91–100 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He could also name the NYT reporter.
Why would he stoop that low?
When did "investigative journalism" become "doxxing"? Terminal internet brain.
Why is Scott's real name even relevant to the article? He has good reason not to want it published, and his real name is of no interest to most readers given that his entire public online presence is in the name "Scott Alexander". Knowing that Lewis Carroll was really called Charles Dodgson may be a piece of trivia that makes you win a pub quiz one day, and it may be of niche interest to someone who reads one of his…
Somewhat related — does anyone know an easier way to cancel one's NYT subscription than going through the rigmarole of waiting for/talking with multiple "customer service" reps? After NYT's all-too-credulous parroting of Barr's mischaracherization of the Mueller report I tried to cancel mine, but spent over an hour on the phone with no progress, and gave it up. I should have persisted — I don't want to give them my m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is Scott's real name even relevant to the article? He has good reason not to want it published, and his real name is of no interest to most readers given that his entire public online presence is in the name "Scott Alexander". Knowing that Lewis Carroll was really called Charles Dodgson may be a piece of trivia that makes you win a pub quiz one day, and it may be of niche interest to someone who reads one of his…
If I was a writer I would not suddenly start using internet psuedonyms just because it sounds like a real person's name, much in the same manner putting down Groyper1488 in my article is ridiculous.
I'd take what Scott Alexander has to say about this with a grain of salt. He is a bit obsessed with people who criticize him on the internet, going as far as to write about his borderline paranoid suspicions behind people making fun of him online in several of his blog posts. Some people can't handle the judgment that comes with being a somewhat public figure, and Scott is one of them.
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…
Scott Alexander was not the source. Journalists generally don't reveal sources and some have gone to jail to avoid doing so.
After Steve Hsu was cancelled a few days ago due to the Twitter mob wilfully misinterpreting his words, I reqd a comment somewhere saying “Scott Alexander is next” (which could make sense, as he’s posted “wrong” opinions on his blog before).
Maybe the NYT story is just a cover, or maybe the article wouldn’t be that “positive”...
This might be a controversial opinion, but I have just one word to describe most journalists nowadays: "scum". They seek exciting and sensationalist stories without regard for any consequences in the real world. They twist their stories to manipulate the readers towards their viewpoint. But worst of all, they have the gall to present themselves as the upholders of morality and the paragons of democracy. Any criticism…
For example, I'd consider some of what Scott does (did?) on SSC as "journalism" in that he's writing about recent news in an informative way.
When did "investigative journalism" become "doxxing"? Terminal internet brain.
Unfortunately, all of American society is now such a community, so all investigative journalism about someone's identity is now also doxxing. I'm not any happier about that than you are, and hope we can return to better norms so that investigative journalism is less of a danger for its targets.
This was in a piece specifically about the blog that was going to be positive, which makes this all the more inexplicable.