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.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @can @KirinDave and
If trappings of "public figure" of even that small or any scale are to have no right to have a blog without having to seriously curtail your professional life, which for a therapist is certainly fair, many people will suffer under that criteria. This is not a reasonable standard.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
To inject some context: Scott Alexander appears to relish his role as a notable public intellectual, and in meetups — his blog has meetups! — apparently introduces himself with his real name.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Once again, NYT is a different game; it changes the Google aspect. I had a version of this problem before, and one NYT article was the change (in my case, I needed it--long story I should maybe write). Obscurity is in layers; one NYT article is forever your first search result.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
People have argued that I'm a public figure therefore xyz about me so many times before. Everyone who blogs or gets a few thousand followers on Twitter etc. faces that argument. It' not a good argument. And NYT respects pen names of much more public and important public figures.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
And I know many examples like that, people with great public influence, who either need or choose to use a pen name, and the NYT respects it. And I know people for whom it is imperative; because the pen name is the friction between them and the random loon or their job.
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.