time.
I was mostly commenting on the way that policy was worded. Specifically this one: Given the UK's fetish with deanonymization, I quite dislike the implications. As well as legal name changes having...
I was mostly commenting on the way that policy was worded. Specifically this one:
has enabled him to operate without such transparency
Given the UK's fetish with deanonymization, I quite dislike the implications.
As well as legal name changes having a paper trail. It'll keep John Q public at bay for a bit, but criminal prosecutors will have no trouble.
Banksy has a company and a manager. If they wanted to arrest him I'm pretty sure they could find a way to do so. Like I know that he started very much at risk of that, but currently that does not...
Banksy has a company and a manager. If they wanted to arrest him I'm pretty sure they could find a way to do so. Like I know that he started very much at risk of that, but currently that does not seem as if they have any interest in prosecuting him.
I mean sure, if you imagine Reuters as an arm of the British Government and invent shit they didn't say or even imply. You literally said they did this because "art irritates fascists." Are the...
I mean sure, if you imagine Reuters as an arm of the British Government and invent shit they didn't say or even imply. You literally said they did this because "art irritates fascists." Are the writers the fascists?
I'm pretty ambivalent about the story, and I understand caring about privacy but this really seems just like a knee-jerk "first they came for the artists" response when literally they seem to have found a 2008 article and fact checked it, dressing it up as more investigative than it was and literally no one is coming for the artist.
Perhaps I’m just not “familiar with Ukrainian immigration procedures”, but are Ukrainian immigration records public data? Or is this term a euphemism for Reuters bribing Ukrainian immigration...
Perhaps I’m just not “familiar with Ukrainian immigration procedures”, but are Ukrainian immigration records public data? Or is this term a euphemism for Reuters bribing Ukrainian immigration officials to illegally reveal data?
I imagine it's a bit more casual than that; I'm sure most immigration officials would rightly balk at sharing actual private records, but I'm also sure that if you're a reporter working locally...
I imagine it's a bit more casual than that; I'm sure most immigration officials would rightly balk at sharing actual private records, but I'm also sure that if you're a reporter working locally it's totally plausible to have a conversation like "Hey, Anton, your cousin works at the border post, right? Can you ask him if he saw [notable celebrity] a few weeks ago? I got a tip that he might've visited...".
That said, I'm kinda ambivalent about the article as a whole - I think it's right about the public interest argument in a broad general sense, I think it makes some very fair points about Banksy getting special treatment that other artists don't, and I personally think that Banksy's messaging is pretty trite anyway, but I also think that Banksy absolutely does needle at establishment thinking in a way that seems to resonate with a wide audience. The tone the article uses when talking about him doesn't quite sit right with me in terms of what it suggests about their motivations in publishing it, even though that's more of a broad feeling than a specific fault in what they're saying.
but why
Because art irritates fascists.
Especially art that cannot be monetized.
A billboard is just corporate graffiti.
It's just a coincidence that unmasking prevents them from doing what they do.
It's one thing to unmask a violent arsonist. Or someone gobbling up 2/3 of the world's wealth. Or is buying politicians.
It's another when it's an artist.
It'd be nice if Rueters applied this level of journalism where it would challenge those in power instead of the ones inspiring those whom are not.
I have a genuine question. Did you read the article?
Banksy no longer goes by his old legal name and now in fact has one of the most common legal names in the UK. Or has in fact changed it again possibly. I don't actually think that this article will impede banksy's ability to do art in any significant way.
But I could be misreading the situation
Edit: to be clear, I don't necessarily think this article needs to be written or posted, but frankly his identity was revealed almost 20 years ago. Everyone just denied it. So I don't know. Beyond being a celebrity in general, it is not clear to me that he's actually facing any real threat of prosecution or persecution at this point in time.
I was mostly commenting on the way that policy was worded. Specifically this one:
Given the UK's fetish with deanonymization, I quite dislike the implications.
As well as legal name changes having a paper trail. It'll keep John Q public at bay for a bit, but criminal prosecutors will have no trouble.
Banksy has a company and a manager. If they wanted to arrest him I'm pretty sure they could find a way to do so. Like I know that he started very much at risk of that, but currently that does not seem as if they have any interest in prosecuting him.
"We unmasked Banksy, we'll unmask you. Now fall in line."
It's very much one of those situations where it would be a lot less ominous say in 2008.
I mean sure, if you imagine Reuters as an arm of the British Government and invent shit they didn't say or even imply. You literally said they did this because "art irritates fascists." Are the writers the fascists?
I'm pretty ambivalent about the story, and I understand caring about privacy but this really seems just like a knee-jerk "first they came for the artists" response when literally they seem to have found a 2008 article and fact checked it, dressing it up as more investigative than it was and literally no one is coming for the artist.
Perhaps I’m just not “familiar with Ukrainian immigration procedures”, but are Ukrainian immigration records public data? Or is this term a euphemism for Reuters bribing Ukrainian immigration officials to illegally reveal data?
I imagine it's a bit more casual than that; I'm sure most immigration officials would rightly balk at sharing actual private records, but I'm also sure that if you're a reporter working locally it's totally plausible to have a conversation like "Hey, Anton, your cousin works at the border post, right? Can you ask him if he saw [notable celebrity] a few weeks ago? I got a tip that he might've visited...".
That said, I'm kinda ambivalent about the article as a whole - I think it's right about the public interest argument in a broad general sense, I think it makes some very fair points about Banksy getting special treatment that other artists don't, and I personally think that Banksy's messaging is pretty trite anyway, but I also think that Banksy absolutely does needle at establishment thinking in a way that seems to resonate with a wide audience. The tone the article uses when talking about him doesn't quite sit right with me in terms of what it suggests about their motivations in publishing it, even though that's more of a broad feeling than a specific fault in what they're saying.