Almost everyone who does pseudonyms but writes enough has slipups and are potentially de-anonymizable with a varying amount effort. I know this because I sometimes do it for people who think they've hidden their tracks very well (they ask me to). Doesn't remove anyone's rights.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @KardOnIce and
They petty tyranny is here's a person who says this is my blog name. That's it. We shouldn't be in a position to sit in judgement of the quality of their opsec, lousy or not, and decide that one big corporation can change their rank in other big corporations giant search engine.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @KardOnIce and
I mean, that is part of the mission of journalism though. Maybe there is a case this guy wasn't newsworthy, or that his cult of rationalists weren't driving opinions in Silicon Valley, but what happened after sure makes it seems like the story made sense.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
I mean, the entire argument seems to be: newsworthy guy is suddenly not newsworthy, and his published identity is not relevant. I honestly don't get it.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KardOnIce @bdowney and
The argument is that a) it didn't add much to the story and b) it harmed him professionally if searching his real name would bring up the blog. Which of the two are you arguing isn't true?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @WatsonLadd @KardOnIce and
B) Because he was never anonymous to begin with. But also C: as he's a pro-eugenics writer that's cultivated a frighteningly racist community, disclosed practice patient details casually in his blog, any hypothetical pseudonymity he has might be forfeit for harm reduction.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KirinDave @WatsonLadd and
The argument "did the NYT do the right thing" is hypothetical, because the NYT hasn't published an article and we have no idea what they might have done. We DO know what Scott has written though, and there is an awful lot of terrible stuff there. Let's talk about it.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KirinDave @WatsonLadd and
You can use that 'harm reduction' argument to justify anything. The guy is not fair game just because you didn't like his blog.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Pinboard @WatsonLadd and
I dislike a lot of blogs and I don't do this. Folks with actively racist political views in our industry and social environment need to be called out. You're much more interested in a hypothetical NYT article than the actual harmful community he's built.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KirinDave @Pinboard and
Calling Eugenics "just another viewpoint" to be debated like which paxos implementation does best on jepsen is a profoundly disturbing argument and I'm surprised to hear you make it.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I'm surprised to hear myself make it, too! You took us on quite a journey there.
-
-
Replying to @Pinboard @WatsonLadd and
Given that Scott is a eugenics proponent and has written and credited eugenicists numerous times, how am I supposed to take your dismissal of harm reduction?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KirinDave
Please untag people who have request to be untagged.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
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.