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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @jonahedwards @davidgerard and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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 -
Replying to @melissamcewen @jonahedwards and
It does, actually, because the miniskirt is the bad opsec, and my argument is that bad opsec doesn't make anyone deserving of losing a pen name by the power of the NYT. People argue identially: miniskirt=dress sexually when it benefits them, and that's the risk etc. etc.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Nobody has to like the guy; but we should absolutely be firm that the NYT should not casually shoot a pen name = real name linkage to the first Google search for the rest of someone's life. You cannot dislodge the NYT from Google results.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @melissamcewen and
I found his name in under 2 minutes via Google, it’s easily Googleable already. You’re accommodating his demand that we pretend it’s not public unless NYT publishes it. I don’t see why.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @colourmeamused_ @melissamcewen and
None of you have dealt with a jarring shift in pagerank, have you? This is what tech companies argued against us for years when we told them something that was obscure wasn't theirs to amplify as they saw fit, against people's wishes. This is terrible that everyone's forgotten.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 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.