siskind frequently used stories he learned about his patients in his public writings as anecdotes or to make a point; while their details were anonymised, he never sought their permission, and frequently expressed negative or dismissive opinions of them. this is abuse of trust.
I am surprised at you. This is pure smear tactic ("imagine what must be lurking in the wings for this guy to be so scared!"). Scott's written approximately 100,000,000 words so why the need for dark insinuations? I say this as an early vocal critic of his site and its social role
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I'm definitely not inviting the guy on my next road trip, but this thread started as a discussion of why the largest newspaper in America gets to decide whether you have the right to write under a pseudonym. The "Scott is bad and you should feel bad" detour does not make the case
- Show replies
-
-
-
Has anyone confirmed they actually threatened to dox him or could this just be a misrepresented growth hack? Was it just NYT saying in passing “we’re supposed to use real names” and he ran with it?
-
Scott has solicited folks to give him screenshots of Times interactions in hid Reddit to strengthen the case it was going to be a hit piece. The responses seem sinister to his fans, but to me look like boilerplate for talking to the press.
End of conversation
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.