I think for once Alexander is in the right, and the Times acted unethically. I don't understand why anyone thinks its significant that his identity was easily findable from his blog; what matters is the other direction (that cursory Googling by his patients not lead to SSC)
-
-
Replying to @Pinboard
Cursory Googling of his name does lead to SSC, on the first page of search results, in an anonymous browser window, or did for me.
4 replies 0 retweets 14 likes -
I’ve have to see the article to have an opinion on whether the NYT acted unethically, but will add that it seems certain that anyone who wanted to fuck with Scott Alexander already knew his name, because they were already circulating it long before the article.
3 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
(I wish people with a low opinion of him would stop deliberately using his name in conversations though; it makes everyone with qualms about his work seem like a jerk.)
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @tqbf
I think you're missing the point. It's not that the guy's name was a big secret, but that it wasn't stapled to his professional identity. The system worked by common consent for years until the Times decided it needed to publicly name him.
2 replies 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @Pinboard
No, I understand that point very well, I just dispute it. But more importantly, I haven’t seen the article, and I don’t trust Scott Alexander to represent it to me. I don’t have enough evidence to make any kind of assessment about the NYT here.
1 reply 1 retweet 10 likes -
A cursory search didn't used to lead to his blog (I had checked immediately). Maybe now it does, but that's because of the brouhaha. I think NYT is clearly and unequivocally in the wrong here, regardless of what the author says or does otherwise. Pen names are common in the NYT.
2 replies 0 retweets 18 likes -
Hi! Different people saw different results. A group of us checked immediately as well, investigating exactly this claim (“the NYT article would mean his patients, Googling him, would quickly find his blog”) and several of us got there with just his name.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
In any case it wasn't a clear link! Leakages doesn't give the NYT the right to deny him the use of the pen name. Friction matters. I know people NYT hired, published and announced using pen names. It's a common, routine practice. How can they deny one author the right?
3 replies 0 retweets 14 likes -
i think the doxxing no matter what policy is rude, we can probably all agree, but it does take the bite out of his outrage if his patients already could ferret out his alt identity like, he’d already crossed that rubicon from a professional obligation pov
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The direction really matters, though. Blog to name is a very different game than Google to Blog, which NYT would have done forever. I've a lot of experience with this. Maybe it's a lost cause for him now, but the principle is important. NYT should ordinarily respect pen names.
-
-
I've a lot of experience in this, and that Google to non-that-secret identity link can be devastatingly different. (I can't give a lot of examples partly because it would make things worse, but very true concern for activists; not a state secret isn't always public public).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Certainly but you seem to be under the impression that the NYT was doing this without good reason - going solely on the word of Scott Alexander.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
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.