I did it. I wrote 4,000 words about the Slate Star Codex article and put it on my heretofore dead Substack. I will almost certainly regret it for a million reasons, but I am a masochist, so here it is:https://mynewbandis.substack.com/p/slate-star-clusterfuck …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @espiers
The fact they sought out basically a random person on Twitter who was advertising dirt on SSC after the initial blowup tells me they probably were aiming to cause harm. Perhaps due to the initial blowup, but I don’t buy that part
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likes -
Replying to @Rationalist69
That is ... dumb. Reporters listen to all potential sources and determine who's credible and who isn't. And every source has an agenda--including the subject of the piece, who is also a source.
3 replies 2 retweets 66 likes -
Replying to @espiers
This isn't really the view of the (completely random-ass mostly Doctor Who scholar) who got called in for a quote, and I think her logic is pretty solid.pic.twitter.com/Ssn0oL4yUN
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more
5 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Rationalist69
There is literally nothing in that exchange that indicates that the reporter was hostile to the subject. It does indicate that there was a new news peg because Scott had published his post about being "doxxed." (Ron Howard voiceover: he was not doxxed.)
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @espiers
He was doxxed and lol if that's your standard, "let's find some idiot for a negative quote because I'm mad he's mad about the doxxing"
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Rationalist69
His name was public. And Google-able. That he did not put it directly on his posts is irrelevant. It was public and easy to find, unless Google is too complex for you. By any reasonable definition, that is not doxxing.
3 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @espiers @Rationalist69
That's not what the objection was, though. The objection was that his patients (who knew his real name) would then be able to find SSC by Googling it, whereas they wouldn't have been able to before.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
The word for that isn't "doxing", at most it's "outing"
1 reply 1 retweet 18 likes
Saying that "outing" someone ("Hey your husband is the same person as the guy who runs that offensive Twitter account") is morally the same as "doxing" is saying the right to privacy extends to infinite control over what particular people know about you
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @ReallyJeffEvans and
The attempt to create a universal principle here, and the refusal to recognize the resulting principle's absurdity, really does no favors for the rationalist community.
0 replies 1 retweet 14 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
- 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.