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.
-
-
Sure, I’m not expecting that context to persuade you, I just think it’s worth making the distinction between people forced to be public figures (if only to express their conscience) and those who court that status deliberately.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
And I think people deserve a pen name until there is an argument on the merits. I've defended de-anonymization before (the reddit jailbait/creepshot moderator!). For SLC, he was careless is not an arguments on the merits. I know similar others; NYT respects their pen names.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I know and respect where you’re coming from and expect we’ll mostly just end up disagreeing, but my case on the merits is that this person is anonymous only when called to account, but freely identifies themselves socially when it suits them.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
What a bizarre stance this is. You and I talk about all kinds of things in social settings that we would not want to see in the NYT. A meetup is not a deposition
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
I don’t know. Maybe I’m not sensitive enough to this stuff. I sign my name to what I write, and have spent a career assuming what I say will get pastebinned, as has happened several times.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
If a loon shows up at your kids' school and you might have a different opinion on what friction and obscurity means. You'd immediately try to, at least, protect your address and your kids names and surprisingly, loons aren't always smart or efficient. Every bit of friction helps.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Zeynep, I’ve had death threats, I’ve had my homedir pastebinned, I’ve had people try to shut my company down, I’ve had people “report” me for child pornography, I’ve had my utilities turned off, and have been confronted in person with violence over things I’ve said online.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
I get what you’re saying, and the case I’m making is that I believe that up to the moment the NYT reporter told Scott Alexander about the article, a reasonable person could easily — after Google autocompleted his name, maybe — concluded S.A. wasn’t even a pseudonym.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Seems strange that people have definitive ideas about what the NYT did wrong here when we haven’t actually seen the exchange between SSC and the reporter or even the NYT article.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Regardless, pen names/pseudonyms should not be violated —especially by big outlets with pagerank power without equal–without significant justification on the merits of it. Was this not gonna happen? Sure, we don't know. The principle is straightforward; whatever the specifics.
-
-
Understood. What I’m wondering is... was that even really the discussion? We have only SSCs characterization to go on, but we haven’t seen what specifically was asked and replied and with no story this does have a bit of a precrime feel to it.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @bobmcmillan @tqbf and
True. Maybe Cade will eventually clarify? Still, though, as a non-reader of SLC, I care about the principle. We had this fight for years with tech companies—it's on the internet so we can amplify as we fit—and it's disheartening the lessons have been largely lost.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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.