Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media • Hacker News Board

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#251

Post by AnthonyMouse » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 6:57 PM UTC

tripletao wrote: post #28

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…

> The practical lesson that I'd take here is that semi-anonymity doesn't exist. Alexander should either have written under his own name, or taken sufficient technical precautions to make doxxing by the NYT impossible.

He shows up in person to meetups and things like that, so that doesn't really work.

Semi-anonymity works fine as long as there are cultural norms toward respecting it. Nothing really works if people with resources acting in bad faith decide they want to make your life hard.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#252

Post by NicolasGorden » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 6:58 PM UTC

mrkurt wrote: post #98

NicolasGorden wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can consider it an over-reaction. But calling it a tantrum, using that specific word, really highlights your flared emotions. When people resort to value laden language instead of more objective, reasonable language, it says a lot about their mindset. On the actual subject, scale and magnitude are issues that most rational beings consider. His avoiding people knowing his name on scale makes sense. Our society in…

I like emotion, thanks. The church of rationality is not my bag.

I thank you for your honesty. At least your being open about your position. Too many times people argue against rationality in disguise, acting like they like it but secretly hating it.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#253

Post by nkurz » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 7:04 PM UTC

mrkurt wrote: post #168

nkurz wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He's published his full name multiple times (even on his own blog). I'm almost certain this is untrue. Are you possibly mistaking his pseudonym "Scott Alexander" for this full name? If not, and you understand that Scott and Alexander are his first and middle names, could you please provide a link to an example of where he has published his last name on his blog (or at this point, on the relevant archive.org page)?…

I'm cool with saying "revealed". I don't want to link directly to it because I think it's kind of an asshole thing to do, but you can find a last name on a bunch of posts on Raikoth.net in archive.org. He reposted most that without the reveal on SSC.

OK, I presumed by "his blog" you were referring to Slate Star Codex. Yes, if one includes his earlier internet presences (which I don't think are mentioned in the linked article?) I'm willing to believe he has at times posted his full name, and that if you are willing to dig through some links, you can associate his current writings with those older writings. I think that at some point about a decade ago, as his medical career began, he consciously decided to stop doing this. I'm pretty sure he's been protective enough of his identity since the beginning of SSC that he hasn't published it there. So while one might easily fault his "historical operation security", I think his intent to keep this last name unassociated with SSC was clear and consistent.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#254

Post by AnthonyMouse » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 7:05 PM UTC

nullc wrote: post #60

NicolasGorden wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's disingenuous, he knows the blog posts are compiled into an ebook and says as much.

If you really want to paint SSC in a negative light the optimal tool isn't the posts-- it's the comments. Some of the posts were pretty cringe worthy but the comments were far more reliably cringe worthy.

Wait until you hear about YouTube and Reddit.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#255

Post by cwp » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 7:06 PM UTC

amznthrwaway wrote: post #118

elipsey wrote: post #55

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…

There are only two rational explanations here: 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…

Funny you should use the word "rational" here.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#256

Post by AnthonyMouse » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 7:08 PM UTC

recursive wrote: post #194

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meaning that no non-frivolous purpose exists?

I'm not sure if it means that. I'm just sure that for each purpose, we can find someone that relies on it.

Let's try it this way.

For any given website, more likely than not they would want the Internet Archive to archive it.

For any given internet user, more likely than not they wouldn't want a website to track them for the purposes of advertising and price discrimination.

This tells us what the defaults should be in each case, and let the exceptions change the setting if they want.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#257

Post by tripletao » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 7:09 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #223

tripletao wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? Alexander said himself that he was doing this as a protest and publicity stunt, and he seems to have taken no actions beyond that publicity stunt to make the content less available (e.g., he hasn't (yet) requested deletion from the Internet Archive). His words and actions seem entirely consistent to me, so I'm not sure why you doubt him.

I never said anything about consistency. I'm talking about your claim that the article is "ugly."

To be clear:

1. I believe the New Yorker reporter disingenuously made a statement that he knew to be false (because deleting the blog is clearly effective as a protest and publicity stunt, and clearly ineffective in removing access to content that's been widely mirrored elsewhere already) in order to create the false impression that Alexander might be trying to hide something.

2. I consider knowing falsehoods intended to harm others to be ugly.

I thought you were disagreeing with (1), which is why I thought it's relevant that Alexander himself said his goal was that publicity, and that his actions seem consistent with his words. Are you saying that you agree with (1) but disagree with (2)?

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#258

Post by astine » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 7:10 PM UTC

SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #240

TulliusCicero wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ad-hominems That's not what an ad hominem is. The word you're looking for is "insult".

The term I'm looking for is ad hominem. "this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself." tripletao chose to attack the character of a journalist instead of engaging with the arguments.

Uh, no. "You made a bad argument and therefore you are stupid" is not an ad-hominem argument "You are stupid and therefore your argument is bad" _is_ an ad-hominem argument. The OP's comment clearly follows the pattern of the former, not the later, so it is not an ad-hominem.

Bear in mind that tripletao's thesis is clearly that the NY article is a bad faith essay. That's his conclusion, not his premise.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#259

Post by gwern » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 7:10 PM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #170

" Alexander’s plea for civility went unheeded, and Metz and his editor were flooded with angry messages. " Surprise! The rationalist community is made up of human beings after all.

Assuming you believe Metz and his editor, and note that "angry" is a pretty milquetoast adjective. Usually when people try to engage in nutpicking, they at least cite death threats, which are a dime a dozen online when people are really angry.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#260

Post by mst » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 7:10 PM UTC

memexy wrote: post #249

mst wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like an "I would have said" based on your assumption that those "inferences" are the subtext that you believe to exist. I continue to believe that Scott did not believe any such subtext existed, so that would make no sense from his point of view. I'm also unsure why you believe that providing the contact information of the correct person to contact given an issue with a potential article to be published by…

We are all entitled to our beliefs. I merely outlined an argument for why I think how I do. Maybe Scott is a perfectly nice person but his writing is full of associations that say otherwise. I did not know anything about SSC when someone first introduced me to the blog, I did not even know who Scott was or what the blog was about but the more I read the more I noticed certain patterns. I did not start with a specific…

> We are all entitled to our beliefs. I merely outlined an argument for why I think how I do.

The point I'm trying to make here is that "It's hard to explain but his intention in much of his writing was coded. He would consistently use certain keywords and phrases to make certain associations and when you follow through the logic it becomes very sinister" does not, in fact, outline an argument. It merely asserts that "much of his writing" is "sinister" without making any argument for why - and you've now once again claimed "his writing is full of associations" ... without ever having named such an association.

There's no requirement to make such an argument, of course, but if you're simply going to state your beliefs with zero explanation then it would be preferable if you were up front about having chosen to do so rather than claim to have made an argument where none exists.