anyway, if a patient decides to enter into a therapeutical relationship, they should know that their psychiatrist is not an ethical person, that he is an eugenicist, and very likely prone to ignore hipaa's patient confidentiality requirements — for entertainment of his readers.
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
-
-
Did the Times reveal his name? Was that the premise of the article on him (revealing his real name)? That would be a weird premise for an article - this is the real name of somebody you’ve never heard of.
-
I mean, it’s so weird, when I search for this Times article, I find a billion think pieces about how they shouldn’t reveal his identity, but literally nothing from the NYT itself. Can someone point me to a link?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Firstly: there is surely a line graph of "amount of effort invested to pierce a pseudonym" vs. "type of and danger posed by content by author" and a threshold like drawn through it. That line may vary for different actors. I'm happy to give you this. But...
-
The only evidence we have that the NYT was going to "reveal his real name" is that Scott implied they were." There hasn't been really any corroboration of that outside of Scott saying so.
- 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.