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.
-
-
Well, I'm happy to provide the NYT with the list of my evidence that he's a eugenicist, so they can make the decision on concrete moral grounds. For me at least, I'm only concerned with harm reduction outcomes.
-
Same here, I and many others have gone to great effort to make sure all the evidence is out there with regards to his blog and the effects of it being out there as is.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I just think if you’re at a point that a big company is thinking of naming you because of your influence, there’s a good chance your name will be out eventually, so then it’s on the pub to ask, why shouldn’t we do it, what is holding us back? And certainly accept a good argument.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.