51–60 of 584 posts
Can you really be both a public figure and keep your identity hidden by way of asking? There’s a playbook for this. Look at Banksy for example. If you don’t want your identity out there it’s your job to protect it. Not the New York Times.
NYT can talk a big talk but... if your source wants to remain anonymous, why still expose them? What a sorry excuse for journalism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you point me to an era of journalism where it wasn't largely used to condemn certain figures over their words or actions?
Largely used? A scan through my local paper, and frankly most of my experience, is that journalism is largely used to report the news. I'm not going to wade in on the moral debate here, but I count among the new stories in the first few pages today: 3 stories about a major storm that came through last night 1 story about changes to unemployment rules 1 story about a major conference being canceled due to travel restr…
Can you really be both a public figure and keep your identity hidden by way of asking? There’s a playbook for this. Look at Banksy for example. If you don’t want your identity out there it’s your job to protect it. Not the New York Times.
Banksy is an interesting example because the NYT probably does know who he is. It's not that much of a secret.
"War against the media" strikes me as ridiculous hyperbole in this context. I have met some of these people in real life, and none of them expressed that attitude to me, nor any kind of utopian superiority. It seemed like they were just trying to live morally considered lives and improve themselves a little at a time if they could -- and maybe do a little networking.
I think if Scott knew that his blog would get so big it would screw up his career and living arrangements, he probably wouldn't have published it in the first place. That might have been a lapse of judgment, but begging the NYT not to make him mainstream famous is hardly war on the media.
What an ugly article. A couple quotes: > It remains possible that Alexander vaporized his blog not because he thought it would force Metz’s hand but because he feared that a Times reporter wouldn’t have to poke around for very long to turn up a creditable reason for negative coverage. The reporter is unaware that the Internet Archive exists? The content is obviously still readily available, so the reporter is either…
It didn't strike me as ugly as all.
What an ugly article. A couple quotes: > It remains possible that Alexander vaporized his blog not because he thought it would force Metz’s hand but because he feared that a Times reporter wouldn’t have to poke around for very long to turn up a creditable reason for negative coverage. The reporter is unaware that the Internet Archive exists? The content is obviously still readily available, so the reporter is either…
It didn't strike me as ugly as all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My last name is easy to find. My first name is Kurt, I live in Chicago, I work on startups. I've published with my last name within the last decade. Scott Alexander's last name is also easy to find. His first name is Scott, his middle name is Alexander, he's a psychiatrist, and he lives in Michigan. This is all information he publicized. And he has also published under his last name, even on SSC, within the last deca…
I'm confused, are you agreeing with Scott? Both of you have last names that are "easy to find," but neither of you are purposely making it easily available. You both believe that there is a difference between "technically can be found" and "is printed everywhere my pseudonym is." If I were to write your last name in this comment, I would be going against your implied wishes, where your implied wishes are visible beca…
My implied wishes (and really, his wishes) aren't terribly important. If either of us do something newsworthy, it's not doxing to attach our name to the news.
I was a very loyal reader of SSC and thought I followed the "doxing" incident and fallout rather closely. I read numerous related blog posts about it and followed the discussion on the main remaining discussion space the community has, /r/slatestarcodex. Never once did I see the comments of said "Bay Area attorney" or Srinivasan, or see them discussed. It's certainly possible they were there and I missed them, but th…
What an ugly article. A couple quotes: > It remains possible that Alexander vaporized his blog not because he thought it would force Metz’s hand but because he feared that a Times reporter wouldn’t have to poke around for very long to turn up a creditable reason for negative coverage. The reporter is unaware that the Internet Archive exists? The content is obviously still readily available, so the reporter is either…
It's disingenuous, he knows the blog posts are compiled into an ebook and says as much.
Some of the posts were pretty cringe worthy but the comments were far more reliably cringe worthy.