111–120 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.
Banksy's identity is right on his Wikipedia page for anyone who really wants to know. I think NYT and other media are keeping him "anonymous" by way of asking. They could easily publish his name if they wanted. Unlike SSC, Banksy seems to hold similar political views to NYT, so they have no problem playing along. The only truly anonymous public figure I'm aware of is Satoshi Nakamoto and I'm pretty sure that the only…
Genuinely curious of your basis for this. As far as I can tell SSC and most rationalist adjacents are basically neo-libs which the NYT has been a bastion of for decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's disingenuous, he knows the blog posts are compiled into an ebook and says as much.
Doesn't that also mean the very act of "deleting" the blog is disingenuous? If deleting the blog doesn't meaningfully impede accessing the blog articles, then what's the point, other than drawing attention to the situation?
> For one thing, the S.S.C. code prioritizes semantic precision, but Metz—if Alexander’s account is to be taken at its word—had proposed not to “doxx” Alexander but to de-anonymize him. Oh? From Wikipedia: > Doxing, or doxxing (from "dox", abbreviation of documents), is the Internet-based practice of researching and publicly broadcasting private or identifying information (especially personally identifying informatio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where is this canceling occurring? I saw quite a few people here, as well as the two SSC subreddits, going out of their way to encourage polite outreach to the editor and to avoid antagonizing the actual author. So far as to discourage the naming of the author. Not denying it may be happening, it just does not seem to jive with the majority response (in my bubble).
I'm not sure how directly the cancelling is affiliated with SSC, but the #ghostnyt hashtag is a pretty good cancellation motion. The only thing that's really reached my bubble has been outrage and cancellation, though. https://twitter.com/hashtag/ghostnyt
EDIT 2: Whoops, this was meant as a reply to charia's point.
This reply about Scott Alexander appears to be the first usage[0]: https://twitter.com/ChrisSt41125908/status/12755577894154649...
[0] https://twitter.com/search?q=until%3A2020-06-24%20since%3A20...
[1] https://twitter.com/search?q=until%3A2020-06-24%20since%3A20...
"If there’s no blog, there’s no story. Or at least the story will have to include some discussion of NYT’s strategy of doxxing random bloggers for clicks."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is essentially a summary of their opinion.
-
Um, unless you think Scott lied about what the reporter said, this is not a very sensible take. The blog takedown page reads like a factual account of what happened, and a request to direct any criticism towards the NYT's editors through the proper channels. He has never called for a mad frenzy or anything like that.
Sigh. I think this article is holding Scott, and a core constituency of posters and meet up people, guilty by association with every rando on the internet, and also about half of the celebrities in the Bay area. "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. I…
1) Scott Alexander wanted more attention, and he realized that deleting his site and blaming the NYT for it would garner dramatically more attention, creating opportunities that he wanted. He recognized that he could become a martyr to a certain group, and use that for future gains.
2) Scott Alexander is an absolute moron who did not foresee the Streisand Effect that he was going to cause.
I personally do not think he is a moron. I think he is a manipulative sociopath who knew that people who agree with him on other matters would line up to create future opportunities for him if he pretended that his hand was forced.
It saddens me that so many "smart" people fall for such transparent nonsense. There was no lapse of judgment. He is just a selfish sociopath. Nothing more.
> so the reporter is either stupid or disingenuous IMO your comment would be better without the ad-hominems > anyone expressing heterodox opinions is likely to write something that a reporter working for a mainstream outlet considers "a creditable reason for negative coverage" I get that you're angry, but this is unsubstantiated by anything you or the article says.
If you enjoy reading SSC and want to show some form of support, consider adding your signature to the petition[0]. It's a small thing to do and only takes a little time to complete. [0]: https://www.dontdoxscottalexander.com/
An additional way to protest against their decision is to block nytimes.com on your devices. If you use adguard, nextdns or pihole this is easy to do. If a lot of people do this it will have a big impact, their links get posted a lot here on HN!