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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @jonahedwards @colourmeamused_ and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
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 -
Replying to @jonahedwards @colourmeamused_ and
I tried, different computers, logged in and out. The fact that this was the case for me *is* informative. Most people are, erroneously, googling his first and middle name. That's not what a patient sees. People are still conflating blog--> real with Dr. first last to blog.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @colourmeamused_ and
I could point to 2014 blog post that's the 4th google result for "dr first last", or post 10+ easy citations that link the blog and name. Assertion that your personal search results are significant is such a fundamental error that we are -- as you predicted -- not going to agree.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @jonahedwards @colourmeamused_ and
What do you search for? Or did? Real name? In any case New York Times will absolutely dominate pagerank.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @jonahedwards and
Just for the data point: I checked my browser history for my main browser (non-scientific, I know; it’s targeted) and I searched “firstname lastname” and my next click was to a LessWrong article.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
I just did the same & I got a bare hint at second page. Again, the principle is NYT will make our uneven sleuthing irrelevant. It will be top link to his name probably for the rest of his life. We know what we're looking at when we see a LessWrong article. Not so a random person.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @jonahedwards and
Right; also, we definitely get tangled up in the tradecraft of this stuff, but the principle you’re talking about is irrefutable in the sense that: yes, obviously, of course, having his name in the NYT will drastically increase his exposure.
0 replies 0 retweets 4 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.