Ignore opsec for a moment. If he's discussing patient details, locations and dating material; that's a big ethics red flag we can't simply handwave away with pseudonymity.
You’ll notice that I constantly engage with people who are pseudonyms on this site. I try hard not to discount people because they don’t use their drivers license name. I’m pointing out defending peoples right express themselves should be obviously valuable to you.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
No I’m making a point by example. Obviously. (I routinely engage pseudonymous accounts, without prejudice.).
End of conversation
-
-
-
No one has even remotely threatened Scott's right to express himself. His stated (relevant) reason is that he doesn't want his patients to react to the knowledge that he's written things.
-
There *has to* be some difference between losing the right to self-expression and folks reacting to the face value of what you published explicitly for global readership.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I just want a standard of evidence for the hypothetical article you require that extends beyond direct sourced quotes, which you said you'd reject. Please advise.
-
Long form, make the case. I did that before, fo de-anonymization of moderator of r/creepshots and r/jailbait. Too many people are acting like too many things are Hitler incarnate. I’m not denying there’s terrible stuff out there—but a careful and good-faith case needs to be made.
- 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.