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

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#921

Post by kerkeslager »

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 agree with you that we should focus on the doxxing, not his reasons for staying anonymous. As far as I'm concerned, people don't need a reason to want to be anonymous.

But I think cancel culture is still relevant because it very well may be why the NYT was threatening to dox him.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#922

Post by ksdale »

newacct583 wrote: post #913
ksdale wrote: post #884

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His real identity is not particularly hard to find, and as far as I know, he is actually just a psychiatrist and the author of SSC (among other things).

That assertion seems rather at odds with "NYT Is Threatening My Safety By Revealing My Real Name", doesn't it? Again, the idea that journalists routinely burn their sources as a matter of course is clearly wrong. Source anonymity is inviolate, especially at the level of papers like the Times. They just don't do what is being alleged here. If they want to tell us who he is, it's because his identity IS the story.

He has fairly good reasons for caring about the distinction between “possible to discover” and “connected to the blog via the NYT”.

The story that does or doesn’t get published will tell us how central his identity is, I suppose!

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#923

Post by kerkeslager »

derefr wrote: post #727
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 affecti…

This is pretty true on Hacker News. I engaged with the post as if I were in a conversation with the original author, not by posting here, but by sending an email to the original author.

I can't help but think that this effect isn't what I want from this community, however. I want reasoned discussion that helps me to see issues from various points of view, but instead I get a bunch of uninformed opinions from people who didn't even read the thing they're opining on.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#924

Post by doubleunplussed »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #576
randompwd wrote: post #336

Geez, patio11 was sure quick to jump in with nonsense: https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1275346993296969730 > I feel like Slate Star Codex and the NYT are coming at each other from a substantial expectations gap regarding risk management. > The culture of participating under one’s own name is normative for much of the professional class but not all of it. Maybe stop trying to explain away that which is unabated shi…

Agreed. This feels similar to how armchair security experts will tweet about bad opsec every time someone is identified. Obviously, Scott didn’t expect the blog to be so big or his anonymity to be such and issue when he started using his real first and middle names. It’s self-congratulatory to imagine that you would have made a different decision given the full benefit of hindsight. It’s not like Scott could go back…

> Obviously, Scott didn’t expect the blog to be so big or his anonymity to be such and issue when he started using his real first and middle names

He definitely did. Slatestarcodex was started to replace his old blog which was not anonymous and was becoming too popular for him to be comfortable with that, especially with his career starting to take-off. The old blog linked to the new one briefly to allow current readership to migrate, and then cut ties. That's why I know his real name. Perhaps he didn't expect it to be quite that big, but it being too big to be linked to his real name was part of the equation when he chose to use his first and middle names.

First and middle names are hardly better for tracking someone down than than first names only, since middle names aren't really used anywhere except very official things. Unless you have access to some official database that contains addresses and middle names or something (hey, isn't this what phone books used to be?), the middle name doesn't really add much IMHO.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#925

Post by doubleunplussed »

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…

It might not be a natural right, but it sure is a good protection against the potentially very destructive consequences of groupthink.

Is democracy a natural right? Either way, notice how the voting is secret. That's a feature, not a bug.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#926

Post by asdfk-12 »

When political figures name specific media as being the 'enemy of the people', what seemed absurd rings true in this instance. So much insight, perspective and open discussion going away here. It's sad. This blog was a beacon to many, and I will surely miss it.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#927

Post by patio11 »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #576
randompwd wrote: post #336

Geez, patio11 was sure quick to jump in with nonsense: https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1275346993296969730 > I feel like Slate Star Codex and the NYT are coming at each other from a substantial expectations gap regarding risk management. > The culture of participating under one’s own name is normative for much of the professional class but not all of it. Maybe stop trying to explain away that which is unabated shi…

Agreed. This feels similar to how armchair security experts will tweet about bad opsec every time someone is identified. Obviously, Scott didn’t expect the blog to be so big or his anonymity to be such and issue when he started using his real first and middle names. It’s self-congratulatory to imagine that you would have made a different decision given the full benefit of hindsight. It’s not like Scott could go back…

My point was demonstrating that there are broadly accepted professional situations where even quite public people operate under pseudonyms due to perceived risk of harm, in a way which is probably not legible to the news media.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#928

Post by teachrdan »

blaser-waffle wrote: post #806
computerphage wrote: post #803

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I'm surprised. This doesn't look like getting cancelled for being edgy. There's no mob that I can see pushing to doxx him. It looks to me more like the reporter decided that Scott's refusal to use his real last name was a weird request, not a legitimate security concern for his patients and himself. The reporter just doesn't get it. It's not like it adds to the story. Every on the internet knows Scott as "S…

> The reporter just doesn't get it. Full-time reporters don't get why a source might not want to be named? Dude that's a high-school level journalism discussion. If you're a full-timer at the NYT you get why, and are either complying with a corporate policy or grinding a political axe.

In this context, he's not a "source"--he's the subject of an article. Using the subject's full name is one way to prove to your readers that you're writing about who you claim you're writing about.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#929

Post by a9h74j »

yters wrote: post #504
raxxorrax wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This self censorship is most often meant when someone criticizes political correctness. It doesn't mean that you should unnecessarily put people off with inflammatory language. But I think it could still get you fired if posted on Twitter, at least a few years ago. Some people with especially large incomes seem to be immune though.

Hah, yes, like JK Rowling! If you are a self made billionaire, you are pretty immune from the twitter mobs, and can make controversial statements such as "there are only two genders."

I question your use of quote marks there. AFAIK she is being much more precise in referring to biological sex.
Post reply on HN