You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
The @nytimes writer threatening to dox Scott Alexander for no apparent reason reached out to me earlier this month — and offered to keep identity out of the story if I would talk to him about Scott.
Twice. Without my ever requesting it.pic.twitter.com/tG765oBvwI
These folks know that many of us have something to lose if they're not kept anon/pseudonymous. It's the first thing they'll offer you. The issue here is entirely about leverage. Scott, being a much nicer person than I am, likely assumed his safety would be the priority issue.
The truth is that Scott could probably have bargained for his privacy in advance if it had ever even occurred to him that Cade would put mentally ill patients at risk just to appear thorough. I really don't think it would ever have occurred to Scott that he'd need to do this.
Scott actually did ask right away, apparently. Whoever Cade consulted with on the editorial staff was apparently aware of Scott's very serious concerns and was willing to discard the interview with the subject himself just to keep the name on. https://twitter.com/KelseyTuoc/status/1275529271574847489 …pic.twitter.com/28PstfSfgU
I'm with Kelsey — this is just confusing. I don't see how it isn't completely irrational to drop the key interview just to personally destroy your subject. The NYT really has gone totally haywire.
The “YC Andreessen Horowitz crowd” is pretty... nebulous.
Katherine does the “on background” thing to Mason strike you as weird? I don’t know a ton about press but seems perfectly normal you’d interview a bunch of folks on background but not necessarily agree to not name the subject of the piece.
We may have constitutional protections for free speech, but they're worthless is everyone is vulnerable to mobbing, cancellation, and ruination for saying unpopular things. You know this.
They want to be class that is accountable only to themselves while getting special treatment from the public. Y'know, like feudal nobility.
It's not uncommon for psychologists to use pseudonyms for professional reasons. APA recommends ‘Psychologists may also consider using an online pseudonym to make it difficult for clients to locate their personal information.’https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/02/ce-corner …
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
