sigh. Hopefully NYT decides against printing the full name. Is there any reason to insist on doing so?https://twitter.com/orthonormalist/status/1275310856465604611 …
-
Show this thread
-
independent of your opinion on SSC and whether the content is good or bad, doxing is bad. It seems like such a simple issue of consent where Scott doesn’t wanna be doxed
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
I’m really so confused too - would they even really get that many more clicks by using the real name vs leaving it as a pseudonym? I really don’t get it. It just seems like basic violation of consent by
@nytimes3 replies 1 retweet 3 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @bayes_baes
honestly it's just the reporter defaulting to standard journalistic practice and declining to think harder about making an exception, and while i think "scott alexander" is more than enough here, framing it as "doxxing for clicks" is incredibly disingenuous on ssc's part
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @isosteph @bayes_baes
like there are a variety of reasons to not print the last name, him being a psychiatrist is a p good reason and they should probably grant semi anonymity the way they do for lots of internet ppl but this framing is just.......ssc creating outrage for clicks lmao
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @isosteph
Hrm. Yeah. Journalistic standard practice seems like the most likely explanation but also... outdated? It’s not uncommon to respect requests for anonymity afaict in random tech trends, or maybe NYT has more internal processes to approve that? Idk.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
yeah i think it's on ssc's side on this one esp like u said given other internet pieces, just an old institution with a lot of old rules (which exist for a reason! but need updating) just think it's dumb to make everything into some big media conspiracy
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.