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
I'm sorry but that is a shocking, ghoulish justification for doxxing, Jesus Christ, are you serious? Whatever non compelling mental gymnastics you produce to insist it doesn't matter, if someone *asks* not to not use their real name, the *decent thing* is not to, it's that simple
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @Britonomist @espiers
Also worth noting that Gawker was basically the organization with the first major internet doxx (though maybe it wasn't a doxx, I never googled him beforehand) of admittedly a Reddit troll in 2012. Could be a baseline thing.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Adrian Chen's "doxing" of violentacrez wasn't because he was a "troll", it's because he was the co-creator/moderator of multiple Reddit subs founded on technically-legal invasion of privacy that Reddit refused to take down ("censor")
3 replies 2 retweets 29 likes
Chen commented about the grotesque irony of this, that r/Creepshots was a community *founded* on the casual invasion of privacy for sexual gratification (surreptitiously using a phone to photograph women in public spaces caught in suggestive poses)
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Rationalist69 and
It was, of course, not illegal in the United States, based on the same aggressive interpretation of photography as a form of free expression that enables actual celebrity paparazzi to be a thriving industry But then, neither was finding out Michael Brutsch's name and posting it
1 reply 1 retweet 20 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Rationalist69 and
Chen wrote at the time about how he felt his hand was forced by the absurd ethical inversion of Reddit's hypocrisy Brutsch's ID - which was a fairly easily discoverable "open secret" among his online friends - was sacrosanct simply *because he was a Reddit user*
1 reply 1 retweet 22 likes - 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.