I think I should see if I can write it longer. I think a lot of people are conflating "I don't like him" with "sloppy opsec" with the key question: who's the arbiter and what's the standard?
-
-
They petty tyranny is here's a person who says this is my blog name. That's it. We shouldn't be in a position to sit in judgement of the quality of their opsec, lousy or not, and decide that one big corporation can change their rank in other big corporations giant search engine.
-
I mean, that is part of the mission of journalism though. Maybe there is a case this guy wasn't newsworthy, or that his cult of rationalists weren't driving opinions in Silicon Valley, but what happened after sure makes it seems like the story made sense.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
But he published information linking his identities. This isn't a casual slipup. This is in a published and edited book distributed by Springer. This isn't an accidental and deleted comment on a blog.
-
Again. If you were in his SLC orbit, you could find his name with a bit of effort. It wasn't true the other way: for every random person he met or his patients. A NYT article would change that. That's a lot of power to exercise casually. We'll disagree.
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.