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.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @melissamcewen and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
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 -
Replying to @zeynep @melissamcewen and
That’s not the fight we’d be fighting by defending Scott in this situation though.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @colourmeamused_ @zeynep and
I just learned there’s a springer volume from 2015 in which he wrote under his full name and linked to his blog, still digesting that
I love your work and respect you Zeynep but I don’t think I’m changing my view of this one, genuinely appreciate you engaging though.1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @colourmeamused_ @zeynep and
I really do appreciate the argument that More Is Different, online scale represents a fundamental category shift from interpersonal social, but I honestly don't think that this is that. This is a person who wanted online scale and used their real identity when it suited them.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @jonahedwards @colourmeamused_ and
First Google link to your usual doctor name is very very different than first name and middle name and seven pages in. His patients would not necessarily even know his middle name and to his luck, Scott is practical obscurity.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @jonahedwards and
I get it, he didn't know what he was doing and dropped to many clues from his blog to his name; still the unilateral decision to deny a pen name by the NYT is not good precedent. De-anonymization should happen only through merit; not casual decision by giant company.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @colourmeamused_ and
Fully agree that unilateral de-anonymization by the press is bad, but I don't think this is that. I think the idea that he was ever anonymous is an incorrect narrative that he has successfully pushed. I think he knew what he was doing, and I think the controversy was the point.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
I know people who were not anonymous by that standard whose lives would be devastated if the NYT published an article about them with their full name and their pen name/blog. Amplification without consent just because "it's there" is a terrible power; should not be unchecked.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @jonahedwards and
I know, personally, I googled his first and last name (as a patient or a casual friend would) and it was page seven before I even got a suggestive link to blog, and it wasn't even a clear one. That's a lot of protection. Is he otherwise a jerk etc. aren't arguments against this.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep @colourmeamused_ and
Many others elsewhere and in this thread have indicated that they saw a simple google for the name in question bring up the blog in question. Google results are sufficiently personalized that individual datapoints are not only statistically invalid, but arguably disinformative.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 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.