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

I Am Deleting the Blog

slatestarcodex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

721–730 of 1001 posts

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#721

Post by malwarebytess »

I've been reading this guy off and on since he was Yvain on Less Wrong.

This is a really fucking strange place to take a stand when his name has been public knowledge for...almost forever. The guy physically meets people at conventions and the like and introduces himself with his full name. It's been less of a secret than who The Stig (top gear) is. NYT may or may not be doing a big wrong here, but it's a fruitless act by [insert name here] given that his name always already public.

Strangely emotional though he claims it's out of fear for his safety (which would have already been compromised.)

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#722

Post by wutbrodo »

gwbas1c wrote: post #659
alecbenzer wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implication being that the NYT wants to use real names to drive clicks and appease advertisers?

I think it's best to hear from NYT about why they strictly only use real names.

The policy doesn't even seem to be very consistently applied. There are a couple excerpts from articles floating around that happily use pseudonyms for, eg, one of the Chapo podcast hosts.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#723

Post by [deleted] »

kerkeslager wrote: post #543

Damn. I've been reading Slate Star Codex for a long time, and he's always been one of the most insightful voices on the internet. I'm really sorry to see him go. After reading this, I looked up NYT's policy of using real names, and it turns out this isn't the worst time that the NY Times has done this[1]. I've long said that if you want to know who an organization serves, see where its money comes from. The NY Times…

[deleted]

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#725

Post by catacombs »

crazypython wrote: post #707
catacombs wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The implication being that the NYT wants to use real names to drive clicks and appease advertisers? This shows a lack of how journalism works. Using real names isn't to "drive clicks" and "appease advertisers." It's to add credibility to a story. Think about it: Does a furniture business advertising in the local paper care whether the victim of a shooting is named in a piece? Sure, the owner might know the victim,…

Well, in that case, the journalists should adapt and give credibility through pseudonymity.

Which is possible through the use of other sources. But it depends on the situation. A pseudonym is appropriate for victims of sex crimes and exploitation.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#726

Post by FBT »

kerkeslager wrote: post #580

Some highlights of Slate Star Codex over the years (I'm missing archives for two of these, and I'd appreciate anyone linking to archives if you have them): Mediations on Moloch: https://web.archive.org/web/20200516181754/https://slatestar... I Can Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup: https://web.archive.org/web/20200516181754/https://slatestar... Proving too Much: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/13/proving-too-m…

Proving Too Much: https://archive.md/M1XHf

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#727

Post by derefr »

mshron wrote: post #642

I am genuinely baffled how Scott Alexander's post has turned into hundreds and hundreds of comments on cancel culture, as if it was anything near the #1 reason why he'd be in danger if his name was revealed. Being famous is dangerous in every era, doubly so in an era where anybody unhinged basically has access to the same level of information you used to need a private investigator to get. Tim Ferris said it well: "T…

> I am genuinely baffled how Scott Alexander's post has turned into hundreds and hundreds of comments on cancel culture, as if it was anything near the #1 reason why he'd be in danger if his name was revealed.

People in comments sections (doesn’t matter which) don’t really “react to” or “engage with” the article very often. What they’re really doing is being reminded by the article of some thought that’s been affecting them in their own lives lately—which they then hold forth about. Sometimes the tangential thought can be supported by quoting the article (either literally, or in rebuttal); but this is still different from engaging with the article itself, per se.

For most people, the article is grist for the idea-mill of their own “blogging”, which they happen to do in the form of a comment. (Heck, that’s what I’m doing right now, to your comment!)

People who genuinely respond to a post as if they were in conversation with the original author are few and far between, and tend to put their responses on professional blogs rather than comments sections. (Which is funny, because "comments sections" are nominally for engaging with the post. We've all become very mixed up somehow.)

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#728

Post by jerkstate »

catacombs wrote: post #673
gwbas1c wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's best to hear from NYT about why they strictly only use real names.

Factual accuracy is the cornerstone of the profession. In reporting out a story, it is the journalist's responsibility to obtain factual and verifiable information. People are the center of the story, and using their real names adds credibility to the story. Now, there are circumstances where reporters use pseudonyms for sources -- mainly to protect victims of sex crimes -- or anonymous sources entirely. The latter i…

NYT frequently uses anonymous sources, even in cases where it doesn't seem to be necessary. Search for "sources familiar with the matter" +site:nytimes.com for dozens of examples per month.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#729

Post by hackissimo123 »

johan_larson wrote: post #593
syshum wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the biggest problems in modern society is the lack of respect for privacy and anonymous speech. anonymous speech has been a cornerstone of the advancement of civilization many times through out history including playing a critical role in the formation of the United States as well as the US Constitution Your belief that a person should be disallowed anonymity simply because they created a popular blog is crazy…

Anonymity is not some sort of natural right. For most of our existence as a species, we lived in small groups where you quite naturally knew everyone you dealt with. True strangers were rare, and quite rightly regarded with a certain suspicion. Anonymity only became possible when we started living in groups large enough that you might have to deal with people you hadn't met before, because there were just too many pe…

The examples you give at the end aren't remotely comparable to Scott's situation. Success in the film or music industries is synonymous with fame; it would be absurd to pursue a career in either while expecting to preserve your anonymity. You can't compare these career paths to "blogger who already has a successful career elsewhere, writing pseudonymously in his spare time to a niche, nerdy audience."

If you want to use Wikipedia as the gold standard, check out Wikipedia's own policies regarding privacy of article subjects. E.g.: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_livin...

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#730

Post by Nasrudith »

catacombs wrote: post #676
alecbenzer wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implication being that the NYT wants to use real names to drive clicks and appease advertisers?

> The implication being that the NYT wants to use real names to drive clicks and appease advertisers? This shows a lack of how journalism works. Using real names isn't to "drive clicks" and "appease advertisers." It's to add credibility to a story. Think about it: Does a furniture business advertising in the local paper care whether the victim of a shooting is named in a piece? Sure, the owner might know the victim,…

It is a pretty damn dubious measure of credibility and it has already failed when suggested for civility.

I am honestly starting to think real name policies are just about hating anominity at this point.

Post reply on HN