Right. I got the sense from SSC's writing on this that he felt there was a power imbalance here- "Why does the NYT get to examine ME, but I do not get to examine them back". Which I can kind of understand, but does seem to miss a larger point...
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @espiers @cregslist
Hmm, this is the part that seems weakest to me. Sure, you could find out his name if you wanted. That's not the same as having a major news org broadcast it. This was a serious enough concern that he changed jobs. I agree "doxxing" is an elastic term, but not a good look, no?
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Obviously it wasn't that public, given that he hadn't previously had to completely rearrange his life. And, in the end, what was the point? His name was totally irrelevant to the piece.
0 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
The difference is push vs pull. His patients had no reason to google "ssc real name." But they may well be reading the NYT. Lots of stuff that is public record shouldn't be in the news; we talk about that all the time in other contexts.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @jonathanstray @espiers and
I got interviewed by Cade and spent an hour explaining his. It’s not the same. “I already read the blog”->real name is ~irrelevant. Google real name-> blog->career ending for a psychiatrist. I have many dissident friends in the same position. Needs to be a high high bar to do it.
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes
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.
