Genuine question, as I couldn’t follow the entire story arc - in 280, could someone kindly explain the reason a news outlet wanted to expose the identity of a pseudonymous blogger? Did the blogger break the law or harm others?
-
-
Replying to @semil
Best I can tell its bec their starting position is closer to "no one deserves anonymity" (barring extreme circumstances) than "everyone deserves anonymity." Thus once they discovered his identity they were on auto-pilot. Completely F'd
2 replies 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @mcarney
But did the author do anything illegal or wholly immoral?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
if i understand correctly, no that was not part of the reasoning at all, it was just policy for how they treated names, people were rightly upset with NYT, esp because Scott as a psychiatrist ask complex client relationships that could be disrupted, attitude was one of disregard
6:07 PM - 14 Feb 2021
0 replies
0 retweets
2 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
