71–80 of 1001 posts
Edit: this comment was not constructive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of political extremists hate people like Scott, and it has caused him a lot of trouble in the past. This is why anonymity is more important now than ever, because just writing a scientific blog about interesting topics can make you the target of witch hunts designed to ruin your life and kill you. It's hard to describe how bad these things can get out of nowhere without having been through some of it or seeing…
Is there an author in the United States who has been killed in 2020? EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Murdered_American_wri... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Assassinated_American...
E.g. I have written a bunch of outlandish stuff in my comment history, and some of it would cause people a lot of offense. Enough for them to want to call my employer out of some motivation and escalate to some sort of public/twitter witch hunt. But I promise you, I am not a bad person, and would not hurt a fly. That is the part that's missing here. Reasonable, innocent people are potentially being treated as if they're inciting violence.
It had practically nothing to do with what really happened, but was written in a way that most of their readers would most likely expect and endorse.
I was still very young then, but it opened my eyes, and from then on, I mostly stopped reading newspapers, and don't trust anything they write, without checking the facts.
> He told me it would be a mostly positive piece about how we were an interesting gathering place for people in tech, and how we were ahead of the curve on some aspects of the coronavirus situation. It probably would have been a very nice article. Unfortunately, he told me he had discovered my real name and would reveal it in the article, ie doxx me. ... When I expressed these fears to the reporter, he just said that…
He could also name the NYT reporter.
If they do dox the person, though, their name will be on the article, and you'll be able to find it.
[0]: "The Times sometimes agrees not to identify people who provide information for our articles...Sources often fear for their jobs or business relationships — sometimes even for their safety."
[1] "If compassion or the unavoidable conditions of reporting require shielding an identity, the preferred solution is to omit the name and explain the omission. (That situation might arise, for example, in an interview conducted inside a hospital or a school governed by privacy rules.) "
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/reader-center/how-the-tim...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/guidelines-on-in...
> He told me it would be a mostly positive piece about how we were an interesting gathering place for people in tech, and how we were ahead of the curve on some aspects of the coronavirus situation. It probably would have been a very nice article. Unfortunately, he told me he had discovered my real name and would reveal it in the article, ie doxx me. ... When I expressed these fears to the reporter, he just said that…
FYI: probably shouldn’t look up Naomi Wu during work hours lolll
This is a tragedy, Scott Alexander is such a thoughtful writer. I wish journalists would come up with some professional standards and make the title licensed, like doctor or lawyer. Right now we all recognize how important journalism is but journalists themselves run the gamut from ethical investigative journalists to clickbait manufacturers. Imagine if journalists also had to adhere to the equivalent of attorney cli…
Same problem with so-called fact-checking. It's politicized, which means it adds nothing over the chaotic political debate we already have, except a false veneer of objectivity.
This is a tragedy, Scott Alexander is such a thoughtful writer. I wish journalists would come up with some professional standards and make the title licensed, like doctor or lawyer. Right now we all recognize how important journalism is but journalists themselves run the gamut from ethical investigative journalists to clickbait manufacturers. Imagine if journalists also had to adhere to the equivalent of attorney cli…
This is possibly one of the easiest ways to create a police state if you make journalism "regulated" (i.e. government approved) ((or if you're a nutter, corporation approved))