Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 584 posts

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

#461

Post by roryokane »

abvdasker wrote: post #413

The beauty of the article is in exposing the fundamentally emotional, illogical reaction of the SSC's author and associated community. For a group that seems to value dispassionate rationality and intelligence as inherently morally good, their overreaction to this unpublished article is deliciously ironic. Instead of allowing the "marketplace of ideas" to play out, Scott Alexander decided to take his ball and go home…

As I understand your comment, you are arguing that according to Scott Alexander’s principles of free discourse, the New York Times publicizing Scott’s real name should be no different from a random online writer arguing a controversial view, e.g. neoreactionary views. Thus, you say that Scott’s objection to the New York Times publishing its article proves Scott’s hypocrisy, because he allows discussion of neoreactionism but not of his real name.

I think that is an unfair comparison. Controversial ideas such as neoreactionism are part of the “marketplace of ideas” in that both arguments for them and arguments against them can be publicized. Someone who encounters a neoreactionary idea can research additional arguments for and against the idea and use those arguments to decide on their own position.

Unlike an idea in a marketplace of ideas, publicizing Scott’s real name on nytimes.com, a site highly-ranked in search engines, is irrefutable. No matter how many people subsequently post to their own websites arguing that Scott’s real name shouldn’t be publicized, it wouldn’t change Google’s behavior of showing the New York Times article about Slate Star Codex when a psychiatric patient searches for “Scott Alexander [real name]”. Rather than two sides of a figurative ideological war fighting until the stronger idea proves the victor, publicizing Scott’s name would be one side leading the battle with a nuclear bomb.

Additionally, Scott’s real name isn’t an idea that can be argued for or against, not is it relevant to the New York Times reporter’s ideas. Scott suggested in his takedown post that he wouldn’t object so strongly to his name being publicized if it were actually relevant to the article:

> If someone thinks I am so egregious that I don’t deserve the mask of anonymity, then I guess they have to name me, the same way they name criminals and terrorists. This wasn’t that. By all indications, this was […] going to be a nice piece […]. Getting punished for my crimes would at least be predictable, but I am not willing to be punished for my virtues.

Thus, Scott’s takedown of his blog does not prove hypocrisy or ‘[discredit] the “rationalist” ideology’.

I also doubt that the takedown is an “emotional, illogical” action on Scott’s part (no comment on his community). As zucker42 suggested elsewhere in these comments, Scott’s takedown is probably “a game theory influenced attempt to prevent the NYT from printing his name”. Scott saw the upcoming NYT article’s inclusion of his name as a danger to his career and personal safety, and used his blog’s readership to threaten the NYT with bad PR if they followed through with that apparently-dangerous action. Seems reasonable to me. At worst, you could accuse Scott of overestimating the actual danger of the NYT’s action and thus threatening the NYT with a disproportionate amount of bad PR.

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

#462

Post by memexy »

lyssa17 wrote: post #459
memexy wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's funny about his use of the word?

hey, are you on reddit memexy? i'm /u/foobanana, ping me if you are. admire your attempts at reasoning with the unreasonable here.

Thanks for the kind words. I stopped using reddit some time ago but good to know there are still good people there like you working to uphold standards. I am on keybase and I'm always happy to chat with fellow reasoners: keybase.io/memexy.

I dislike getting swept up in groups and that's what happened to me on reddit and other social media sites so now I make sure to deliberately talk with individuals without worrying about performing in front of a group.

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

#464

Post by memexy »

Manfredo_1 wrote: post #456
memexy wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you done mis-characterizating everything I say? If not, please quote everything else I've said and characterize them however you want so I can point to actual examples of how you willfully keep mis-interpreting whatever I'm saying. I've repeatedly told you to write an argument in a longer format if you have any actual points to make but you continue responding to the thread even when I've repeatedly said I'm no l…

There's nothing I'd put in an email that I can't put in a comment here. The only reason why you'd want me to respond via email is so that your responses wouldn't be public for other people to see. If you want a longer format, I'm willing to break this whole conversation down step by step. * Originally you claimed that Scott was being uncivil by directing people to share their feedback on the situation with the New Yo…

> The only reason why you'd want me to respond via email is so that your responses wouldn't be public for other people to see. If you want a longer format, I'm willing to break this whole conversation down step by step.

I have no fear of public scrutiny. My actions have clearly demonstrated that because I have engaged everyone that has contacted me in good faith but I have not received the same treatment so I'm getting tired of re-iterating my points. If you think it's a trick then you can contact me on keybase and I will happily sign any statement that you want attributed to me and that I think is a fair assessment. If you don't think cryptographic proof is sufficient then we have nothing to argue about.

I stand by all my original claims. If you have specific arguments then quote me, and state your argument. I'm not looking for out of context quotes and mis-characterizations. If you want to continue arguing then provide actual quotes, state what you think I said and why, and make a counter-point for why you think my claim is incorrect with compelling evidence. You can contact me on keybase and cross-post our conversation on whatever public forum you want.

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

#465

Post by Frampy »

waon wrote: post #418
Frampy wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's how the left operates now. There are no facts, the only truth is they only operate in good faith and their opponents only operate in bad faith. Therefore anything they say or do is just and anything their opponents say or do is evil. Peaceful marches become nazi rallies while arsonist riots are stirring protests. Scott Alexander is nice to the point of stupidity, but he is the enemy therefore his actions…

What you argue for matters as much as how you do it. I don't see anything wrong with criticizing people who advocate for racism. Peaceful marches for racism doesn't make racism just, you know.

I don't see any problem with criticising racism either, I just object to the attempts to paint them as violent while in the next breath pretending the Floyd riots were peaceful.

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

#466

Post by mst »

memexy wrote: post #452
mst wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If "critical eye" means you're attempting to read his work through a critical theory lens then it would have been helpful had you mentioned that in advance so that those of us using other lenses could've been aware that you were doing so. Much confusion might thereby have been avoided.

It's incumbent upon whoever is confused to ask clarifying questions instead of making insinuations about the inadequacy of the person making the argument. If you were confused then you should have asked clarifying questions instead of arguing with incomplete information.

So are you operating on a critical theory lens or not?

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

#467

Post by mst »

quantumwoke wrote: post #448
memexy wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case it wasn't clear I will spell it out. That choice was not what was being contended. It was your behavior of bad faith actions that I was contending. You tried to bias the actual argument and paint me in a certain way by quoting me out of context, which I rightfully called out. I encourage people to read as well and reach their own conclusions without me putting words in their mouth or biasing their reasoning a…

FWIW: there is at least one HNer (me) who has read both subthreads and completely agrees with your assessment of the situation. 'mst is engaging in those time-honored tactics of the online troll - mischaracterise, redirect, disengage. Unfortunately these bad faith discussions are all too common recently and it's sad to see HN swallow the bait.

I am sorry that you consider genuine attempts to get real answers to be trolling with no explanation as to twhy.

I continue to stand by my choice to invite people to read the entire thread and draw their own conclusions.

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

#468

Post by Manfredo_1 »

memexy wrote: post #464
Manfredo_1 wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing I'd put in an email that I can't put in a comment here. The only reason why you'd want me to respond via email is so that your responses wouldn't be public for other people to see. If you want a longer format, I'm willing to break this whole conversation down step by step. * Originally you claimed that Scott was being uncivil by directing people to share their feedback on the situation with the New Yo…

> The only reason why you'd want me to respond via email is so that your responses wouldn't be public for other people to see. If you want a longer format, I'm willing to break this whole conversation down step by step. I have no fear of public scrutiny. My actions have clearly demonstrated that because I have engaged everyone that has contacted me in good faith but I have not received the same treatment so I'm getti…

Great, you can start by addressing the points raised in the previous comment. They did indeed include specific arguments with quotes from you.

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

#469

Post by Frampy »

mst wrote: post #389
Frampy wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren't missing anything, there is no logic here, only ideology.

I choose to extend the same assumption of good faith and principle of charity that I believe Scott would. It would feel, to me, inappropriate to do otherwise while defending him.

I will defend anyone who wants to speak and discuss things openly, but I will do so according to my principles, not theirs, and there is no hypocrisy in doing so. If you would defend a Christian's or Muslim's right to their beliefs without giving away all your possessions or travelling to Mecca then you are in the same boat. The values I would hold in a perfect world can be impediments in this one, especially when they are used to push orthogonal values.

More importantly though, I like Scott, but I think he is preposterously naive and friendly to a fault. And I think that has been weaponised against him countless times in the past, and is being weaponised against him now. And nothing makes me angrier than seeing friendly, charitable people being taken down by the vindictive and unscrupulous.

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

#470

Post by thu2111 »

zozbot234 wrote: post #374
sangnoir wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "War against the media" is outlined towards the end of the article. When Bay area "thought-leaders" are calling for the blacklisting of reporters and replacing traditional media as a whole, "war" doesn't sound like hyperbole to me.

AIUI, they're calling for individual non-cooperation with unethical reporters. There may be a broader "war" between SV and elite media, but it's not clear that the SSC affair has much to do with it beyond possibly being a case of elite media behaving unethically, and (quite uniquely, all things considered) being held accountable for that.

No, there's a pretty clear call for SSC readers to just not work with anyone from the NYT in future. It's not about individual journalists - at any rate Cade Metz doesn't have a bad reputation and appears to believe his actions are constrained by corporate policy, rather than being his own choice.

I myself have been the (cooperative) subject of a bio piece that landed on the front page of the international edition of the NYT in the past, and notified them that if they go ahead and wreck SSC then I won't work with them again on stories. By myself this is unlikely to have much impact: yes, I've been more than a reader for them but also a story, on the other hand, that only happened once. I'm not appearing in the NYT every week.

The NYT can fix this very easily; promise Alexander their story won't include details about his real life. Then he'll bring back his blog, the NYT will get their story, and everyone is fine.

Obviously the New Yorker managed this feat of journalistic integrity, so none of the NYT's excuses for why they "can't" do it add up. I feel they've led directly to the destruction of a highly valuable resource for no reason at all, it's not a hard decision to say "no" if and when their journalists come calling again.

Post reply on HN