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.
I feel like we're talking about different things here. I understand "free speech does not mean free of consequence", so if your employer doesn't like your opinions, you can get fired, that's all fine and dandy.
But why you add that someone could be arrested for free speech? The whole point of free speech, at least for me, is that the government cannot arrest you for that, even if all the people around you see you as despicable or whatever. What is "free speech" for you actually?
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.
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.
I feel like everything I have seen of Thiel is not as well thought out as people claim, I feel he came to lots of his positions from a sort of contrarian attitude and simply the limited things he has been exposed to (that of course is true of everyone but to me it seems striking how little the things actually fit together are are sort of all just mushed together), Take for example The Straussian Moment, though quotes Strauss not actually very Straussian does not really use ancient wisdom and I think he adopted it because of the connection that the left made (incorrectly I think) to the neo-cons and Leo Strauss.
His use of Girard does not actually fit at all and his whole Anti-christ prophesy thing is a kind of inversion of Girard and actually identifies the anti-christ with the katechon the opposite to tertuilian, Girard himself (I think) and Schmitt.
I don't think his views are all that meaningful or held with real conviction other then they are views that allow him to behave how he wants for now. If his views came into conflict with his desired behavior he would adopt new ideas no doubt.
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.
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.
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 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 and of dealing with people from all kinds of backgrounds. 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.
When Benjamin Franklin launched Poor Richard’s Almanack in 1733 under the fake identity of “Richard Saunders,” he needed a way to get attention in Philadelphia’s crowded almanac market. So he decided to kill off one of his established competitors.
Franklin announced that Titan Leeds would soon die: “He dies, by my Calculation... on Oct. 17. 1733. 3 ho. 29 m. P.M.”
Leeds, inconveniently, did not die.
Instead, he published another almanac and attacked Poor Richard as a “false Predicter,” an “Ignorant,” a “conceited Scribler,” a “Fool, and a Lyar.”
Franklin responded that there was “the strongest Probability that my dear Friend is no more,” because the real Leeds was far too well bred to say such awful things about his friend Richard Saunders. Therefore somebody must simply be publishing an almanac under the dead man’s name.
The next year Franklin stopped even pretending there was much doubt. He complained about receiving abuse from “the Ghost of Titan Leeds, who pretends to be still living.”
And then he actually tried to prove Leeds was dead from Leeds’ own words, concluding: “he is dead now, to all Intents and Purposes, any thing he may say to the contrary notwithstanding.”
This went on for years.
Then, in 1738, Titan Leeds actually died.
At this point Franklin could have admitted that perhaps predicting a man’s death five years early represented a minor error in his astrological calculations.
Instead, Franklin escalated.
In the 1740 Poor Richard’s Almanack he claimed that Leeds’ ghost had appeared and left him a letter. The now genuinely dead Leeds supposedly wrote: “I did actually die at that time,” explaining that Poor Richard’s original prediction had been off by only “5 min. 53 sec.”
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.
US free speech is qualified too - just in different ways.
And even when free speech is protected, it doesn’t stop you receiving the consequences log being arrested or losing your job and home.
I feel like we're talking about different things here. I understand "free speech does not mean free of consequence", so if your employer doesn't like your opinions, you can get fired, that's all fine and dandy.
But why you add that someone could be arrested for free speech? The whole point of free speech, at least for me, is that the government cannot arrest you for that, even if all the people around you see you as despicable or whatever. What is "free speech" for you actually?
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.
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.
[1]: https://www.walks.com/blog/hellfire-club-london/
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.
Thiel has completely different philosophy and believes. So, no, absolutely not.
I feel like everything I have seen of Thiel is not as well thought out as people claim, I feel he came to lots of his positions from a sort of contrarian attitude and simply the limited things he has been exposed to (that of course is true of everyone but to me it seems striking how little the things actually fit together are are sort of all just mushed together), Take for example The Straussian Moment, though quotes Strauss not actually very Straussian does not really use ancient wisdom and I think he adopted it because of the connection that the left made (incorrectly I think) to the neo-cons and Leo Strauss.
His use of Girard does not actually fit at all and his whole Anti-christ prophesy thing is a kind of inversion of Girard and actually identifies the anti-christ with the katechon the opposite to tertuilian, Girard himself (I think) and Schmitt.
I don't think his views are all that meaningful or held with real conviction other then they are views that allow him to behave how he wants for now. If his views came into conflict with his desired behavior he would adopt new ideas no doubt.
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.
Yes, and?
These activities are still around today with all members of society.
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.
[1]https://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2025/12/how-vain-an-attempt...
alts are underrated
i know some very very interesting people whose x is anon
If I had a stormfront or pornhub account I'd be sure to make them anon too
Isn't PornHub Canada's biggest tech company by traffic? They are hardly anonymous.
I don't see the relevance. Their users want to be.
Maybe by traffic but I think Shopify has them beat on valuation (well, it's hard to say since one is a public listed company).
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 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 and of dealing with people from all kinds of backgrounds. 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.
There is something very internet-native about Franklin having a collection of handles for different kinds of posting
So, centuries ahead of social media, Franklin invented the fake account.
When Benjamin Franklin launched Poor Richard’s Almanack in 1733 under the fake identity of “Richard Saunders,” he needed a way to get attention in Philadelphia’s crowded almanac market. So he decided to kill off one of his established competitors.
Franklin announced that Titan Leeds would soon die: “He dies, by my Calculation... on Oct. 17. 1733. 3 ho. 29 m. P.M.”
Leeds, inconveniently, did not die.
Instead, he published another almanac and attacked Poor Richard as a “false Predicter,” an “Ignorant,” a “conceited Scribler,” a “Fool, and a Lyar.”
Franklin responded that there was “the strongest Probability that my dear Friend is no more,” because the real Leeds was far too well bred to say such awful things about his friend Richard Saunders. Therefore somebody must simply be publishing an almanac under the dead man’s name.
The next year Franklin stopped even pretending there was much doubt. He complained about receiving abuse from “the Ghost of Titan Leeds, who pretends to be still living.”
And then he actually tried to prove Leeds was dead from Leeds’ own words, concluding: “he is dead now, to all Intents and Purposes, any thing he may say to the contrary notwithstanding.”
This went on for years.
Then, in 1738, Titan Leeds actually died.
At this point Franklin could have admitted that perhaps predicting a man’s death five years early represented a minor error in his astrological calculations.
Instead, Franklin escalated.
In the 1740 Poor Richard’s Almanack he claimed that Leeds’ ghost had appeared and left him a letter. The now genuinely dead Leeds supposedly wrote: “I did actually die at that time,” explaining that Poor Richard’s original prediction had been off by only “5 min. 53 sec.”