Again, if people want to argue that what he's done is so terrible that he deserves de-anonymization, that's totally different. That's not the NYT claim or position. Other than that, yeah, one's right to a pen name should not depend on quality of prior opsec.
-
-
At the risk of making a slippery slope argument, it sounds like you’re saying that pseudonymity should be facilitated (by the Times) for anyone who hasn’t done something specifically bad enough to revoke that privilege. That seems like an odd standard.
-
The Times’ commitment to naming subjects is presumably at least partly intended to create accountability—to allow readers to determine if there is in fact a “Scott Alexander” who spoke with the reporter.
- 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.