You'd need an argument TO leave it out, which no one has convincingly made, IMO. I wrote an unbylined blog in 2003 and when the Times covered it, they didn't hesitate to note that I was the person writing it and neither did any other outlet.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
I think there's a much more coherent case to be made that he specifically deserved to be doxed, or more generally that NYT can be trusted to decide if doxing someone is in the public interest and other actors cannot, than "when it's based on public information it's not doxing".
-
Doxing is *almost always* based on public information, because the people who do it almost never have access to any non-public information about their targets.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
yeah when you put it like this, "do siskind's Black patients have a right to know that he thinks they are genetically inferior" seems like a pretty straightforward question to answer
-
as with most of these cases, siskind's defenders have a vested interest in framing the debate in terms of the reputational harms of being accused of X, rather than the material harms being X inflicts on others
- 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.