The man in question here *specifically* says, "If my patients read my writing it would make it hard for them to listen to me, and that would impact my business." Folks nod like this is fair, but is it actually fair to patients to suggest they're not allowed to know this?
-
-
Replying to @KirinDave @zeynep and
You may find this argument fails to compel you, but that's the argument.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
A "he deserves de-anonymizing" because his of his views argument is different. Does not seem to be what NYT was doing or defending. And, yes, of course, therapists deserve extra consideration for privacy and pen names! (As do many others! Pen names are a basic right).
4 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @KirinDave and
How is using your first and middle name a "pen name"
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @melissamcewen @KirinDave and
Quality of opsec should not be the criteria for right to pen name of any type. His first and middle name did not, until very recently, lead to his blog for many pages of Google searches. I know lots of people in vulnerable positions who enjoy similar obscurity protections.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @melissamcewen and
he literally published in academia under his real name as the Slate Star Codex guy you could call that a "failure of opsec", or you could just call it publishing Slate Star Codex stuff publicly under his real name his name has literally never been a secret
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @davidgerard @melissamcewen and
Everyone is confusing "I can find out" with top search result from name to blog. Not secret and your first Google result are very different. I did actually search his real name after the NYT brouhaha and no, it was buried many pages in. That's not a minor difference whatsovever.
4 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @melissamcewen and
I find it hard to call this keeping it in any manner a secret https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wtQkDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=%22slate%20star%20codex%22 … there are strong arguments not to put his name in the NYT. but calling doing so "doxing" is just a lie. And Scott knew it was a lie.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @davidgerard @melissamcewen and
Again, missing the point. The google search to blog is different.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @davidgerard and
This is hardly the first time he's deliberately chosen to post under his own name/not his own name when it's convenient. https://web.archive.org/web/20180201121441/http://squid314.livejournal.com/355455.html …pic.twitter.com/aTjhsWZtPs
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
I am done with the his opsec was sloppy arguments. I know lots of people like that who absolutely deserve pen names and changed their mind as their circumstances changed. I'm getting a he wore a mini-skirt vibe here; genuinely scary to me given how many others are vulnerable.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @davidgerard and
That's not the argument, at least as I see it -- it's that he specifically wanted to have it both ways, to trade on his name and use it when convenient, but to play the victim when the (well-known) connection was easily made. At some point that becomes a part of the story.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @jonahedwards @zeynep and
The mini skirt analogy is a perfect example because it doesn't work for Scott. He's not a woman dealing with sexual assault. He's a white male doctor who writes a blog popular with Silicon Valley hotshots. It's not poor opsec, he used his name when it benefited him.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes - 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.