-
-
This is the debate about amplification in a different guise. Just because something is online doesn't mean there's no difference or harm when it's hugely amplified
-
So it depends on who the author is and whether it’s in the public interest to amplify their name or not. In this case, there couldn’t be a stronger case that it should be. End of story
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You didn’t ask me, but: there’s a threshold here, right? We agree on that? There’s some point at which your identity is so open that journalists aren’t obligated to conceal it, and some point where that ceases to be the case? We just disagree on where the line is?
-
I honestly don't know what the Platonic principle is. It feels like newsworthiness to a general audience should factor in. At the very least, you'd expect some kind of consistency in how pseudonymity is granted
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I am not obliged to pick a side in this. Yes what NYT did is dumb and instead of fronting up when it all blew up they sent out arrogant PR waffle. Screw them. Scott’s whole meltdown was dishonest too.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.