I Am Deleting the Blog - <AUTHOR> https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/22/nyt-is-threatening-my-safety-by-revealing-my-real-name-so-i-am-deleting-the-blog/ <comment><USER5> 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 gets 60% of its money from subscriptions, but it also gets 30% of its money from advertisers[2]. Keep in mind that subscribers can be hard to court, and losing one advertiser is a bigger chunk of money, so the NY Times is likely to be disproportionately influenced by the 30% of their income that comes from advertisers.

We're better off with organizations who receive their money from donations. I have been constantly impressed with the reporting of Mother Jones[3] and ProPublica[4] and would encourage you to both read and donate.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/sep/26/new-york- times...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/sep/26/new-york-times-trump- ukraine-whistleblower-published)

[2] [https://dashboards.trefis.com/no-login- required/5gNimvTR/New...](https://dashboards.trefis.com/no-login- required/5gNimvTR/New-York-Times-Revenues-How-Does-New-York-Times-Make-Money-)

[3] [https://www.motherjones.com/](https://www.motherjones.com/)

[4] [https://www.propublica.org/](https://www.propublica.org/)

<comment><USER6> The implication being that the NYT wants to use real names to drive clicks and appease advertisers?

<comment><USER7> > 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, but that doesn't mean the business will determine its expenditures based on names.

<comment><USER8> 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.

<comment><USER7> If you value your privacy, don't speak to reporters and take every protection to protect your identity. This thinking goes from the basement dweller to the billionaire.

However, if your information is revealed, don't be shocked when someone approaches you with that information because you didn't cover your tracks.

<comment><USER9> We're not surprised, we're just disappointed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> 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: "The point is this: you don't need to do anything wrong to get death threats, rape threats, etc. You just need a big enough audience." [0]

The focus should be on the Times threatening to out him for no good reason, not his personal reasons for wanting to stay anonymous.

[0] [https://tim.blog/2020/02/02/reasons-to-not-become- famous/](https://tim.blog/2020/02/02/reasons-to-not-become-famous/)

<comment><USER11> > 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.)

<comment><USER5> 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.

<comment><USER12> > 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.

Some of the absolute best discussions I've read and sometimes participated in on HN have been tangents or inconsequential to the article they were attached to. I would miss those types of discussion sorely if they were gone.

There are tools to help manage this though. You can collapse comment threads, and if you find a particular vein of discussion not really to your liking, I suggest doing that so you can focus on what you do enjoy (and others can do the same, even if the items they read and ignore are entirely different than yours).

Personally, since these comments aren't the comments of the article in question (usually. Sometimes they just refer you here!), I think of it less as comments to the author when posting here, and more like a discussion in a group examining that article. Sort of like a book group, where people splinter into subgroups to have discussions that interest them, and even those that failed to read the book might find a place to contribute.

<comment><USER5> > Personally, since these comments aren't the comments of the article in > question (usually. Sometimes they just refer you here!), I think of it less > as comments to the author when posting here, and more like a discussion in a > group examining that article.

But that's exactly _not_ what they are: you can't examine an article without reading it, and in many cases it's blatantly obvious that commenters didn't read the article.

I'm fine with tangents, it's the on-topic ignorance that bothers me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It doesn't take too much imagination to see how easy it would be to write a hit piece.

Scott writes eloquently and in depth, but the news is not about either of those things. Scott has written a few times about problematic issues which have surfaced in recent months and it would be very easy to write "some people say that Scott is ${label}" with just a bit of superficial quotes. Today's climate of online mob justice in partnership with click bait news would not go well for Scott at all.

<comment><USER14> The anti-out-of-context-quote-hit-piece-insurance that Sam Harris went to in his recent podcast on police violence etc was insane. I fully understand why, he's been burned by the Twitter mob before, but it's eye-opening to the media- induced reasonable paranoia some "public" people will go through when there's basically three paragraphs of "I'm not saying this is the one and only truth, I believe in equality, justice..." for every one paragraph of stats or opinion they post.

It has a very religious witch hunt feel where you constantly need to assure everybody that you are totally not a member of the out-group and you believe in the same things they do and you really are not possessed by the devil and they really shouldn't burn you, but they may have gotten something a _tiny_ bit wrong in their, of course totally justified, blind rage.

<comment><USER15> it has the feel of the religious witch hunt because that is exactly what is has become. Many of these groups no longer look at data or science or any empirical evidence for the basis of their positions or policy, it is pure emotional dogma at this point. They are non-theistic religions

<comment><USER16> Scott's "Meditations on Moloch" is a good summary of the underlying issue. It's too bad I can't provide a link.

<comment><USER17> [http://archive.is/FY1BJ](http://archive.is/FY1BJ)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Reading this made me think of two essays I've recently revisited.

1\. The Sound of Silence, by Jessica Livingston

Three years ago she argued that the smartest people are silencing themselves because the downside risk of being attacked for (misinterpretations of) their opinions are too high. People are wary of sharing useful information outside of trusted circles, which serves to consolidate power with insiders – those who are already powerful.

2\. What You Can't Say, by Paul Graham

Reflection on how to separate truths that will endure from "moral fashions" particular to a time and place in history. Written over 15 years ago and more relevant today.

> What scares me is that there are moral fashions too. They're just as > arbitrary, and just as invisible to most people. But they're much more > dangerous. Fashion is mistaken for good design; moral fashion is mistaken > for good. Dressing oddly gets you laughed at. Violating moral fashions can > get you fired, ostracized, imprisoned, or even killed.

[1] [https://foundersatwork.posthaven.com/the-sound-of- silence](https://foundersatwork.posthaven.com/the-sound-of-silence) [2] [http://paulgraham.com/say.html](http://paulgraham.com/say.html)

<comment><USER19> I'd say this forum is exactly this. How often have I self censored because I just don't want the downvotes?

<comment><USER20> I read somewhere that downvotes are capped to -4 and it made me much less likely to self-censor when I felt like I had a valid point.

I know that the people who disagree with me outnumber those that agree, but the way that the upvotes bounce up and down tells me there are more people out there that agree with me than I would have assumed.

(Plus I think I've only made it down to -4 once or twice)

<comment><USER21> There have been many times when I wanted to use my upvoting ability to unhide a comment that has some merit. To that end, I wish I could see the precise score of downvoted comments. (IIRC, a net score of -1 prevents a majority of HN readers from seeing the comment.)

<comment><USER22> ? -1 score greys out a comment, nothing more

<comment><USER21> Hmm, I seem to recall comments being entirely suppressed from view on reaching some threshold, thought it was -1...

<comment><USER23> Definitely not. The only comments that are hidden by default are the [dead] ones, and anyone can see them by turning 'showdead' on in their profile. Outright deletion is possible, but only for a few hours, or if the author specifically asks us to later. There have been a handful of exceptions in obscure cases over the years, mostly for legal reasons.

Btw, for anyone who has trouble reading a faded comment, you can click on its timestamp to go to its page and the text should be readable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I've seen a lot of criticism for the NYT as of late, and, sadly, it's almost all been warranted upon inspection.

I'm not sure if it's a case of the top dog getting all the scrutiny, but it's crazy to me how a company with so many good journalists can seem to have so many bad.

Much criticism is not even new (Manufactured Consent, Judith Miller).

<comment><USER25> The problem is in who owns the mass media.

Newspapers are bankrupt, specially the NYT,that earns more money in real state(newspapers own properties in the center of cities that are very expensive) than with journalism.

Newspapers gold days are long gone.

So when someone buys it, it is not for making good journalism but for buying a propaganda channel for the owner's own interest.

The good journalist do not matter, if they say anything that the owner does not approve they are instantly fired. So they auto censor themselves.

Journalist are people too, they have families that need shelter and food. Being independent usually means almost starving. Young idealistic single people usually do that until they pick the comfortable alternative.

<comment><USER26> > specially the NYT,that earns more money in real state

This is verifiably untrue. As a public company, their balance sheets are public, and almost 90% of their revenue is accounted for by subscriptions and advertising.

[https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/71691/000007...](https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/71691/000007169120000009/nyt329202010-qdocument.htm)

<comment><USER27> That's true now because they sold their headquarters. But in fact they earned more from that sale than they had in many prior years of operations combined. So the essence of the comment was spot on in the case of the NYT.

<comment><USER28> Wouldn't that be kind of like saying that I'm a real estate baron instead of a Software Developer, because I own a house that is worth many years of my salary as a software developer combined?

I haven't looked at the NYT balance sheets at all recently, so it's possible that I'm off the mark here, but a one time sale of a headquarters does not make them a real-estate company in my mind. To do that, you would need to demonstrate to me that they are regularly engaging in the transaction of property and buildings, instead of a one time sale.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Seeing all this negative press about NYT (their website's weird trackers) and spotting increasingly more propaganda articles in their editorial section in the recent past, I am now going to stop my NYT subscription.

The last thing they deserve is my money.

<comment><USER30> Same here, I'm trying to cancel now and they actually don't have a one click to stop the subscription.

<comment><USER31> Other comments on this thread are suggesting switching the mode of payment to PayPal which let's you cancel instantly. Or credit card chargebacks if you can document that you exhausted reasonable efforts to ask NYT to cancel the subscription

<comment><USER32> You can also use privacy.com to create virtual credit cards that'll allow you to block transactions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'm sorry Scott has decided to shut down his blog. He posted many interesting things over the years, and the community of commenters that clustered in the blog's open threads was usually a joy to deal with. I was part of that for years. I'm sorry to see it go.

That said, this decision to shut down the blog looks like an overreaction to me. Scott seems to think that he should be able to be both a prominent online pundit, on the one hand, and completely anonymous, on the other. That just isn't realistic. If you're someone who matters, people are going to want to know who you are. And there are people who make it their business to uncover such information.

A part of being famous is a certain level of unwelcome attention. It's not just the good and kind that pay attention to you. It's the weird and threatening too. This should not be news to anybody. It seems to me Scott got his first brush with real fame (in the form of an article by a top newspaper), and discovered that even a modest helping of it was was more than he was willing to deal with.

Goodbye SSC. It was good while it lasted.

<comment><USER34> > That said, this decision to shut down the blog looks like an overreaction to > me

On the contrary, it's the perfect move. It forces the hand of the journalist, who will then have to mention that inconvenient fact. "BTW the thing this article is about does not exist any more because of this article."

<comment><USER35> I think that's a very good point. If that reporter takes the story to their editor, what's it going to sound like?

R: So, this article is about a blog and the person that writes it...

E: Ok, cool, why can't I find the blog?

R: Err... it doesn't exist anymore

E: Why not?

R: Because I doxx the author in this article.

If you were an editor, would you publish that? The subject of the story no longer exists, so the story is less interesting, _and_ you come off looking like an asshole.

I think any reasonable editor, would either not publish the story, or not publish the name. Seems like a great move to me.

<comment><USER35> I just reread my point and think it only makes sense in the context of a positive article. If it's a hit piece, it probably works against him.

<comment><USER36> There is a third possibility, a negative and factual article.

<comment><USER35> Granted and noted, I could have been more neutral than referring to a negative article as a hit piece, which as you point out implies that it misrepresents facts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This is exactly why people are losing faith in journalists and the media in general. NYT has been going downhill for a while now so this is not surprising. It's not the doxxing itself, but it's the hypocrisy. I'm willing to bet that the same person would not hesitate to call out anyone else of a differing opinion (especially politically) on how wrong doxxing is.

</comment><comment><USER38> I've cancelled my NY Times subscription and encourage everyone here to do the same.

<comment><USER39> Please contact them and clearly state why you are doing it. Enough people contacting them can change the editor's mind.

<comment><USER40> You HAVE to contact them to cancel, there's no way to do it without talking to a human that I can find.

<comment><USER41> Been there. To cancel the New York Times digital subscription, send an email to email@example.com. You'll get a special offer, ignore that and you'll be unsubscribed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Remember when Newsweek found this random guy named Dorian Nakamoto and told the world that he was Satoshi Nakamoto, creator of Bitcoin? They were almost certainly wrong and the guy got harassed for years.

</comment><comment><USER43> I've also been reading SSC for a long time. I'm sad, but honestly, who's surprised? I mean, he defended Steven Hsu the other day for being on the wrong side of the whole "race/IQ differences" thing, despite having written probably a dozen essays over the years about the phenomenon of prominent people losing their jobs for being on the wrong side of the race/IQ differences thing.

Scott's had a pretty amazing run of being able to write edgy-enough-to- possibly-get-you-cancelled essays on the internet without getting cancelled, and on a personal level I've found him to be extremely kind and thoughtful and I wish this weren't happening to him, but at the same time it seems as inevitable as the flooding of a house built on low ground.

<comment><USER44> 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 "Scott Alexander". I didn't even know it wasn't his real last name until today. It just seems so cruel to insist on doing this to Scott when I can't see any good reason to do it.

<comment> blaser-waffle > 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.

<comment><USER45> 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.

<comment> radford-neal But it doesn't prove any such thing. He's writing about "Scott Alexander". All discussion of SSC that you will encounter will refer to "Scott Alexander". Claiming that "Scott Alexander" is really "Scott Somebodyorother" does not enhance the credibility of the article in the least. Rather the reverse, since it would make one wonder about the objectivity of the reporter if they for no reason cause massive damage to their subject, and his patients.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> It took me quite some time to get through, but I DID call the New York Times to cancel my membership and share the following note: [https://www.mcherm.com/journalistic- ethics.html](https://www.mcherm.com/journalistic-ethics.html)

Interestingly, the person I reached was initially engaging with me but when I began to describe the reason for cancelling my account he sighed and said, "Oh, That." Clearly I was far from the first person to raise the issue today.

</comment><comment><USER47> Geez, patio11 was sure quick to jump in with nonsense:

[https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1275346993296969730](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 shitty behaviour by the reporter.

<comment><USER48> 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 and change his online name to something more anonymous after the blog became more popular.

> In the financial industry we get around that most commonly by giving people > "desk names." If you've called and spoken to Sarah Smith, you are very > likely not speaking to someone who answers to Sarah or Smith outside of > work.

His Tweetstorm is a long-winded way of saying "Scott should have used a completely fake name instead of a partially fake name." That's not really a guarantee that his real name wouldn't have been discover. It's also missing the point of the issue.

<comment><USER49> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> 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.)

<comment><USER51> That seems covered by this paragraph:

"Some people want to kill me or ruin my life, and I would prefer not to make it too easy. I've received various death threats. I had someone on an anti- psychiatry subreddit put out a bounty for any information that could take me down (the mods deleted the post quickly, which I am grateful for). I've had dissatisfied blog readers call my work pretending to be dissatisfied patients in order to get me fired. And I recently learned that someone on SSC got SWATted in a way that they link to using their real name on the blog. I live with ten housemates including a three-year-old and an infant, and I would prefer this not happen to me or to them. Although I realize I accept some risk of this just by writing a blog with imperfect anonymity, getting doxxed on national news would take it to another level."

Do you feel that that addresses your concerns? It seems reasonable to predict that he'd have more of those safety problems if the number of people who know his real name increases by 2+ orders of magnitude, and if it appears prominently on a website with a high rank on Google.

<comment><USER52> > Do you feel that that addresses your concerns?

Many of the responses critical of his decision seem to read as "Here's reason X that his decision is non-sensical, and I didn't read the actual link where he clearly and reasonably addresses reason X."

<comment><USER50> That's pretty dismissive. I read what he said. I was not convinced. For him, this is an illogical, emotional, and disingenuous move. I fully believe this is about a personal slight by the reporter, who did not accede to his request.

He's taking his ball home.

<comment><USER53> I'd say the dismissiveness is well warranted since you are impugning Scott's motives without justifying yourself, or any of your claims. If you make poor faith assumptions about others, you can hardly complain when others are dismissive of what your write.

<comment><USER50> I think I've justified my opinion well enough. And I still hold it.

I'm not concerned with people dismissing what I say on its merit, only presuming that because I wasn't convinced by his explanation that I hadn't read it which is dismissive.

<comment><USER54> You said because he meets people in real life and gives his real name, he should have no problem with any person with the ability to read the NYT being able to connect the dots through the article between his employment and his personal ideas on his blog.

His meatspace introductions necessarily have an upper limit, but the Internet will instantly and concurrently bring down the law of large numbers upon him, where every whack job sharing every dumb FB post about how he's evil will have an opportunity to ruin his life, his and his employer's work, the patients that depend on them, and/or the lives of his cohabitants in all the same ways.

As someone who knows people who work in mental health I can assure you there are many security vectors available once someone's real identity hits the internet and social media. I'm talking about patients who are in hiding from pimps, abusive family or significant others.

It's no different than using HTTPS or CORS to mitigate security threats. You're essentially saying that since my acquaintances in mental health go to a therapy conference or a trivia night at the bar, that their personal lives should be exposed to the entire world in perpetuity. You're essentially saying that any SaaS should leave their ports open to the world for every scanner and scammer to exploit.

<comment><USER50> Nope, you just lack information. His "real life divergences" are in the context of his blog at events relevant to his blog. He hasn't been shy. If he was concerned, truly, then he could have protected himself more thoroughly by being careful. Moreover, the information is already out there. Anyone sufficiently motivated to get him will find his information. Whether it's widely publicized or not makes no difference, except in that he may face personal scrutiny for his heterodox opinions. Him framing this in the context of personal safety is where he's full of it.

<comment><USER54> I just responded to this same notion in another comment thread [0], and I don't want to spam the discussion, so I'll quote part of it and link to it:

> There's a difference between being able to easily find an answer, and > knowing which question to ask.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23620455](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23620455)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> If you're pissed off by this, as I am, here's how the author politely suggests that you direct your support:

> There is no comments section for this post. The appropriate comments section > is the feedback page of the New York Times. You may also want to email the > New York Times technology editor Pui-Wing Tam at firstname.lastname@example.com, > contact her on Twitter at @puiwingtam, or phone the New York Times at > 844-NYTNEWS

> (please be polite – I don't know if Ms. Tam was personally involved in this > decision, and whoever is stuck answering feedback forms definitely wasn't. > Remember that you are representing me and the SSC community, and I will be > very sad if you are a jerk to anybody. Please just explain the situation and > ask them to stop doxxing random bloggers for clicks.)

<comment><USER56> Sorry for the unrelated question, but I'm not from the US and I'm curious, what does this mean?

844-NYTNEWS

Do landlines phones have letters in the US? Is it pressing a number several times?

And also mentioning that I'm grateful for SSC to exist. I rarely comment but it's a refreshing community.

<comment><USER57>
          1  |  2  |  3
             | ABC | DEF
        -----|-----|-----
          4  |  5  |  6
         GHI | JKL | MNO
        -----|-----|-----
          7  |  8  |  9
        PQRS | TUV | WXYZ
        -----|-----|-----
          *  |  0  |  #
             |  +  |

Now 0800-INFO becomes 0800-4636 — you just press the key corresponding to the letter once.

<comment><USER58> Your chart isn't quite right— Q and Z aren't (or weren't) generally present: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_number#/media/File...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_number#/media/File%3ATelephone- annees-60-p1010020.jpg)

<comment><USER36> They were generally present beginning in the 1980s. The phone you linked is from the 1960s. The layout with Q and Z was standardized by ITU-T in 1988 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.161](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.161)

Earlier in time the letter "O" was also not generally on phone keypads.

<comment><USER58> According to your link, Q and Z were officially added sometime in the 1990's, in a later revision. That puts the official change well into my childhood, which explains my out-of-date information; I didn't put much effort into researching my comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Unfortunate, for sure. The NYT has no real reason to post his name (as far as I'm aware--the tone of the article could affect that conclusion), so I'm not really sure why they'd dig their heels in here.

Though, he _really_ does post a _lot_ of personal and identifying information on his blog--literally any motivated party could find his name very easily. I thought "maybe he doesn't want his real name to link to his blog if a patient googles it"\--but, it already does that. In fact, it's a suggested search in google!

Ultimately though, in some respect, I do think Scott's trying to have his cake and eat it too a bit here. I think when he starts trying to influence certain events in the real world; eg. like his Signal Boosting for Hsu to give an example within the last week, where he takes umbrage against the Grad student organization at MSU to drum up support in defense of Prof. Hsu--whether or not you agree with Hsu or you agree with the graduate students at MSU, Scott is decidedly an outsider attempting to exert his influence. People have mentioned that these sorts of actions legitimize the "fair play" of the NYT revealing his real identity, and I'm having a hard time finding umbrage with that statement.

I don't think the NYT should post his full name but I also do think Scott has been playing fast and loose; both with revelatory facts about his identity and by putting himself in situations where there are legitimate reasons for blog- outsiders to inquire about his real identity. Hopefully there will be an amicable end to this conflict.

<comment><USER60> >I thought "maybe he doesn't want his real name to link to his blog if a patient googles it"\--but, it already does that. In fact, it's a suggested search in google!

That's not true. I just searched his real name and I get results about him but none of them are SSC-related at least on the first pages. Maybe your customized results lead to that or maybe you are including Scott Alexander or SSC in the search - either way most patients googling him wouldn't see SSC at all.

<comment><USER61> If I click on the first google image result from a search for his real name in an "incognito" window, I see plenty of stuff about SSC and rationalists [https://i.imgur.com/0hWxzp3.png](https://i.imgur.com/0hWxzp3.png)

<comment><USER60> An image of EY is hardly something that will alert your average patient. They'll just think it's an irrelevant result like a bunch of the other stuff that shows up. I do admit, if you are already familiar with the rationalist community, you will figure it out based on that. Anyway, that takes more leaps than the top result being an article from the NYT about SSC.

On 'All' I at least get 0 rationalist results or autocompletes with his name. I do get them if I google Scott Alexander <LastName> but he doesn't feature Alexander in the professional results and I doubt patients know that's his middle name.

<comment><USER61> There are links below the pictures which I edited out, to very critical posts with both his real name and his pseudonym

<comment><USER62> Patients don't know his middle name. Very few people know each others' middle names unless they are looking at official documents on someone.

If you just google Scott $LASTNAME, there is only one reference to his writings as Scott Alexander, and it is not linkable to the blog, doesn't call him Scott Alexander, and is merely praise of prediction markets being quoted by Robin Hanson. Given there are a few others out there who share his first name and last name, who come up in the search results (some graphic designer for example), this is plausibly not even him. It won't raise any eyebrows at all if a patient googles him.

One thing that's more concerning is the number of people intentionally doxxing him on Twitter today. I'm reporting comments there, and Twitter seems to not come up in Google searches, but a search for Scott's real name on Twitter right now returns results where people are saying some pretty nasty things about him.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> I have been reading Slate Star Codex for a long time and consider it a source of many great texts, but i do not really get this step from Scott Alexander.

Term 'doxxing' is a loaded term that may describe both revealing private information and revealing personal information researchable from public sources. While the former is condemnable, the later is more neutral and part of basic journalist work, especially if the exposed is a public persona.

Seems to me that for impartial third person it would look like a reporter wrote a neutral article about SSC mentioning authors name, SSC author overreacted and punished himself and its readers by removing the blog, and by Streissand effect much more people would know autors name now.

<comment> Paul-ish Doxxing is new term reflecting new online norms. This strikes me as a clash of internet culture and traditional newspaper culture.

<comment><USER64> Is it really just new online norms? As a German I am astonished that this is even legal, let alone journalistic norm.

Here in Germany a "right to informational self-determination" is legally well- established going back to a judgement in 1983 and journalists know that they have to weigh freedom of press and public interest against this right. I am pretty sure that what the times is doing in this case would actually be illegal here, if they cannot justify why public interest in knowing Scott's real name would outweigh his right to informational self-determination.

Does anybody know what the legal situation regarding doxxing is in the US?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> This is incredibly disheartening, I will miss the weekly reads - <USER2> position themselves as fighting the good fight for the truth. But increasingly just seems that in a world where there relevance is dropping fast they are willing to do anything for clicks. If you want to be the arbiters of truth perhaps start with a solid base of ethics.

</comment><comment><USER66> I had no idea The Last Psychiatrist stopped writing because he got doxxed. I enjoyed his blog and was sad it stopped updating.

<comment><USER67> psst: [https://hotelconcierge.tumblr.com/](https://hotelconcierge.tumblr.com/)

Might or might not be the same guy, but it's close enough to not matter.

<comment><USER68> Trying to make sense of this reminds me of reading monad tutorials. To dense with references (self- and otherwise) and analogy for me to make sense of.

It's definitely possible I'm just not smart enough to understand this, but how does one go about learning to comprehend stuff like this?

<comment><USER69> If you want to read Russian literature, you don't have to be Russian ('but it wouldn't hurt!'), you have to want to read Russian literature, i.e. learn the language and have sufficient interest in the material to seek out enough context to understand it.

Unless of course you simply want to be seen as the type of person who reads Russian literature, in which case thelastpsychiatrist.com is probably better for reading...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Anyone saying that it would be a non-issue because people could find out the information is they looked hard enough obviously haven't personally or had their friends/family subject to the Times' entirely unaccountable abuse of power and absence of ethics.

There is a big difference between something being buried where people with the interest and competence could go find it and it being put up in lights. Particularly when the lights are the bonfire of a hit piece.

<comment><USER71> "people could find out the information is they looked hard enough" is also ridiculous because, yeah, that's trivially true - the journalist already found the information.

<comment><USER54> I propose an experiment.

Create two separate web servers. Open both of their ports to the internet. Put a bitcoin on each one. Only publish the IP/URL to one of them on a website with millions of DAUs.

My hypothesis is the address you publish will see its bitcoin disappear more quickly than the other.

There's a difference between being able to easily find an answer, and knowing which question to ask. This is basically the entire point of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> I grew up in a tiny town in the Midwest, idolizing the NYT as representative of a NYC intellectual culture that was sorely lacking around me. I used to read the Sunday edition every week at Starbucks, which was something of a novelty for the area at the time.

It has been deeply disappointing to watch The Times devolve into a highly- partisan, clickbait, unprofessional shadow of their former self - the exact opposite of what we need a news organization to be in this day and age.

</comment><comment><USER73> Slate Star Codex is one of the most interesting blogs on the internet. If we doxx this voice, who do we doxx next?

</comment><comment><USER74> > He told me it would be a mostly positive piece about how we were an > interesting gathering place for people in tech, and how we were ahead of the > curve on some aspects of the coronavirus situation. It probably would have > been a very nice article. Unfortunately, he told me he had discovered my > real name and would reveal it in the article, ie doxx me. ... When I > expressed these fears to the reporter, he just said that me having enemies > was going to be part of the story. He added that "I have enemies too". > Perhaps if he was less flippant about destroying people's lives, he would > have fewer.

Wow. This is similar to Vice reporting on Naomi Wu and threatening to dox her while claiming to write a positive article about her: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Wu#Vice_article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Wu#Vice_article)

<comment><USER75> He could also name the NYT reporter.

<comment><USER76> I would like to know who the journalist is. Not so they can be threatened or put in danger. But so their reputation can take a hit. Part of the reason people do these things is because they can get away with it without any consequences.

<comment><USER77> The lead editors are responsible for maintaining ethical standards, and they represent the NYT. Adjust your impression of the NYT reputation based on this story. Also see the other comment on this article about Naomi Wu being doxxed, where the risk is deadly living under a tyrannical regime: the NYT hired the journalist responsible, who doesn't believe any mistake was made there.

<comment><USER76> It's just assumed in your comment that this should only be about the media outlet, and that we should ignore the journalist involved.

The problem with people trying to shut down others primarily comes from individuals. Often that's individuals on social media. In this case it's a journalist. These individuals can destroy other people's lives, yet they essentially face zero consequences for doing so.

And each time they succeed, like in this case, they embolden others to do it.

<comment><USER78> For twitter, you have a point. For something being paid for and published by an organization, this is driven by the organizational culture which pays them to do so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> I stopped trusting reporters about 35 years ago, when I personally witnessed an occurrence, where a reporter was at the scene, and later read what he had written about it in the newspaper.

It had practically nothing to do with what really happened, but was written in a way that most of their readers would most likely expect and endorse.

I was still very young then, but it opened my eyes, and from then on, I mostly stopped reading newspapers, and don't trust anything they write, without checking the facts.

<comment><USER80> Disengaging based on an N=1 is not the type of individual action that improves our society. Our society is built on individual (and collective) attempts to improve, and you putting your money towards journalists you found to be doing a good job is the way we leave the world better than we found it.

I hope you'll consider this, because our society cannot function without quality investigative reporting. I of course agree there are many kinds of people who call themselves journalists many of which don't improve our society. We must fight this battle, as we must fight every battle, because that's the only way things change for the better. Do not let cynicism win.

<comment><USER81> Also stopped reading any news and reports from big media about 3 years ago.

Just curious are there any independent investigation journalists that work on the patreon/subscription model? Would consider donation them rather than NYT or WSJ.

<comment><USER37> Exactly. The main problem is MSM with corporate money behind it. Getting things wrong is normal, getting things wrong intentionally (or recklessly) is malicious.

There are many. But they're difficult to find and get into. My favorite is [http://www.noagendashow.com/](http://www.noagendashow.com/).

<comment><USER26> > My favorite is [http://www.noagendashow.com/](http://www.noagendashow.com/).

Are they doing independent investigative journalism, though? I jumped around in the episode a bit and it just sounds like talk radio commentary/opinion that cites MSM sources.

<comment><USER37> It's more like media analysis I think. Both John and Adam take clips from main-stream/internet media and try to examine it. I think they do a very good job at that. There's a long donation segment because the show is produced by listeners. Sound effects and such started out as a joke but listeners like it, and almost everything around the show is done by the community, including the website, shownotes, and transcripts.

Adam was on Rogan in March. I recommend watching that episode.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaPKrZTUoUs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaPKrZTUoUs)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> dan-robertson Historically many well regarded news sources have had a public editor[1] or ombudsman who takes complaints from readers and looks into matters of ethics. It is the public editor of the New York Times whom one would ideally complain to about something like this.

The New York Times didn't have one for most of its history, though they had one from 2003 to 2017. Other cash-strapped newspapers have been removing or weakening the position too (eg the Washington post replaced their ombudsman position with a "readers' representative" position; the guardian have a public editor who spends most of their time on holiday). Some broadcasters (eg npr, pbs) do have public editors.

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_editor](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_editor)

<comment><USER82> "Cash-strapped" is a disingenuous way to describe them. The NYTimes is a $6 billion dollar media corporation with $800million in annual recurring revenue, and the Washington Post is owned by the richest man on the planet, whose company is currently worth 1.3 TRILLION dollars.

Neither of them can afford 200k a year for either a public editor or ombudsman?

<comment> dan-robertson There are many newspapers that do not have as much money as the New York Times or Washington post, and many of them struggle with tight margins.

It also seems likely that there would be other costs than the salary of a public editor: typically they would have a column which costs space on paper and the results of the editor's opinions on ethics could increase other costs for the paper (higher standards, more discarded stories, being slower to print because of higher standards, possibly higher employee turnover or hiring difficulties or exposure to lawsuits)

<comment><USER82> All these seem like "fake becauses"[0].

Forget the rest, the NYTimes and the WaPo can certainly afford a team of public editors, if nothing else but for the long-term credibility of their own institutions, never mind the side benefit of keeping them honest.

[0]: [https://www.scottadamssays.com/2016/01/28/the-fake- because/](https://www.scottadamssays.com/2016/01/28/the-fake-because/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This was in a piece specifically about the blog that was going to be positive, which makes this all the more inexplicable.

<comment><USER83> A lot of political extremists hate people like Scott, and it has caused him a lot of trouble in the past. This is why anonymity is more important now than ever, because just writing a scientific blog about interesting topics can make you the target of witch hunts designed to ruin your life and kill you.

It's hard to describe how bad these things can get out of nowhere without having been through some of it or seeing it yourself. But, having your real name attached to posts that are against certain political topics or narrives, can be borderline-lethal in 2020, and I can't blame him for what he's chosen to do. There's been plenty of scary situations and chilling effects in the past, and they're obviously only getting worse recently.

He's scared, and rightfully so.

<comment><USER84> Is there any public figure on the internet who doesn't receive death threats? You could maintain a blog for photos of puppies, and some lunatic would have a deadly-serious problem with it. The web isn't working. The saner and wiser a person is, the less likely they are to contribute content. The design of the web selects for morons with neither any reputation to lose, nor foresight to worry.

<comment><USER85> A close friend and I have run a blog about 09/11/2001 since ~2009, timewise it's easily one of the longest in existance (~2004 911blogger.com/faq), and some odd stuff has happened, but never a death threat. The previous owner as far as I know has the same experience. There is a vid in my profile if anyone is curious.

Confounding factors are the subject is self-insulating and it breaks traditional party lines. Also, people who experienced that Tuesday are exceptionally good at avoiding it: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23571449](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23571449) ... I certinally was.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> What is an appropriate theory of when a journalist should reveal the name of someone who doesn't want that name revealed?

Some simplistic possibilities:

1\. Never.

2\. Always.

3\. Don't, if they're a 'good' person. Do, if they're a 'bad' person.

My theory is that it's a sliding scale, depending on one's judgement of the following:

Where does this person fit on the public/private scale? The more public a person, the less right to privacy.

How influential is this person? The more influential, the less right to privacy.

How much of what brought them into public interest was of their own choice?

What threats might the person come under if the name is revealed. The greater the threat, the more right to privacy. Also, are these threats physical, economic, or social?

How sophisticated is the person? Do they know what reporters do for a living? Do they understand the conventions of "off the record" and "pre-interview negotiations"?

I'd like to see more discussion of this and less of "cancel my subscription."

<comment><USER87> As others have noted, NYTimes had dozens of articles about Banksy, whose identity has been known by many and could easily be discovered by the NYTimes (if they don't already know it - I suspect they do).

By any possible scale, Scott's real identity deserves less publicity than Banksy's.

The "cancel my subscription" wave is well warranted, because that's the only vote people have with the NYTimes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> Original title: "NYT Is Threatening My Safety By Revealing My Real Name, So I Am Deleting The Blog"

HN title as of this writing: "I Am Deleting The Blog"

I propose we change the HN title to match the original title. If length is a problem, then I propose "NYT About To Doxx Me, So I Am Deleting The Blog".

<comment><USER18> He updated the title of the blog post after this link was posted to HN. The title of the HN post is reflective of the original title of the blog post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> Amateur hour over at NYT. What happened to the whole protect your source journalism ethos there?

<comment><USER90> The NYT's institutional values died when A.G. Sulzberger became publisher at the beginning of 2018.

<comment> barry-cotter The NYT published Walter Duranty's denials of the Ukrainian Holocaust, and other warmed over Soviet propaganda. They were full on in their support for the Iraq war. Far less has changed about them than about your knowledge of them.

<comment><USER91> Whilst true[1], that's history wholly irrelevant to the pressent story.

The _Times_ has explored and admitted its error.[2]

________________________________

Notes:

1\. Generally: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Holodomor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Holodomor)

2\. One of numerous articles: "Times Should Lose Pulitzer From 30's, Consultant Says" (2003) [https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/us/times-should- lose-puli...](https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/us/times-should-lose- pulitzer-from-30-s-consultant-says.html)

<comment><USER92> An apology and some pro-forma introspection doesn't render its past deeds irrelevant. This is part of a pattern, and it persists to this day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> People in the thread are really gravitating towards using this as a damning piece of evidence for the entire system, and regardless of that might be a fair thing to do, I think this demonstrates opportunity. So the NYT does not have a blanket policy of unmasking everyone, but it does make better stories when sources are named. A reporter with more scruples is going to act differently in this situation and it's all about pushiness & how you present this (do you work with the source? do you push them and pretend like there's no option? do you realize you can wrap your article in EVEN MORE MYSTIQUE by having an anonymous person angle?). Having an independent record of how individual actors in a distributed system act would be incredibly helpful as an interviewee to have before meeting to know what they're getting into. And it'd also help readers to understand more about the kind of person who's writing their news and how that might bias their angle.

</comment><comment><USER94> I have to wonder why no one here seems to be ignoring the most obvious interpretation: Scott Alexander's identity is probably newsworthy. We might very well know him or her from other associations and the authorship of this blog would be notable and interesting.

I mean, obviously it's __not __the case that newspaper policy demands identifying sources. The Times writes about anonymous people all the time. If this article about a pseudonymous blog was going to stand alone, they 'd run it.

My strong suspicion is that they have a juicier story about why Someone Important is writing a pseudonymous blog.

And that changes things, IMHO.

<comment><USER95> 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).

<comment><USER94> 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.

<comment><USER95> 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!

<comment><USER94> Again, I'm just struck by how much credence you're giving an anonymous blogger vs. the Times here. I mean... do you have a good example of an article where the Times burned a source in a situation where the story was about something other than the source's identity?

I'll say it the last time: what is being alleged here (that the Times is "doxxing" someone for political reasons) simply Does Not Happen in real journalism. It just doesn't.

<comment><USER96> He isn't a source, he's the subject. Your argument makes no sense.

<comment><USER94> First, there is no difference in the context of journalistic ethics. If you promise someone anonymity then you keep that promise. They don't do what is being alleged.

Second: you don't actually know that. All we have is what Scott tells us he understood the reporter to have represented as the subject of the story. Reporters don't break promises of anonymity, but they routinely lie to sources if they think it will get them to disclose facts worth reporting.

All I'm saying here is that if this is escalating to a "shut it all down" level, there's pretty clearly more afoot here than a mere unmasking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER97> A few relevant articles about how the New York Times claims to treat sources:

[0]: "The Times sometimes agrees not to identify people who provide information for our articles...Sources often fear for their jobs or business relationships — sometimes even for their safety."

[1] "If compassion or the unavoidable conditions of reporting require shielding an identity, the preferred solution is to omit the name and explain the omission. (That situation might arise, for example, in an interview conducted inside a hospital or a school governed by privacy rules.) "

[0] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/reader-center/how-the- tim...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/reader-center/how-the-times-uses- anonymous-sources.html)

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/guidelines-on- in...](https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/guidelines-on- integrity.html)

<comment><USER98> He wasn't really a source or a person in a hospital or elsewhere governed by privacy rules. As he says himself, his online persona is very lightly pseudonymous. It sucks that he's inconvenienced in this way but it's hard to see how these articles are relevant to his situation. If anyone actually wished him harm, they could probably find his name just as the reporter did before ever talking to him.

<comment><USER97> I don't agree that he wasn't a source. He seems to be the subject of the article, but he made contact with the reporter and claimed to explain his concerns which were not heeded.

I've seen the New York Times omit the names of refugees who face persecution in their home countries. (I'm trying to find an example, but it's surprisingly hard to search for.) This is a different case, but I think it's broadly comparable.

<comment><USER98> I replied to these concerns at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23611034](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23611034) [so we don't keep two parallel threads of the same going]

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER99> There really is no reason for the NYT to expose his therapist-name. Scott is far from anonymous in any sense that matters - his identity as a blogger is very public, everything he does online is connected, and people can and do scrutinize and criticize it when appropriate. The public's interest is well served.

Scott's blog will be sorely missed. Some of the best writing on the internet.

</comment><comment><USER100> What exactly does naming him fully add to the article? Is there any journalistic reason to do it? The only way I could see it possibly being relevant is if Scott is a heavyweight in his field or is famous or well known for some other non blogging reason. But that doesn't appear to be the case if he lives with 10 roommates and is fearful of being fired from his job.

</comment><comment><USER101> Wielding the spotlight of your publication as a weapon sounds like an interesting business model too. Like a private detective being payed by a group of subscribers, interested in finding wrongthink.

Given the current climate and the pretty safe assumption that the NYT author knows that the general public would never read through SSC (because the posts are too long and you actually have to make an effort to "consume" that blog) make me suspicious of the "positive" piece.

</comment><comment><USER102> Scott is such a clear and important voice today. I really hope the NYT sees their error and corrects it, with apology to Scott, asap and Scott comes back online.

</comment><comment><USER103> >He told me it would be a __mostly __positive piece about how we were an interesting gathering place for people in tech, and how we were ahead of the curve on some aspects of the coronavirus situation. (emphasis mine)

That sounds like the reporter was buttering him up before dropping the hit- piece.

</comment><comment><USER104> Some time ago, I mentally reformulated the journalism industry as an information processing engine which ferrets out and then publicizes secrets -- _any_ secrets -- for advertising revenue. Your secrets: our clickthrough bucks.

While this was pointed at government corruption, this had some kind of utility. When it was used to find a neglected neighborhood bistro of thirty years that was going under due to the loss of foot traffic, this was laudable.

Now it seems as if any sort of secret at all is fair game, and the more you want to hide something the more they want at it, whether or not it is of value, privacy be damned. Right now, these secrets are hunted, devoured, and excreted for the howling Twitter mob to fixate on in a permanent hurricane of outrage, bashing its way up and down the coast, as a result of the temperature of the Internet climbing up, and it has been incredibly convenient for these journos to at least try to guide the storm to whatever targets they've had their eye on in the long march through the institutions, but the collateral damage is immense. We're seeing it here.

</comment><comment><USER105> This is really sad. I hope SSC comes back. What the NYT is doing here is almost incomprehensibly shitty. I can't imagine why they would think it's so important to publish Scott's real name.

</comment><comment><USER106> I am confused about how the New York Times and journalism in general treats the pseudonymous and anonymous. I am continually annoyed at how often articles use unnamed "sources close to" a matter. It fosters a culture of government unaccountability. But the post says that it is "New York Times policy to include real names". Are there some subtle rules involved here that are not obvious to me?

<comment><USER107> If you can give a reporter ongoing "access" to less-public information, you can extract concessions from them. Scott Alexander doesn't have enough weight for them to worry about burning a bridge with him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER108> Personally not a fan of ssc but this does seem unfair. I guess I had the impression most reporters respect when someone wants to remain anonymous, why doxx the fellow?

</comment><comment><USER109> If you have not read Scott Alexander blog posts before I only can say you are missing out of an internet gem. Some personal favorites: \- Meditations On Moloch \- I can tolerate anything except the outgroup

</comment><comment><USER110> I was a journalist for 20 years working in the B2B IT magazine sector in the UK. We took what we did seriously, strove for accuracy and took pride in informative reporting. There are _lots_ of journalists like this, so I am sad to see how many people are dismissive of the work.

I can understand the anger at the NYT journalist's stance here, but I suppose I would say that we only have the blog author's view at the moment. I _can_ think of situations where exposing an identity would be justified.

<comment><USER111> _> I can think of situations where exposing an identity would be justified._

Sure, but is this one of them?

I can think of situations where killing a guy would be justified - <USER3> doesn't mean it's justified in any other circumstance, though.

<comment><USER110> > Sure, but is this one of them?

I don't know - I don't know who the guy is, or what the journalistic justification may be. Hopefully the journalists's editor does.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER112> I clicked on this expecting it to be Scott Alexander blogging about somebody else getting doxxed. I flipped like a boat when I realized what I was reading. _Holy shit!_

I was just in SSC's Open Thread a few hours ago opening comment permalinks in tabs to respond to them.

That NYT writer should be fired. I hope Scott recovers soon. SSC is my favorite place on the Web.

<comment><USER113> I don't think, given Scott's recent defense of Steve Hsu, that he'd really want people fired for doing ill-advised things, even if they could be reasonably construed as dangerous, unless harm was demonstrated. It's still disappointing that the journalist is making this choice.

<comment><USER114> There is a clear division to be made between firing someone for what they do on their own time vs. actions they take in the course of their employment for you.

When being a responsible journalist is your job, it's not unreasonable to expect to get fired for not being a responsible journalist.

<comment><USER115> I think it's completely unreasonable to fire someone for one instance of wrong behavior (with very narrow exceptions for something like stealing or sexual abuse).

I'm very happy to live in a country where you cannot fire people just like that, even if they do something wrong. You have to give people second chances. I don't get this "fire them" approach to anything wrong something does.

People make mistakes. That just happens. To always fire people because of that makes no sense to me.

<comment><USER116> Of course people make mistakes, but it's a mistake to confuse a deliberate and fully informed action with a mistake. The journalist knows Scott's concerns and has plenty of time to think through things and come to a decision, and came to the wrong one.

If I was a janitor and spilled a bucket of water on the floor it would be wrong and cruel to fire me for that mistake. On the other hand, if I saw a customer come in to our store and said "Yo customer, we hate you, get out and never come back!" And then grabbed a bucket of water and dumped it on the customer... Well then I think firing me would make sense. The former was a mistake. The latter is an intentional and deliberate bad action.

<comment><USER117> You seem to be attributing all sorts of malice to the journalist that Scott himself sees no reason to

[https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/he95ak/blog...](https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/he95ak/blog_deleted_due_to_nyt_threatening_doxxing_of/fvq3il7/)

<comment><USER116> I read him as saying the NYT is being "dumb and evil". I think it's an open question if they are dumb or cunning. I think they may intend or prefer a result like this.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/he95ak/comm...](https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/he95ak/comment/fvpyacq)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER118> More background:

[https://freebeacon.com/media/well-known-blogger-shuts- down-s...](https://freebeacon.com/media/well-known-blogger-shuts-down-site- for-fear-of-nyt-doxxing/)

NYT has a history of selective doxxing.

<comment><USER119> I scrolled to the bottom of the discussion, and have been scrolling up... THIS article is the best article on the subject I've read so far (including cited comparisons to other situations that are similar but slightly different) and I regret that I have but one upvote to give it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER120> It was predictable that Scott Alexander would be called out for his blog and the people attracted to it. For people driving change in society today, he's the most problematic type of person of all: reasonable, moderate, thoughtful, and a fair minded person who equips intelligent and charismatic people with critical tools for deflecting histrionics.

Journalism is broken. What was news in its imagined golden age, and what news is now are very different things. The essential ingredient that makes a story news is conflict. If there is no conflict, there is no news story. Without it, it's a puff or a think piece, or a listicle, or comment, it's not news. What's missing in news is the legitimacy of the conflict.

The problem, and the reason editors and journalists themselves can't understand it, is that what people popularly call "fake news," is not necessarily about fabricated facts. Reporters and editors will say stuff like a quote is a quote, those were your own words (basically) and you don't get to define context or how people interpret them.

The problem of "fake news" is that it is not necessarily the facts, but the conflict itself that is manufactured. Setting up the subject of a story in opposition to someone who doesn't have standing in their field, elevating fringe views to being on an equal shared platform with mainstream ones, propping up a weak straw man to represent unpopular opinions vs. a protected establishment figure, are all examples of standard news items that people reject as fake. Outing Scott Alexander's personal identity is a way to set up a manufactured conflict between the individual psychiatrist as an imperfect man, and a mob who see his charitable views as equipping their opposition.

What once may have been an interesting battle of ideas among public intellectuals is now just a series of predictable fixed fights, using the same hackneyed tropes, and the same story line over and over again of victims and their oppressors, with the same stock underdog characters triumphing over the same cast of cliche villains. Throwing people to an angry mob is manufactured conflict - and therefore I would argue, fake news.

It would be just as harmlessly entertaining as professional wrestling if it weren't the gate keeping institution for public discourse being reduced to a propaganda mouthpiece for an ideology that is predicated on belief in permanent struggle and conflict for its own sake.

Alexander is one of the more popular writers online and his view is important and essential to public discourse. It would be a shame to see him cancelled too, but it is a predictable stage in a path we've marched down before. If nothing else, his blog should be seen as a canary for some grim inevitabilities to come.

</comment><comment><USER121> It's clear that the NYTimes is in the wrong here & doxxing an anonymous blogger, possibly b/c some of his views don't align with theirs.

Everyone: please take a minute & send a very polite email to the NYT so we can get SlaterCodex back.

</comment><comment><USER122> Saying that this is merely an "amateur mistake" or "bureaucratic oversight" is naïve.

See Scott's response on Reddit: [https://imgur.com/PlXBJZI](https://imgur.com/PlXBJZI)

</comment><comment><USER123> This is sad. Scott's writing is almost certainly more valuable than anything this NYT journalist will ever produce.

</comment><comment><USER124> This is a shame. I've read Scott's blog for years and have always been impressed with his intelligence, decency, and intellectual honesty. It's unfortunate that the current environment is forcing out people like Scott and replacing him with others who aren't nearly so conscientious and fair.

</comment><comment><USER122> With this, the recent executive order suspending temporary work visas, the cancellation of Robert Hanson and Steve Hsu, the recession...

Not a great time to be part of the grey tribe right now.

</comment><comment><USER125> I wrote a letter. [https://theimpassionata.wordpress.com/2020/06/23/to-whom- it-...](https://theimpassionata.wordpress.com/2020/06/23/to-whom-it-may-be- concerned-at-the-new-york-times-an-open-letter/)

</comment><comment><USER126> Edit: I'm 50:50 on whether they take the negative press hit of publishing this anyway. If they publish without name included - everyone still finds out the name of the "flippant" writer. If they don't it just concedes that their attitude was wrong to begin with. They are in a tough spot now - hard to feel sorry for them given the asympathetic position they assumed.

<comment>

SlateStarCodex shutting down in direct response to the hubris/disregard of one NYT reporter hungry for a story. This parasitic appetite for airtime come- what-may approach to journalism needs to be checked. There's no reason the writer couldn't leave the real full name out of the article once requested and with legitimate concern aired by the person hes naming.

I'm glad "Scott" is taking this stance if only for the fact that it puts the onus of hard/difficult decisions back on the NYT - i.e. why despite legitimate concerns are your writers comfortable doxxing people?

The key highlight for me -

 _" When I expressed these fears to the reporter, he just said that me having enemies was going to be part of the story. He added that "I have enemies too". Perhaps if he was less flippant about destroying people's lives, he would have fewer.

(though out of respect for his concerns, I am avoiding giving his name here.)

After considering my options, I decided on the one you see now. 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."_

<comment><USER127> > why despite legitimate concerns are your writers comfortable doxxing people?

This is especially important to ask when a big complaint of the NYT staff about the Tom Cotton is editorial was that it was directly endangering their safety.

Apparently the NYT does not have the same concern about other's safety.

<comment><USER128> Or, as with much else in the woke lexicon[1], they don't use the word "safety" in the way that most people understand it.

[1] [https://newdiscourses.com/translations-from-the- wokish/](https://newdiscourses.com/translations-from-the-wokish/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER129> I don't understand why traditional media still exists in modern days, when p2p communication between people is possible. In the best case, a journalist is a middleman who will misunderstand and garble information unintentionally, since they are working under deadline to get stuff published ASAP. Not only experts, but even enthusiasts spend much more time researching than journalists. In the worst and most common case, they just push agenda or slander groups of people to attract hate clicks. I cringe every time when mainstream media article ends up on HN.

<comment><USER130> P2P information is not only "expert blogs". Expert and enthusiasts blogs are the media of niche communities. And believe it or not they can also be biased and push an "agenda". They don't have the monopoly of ethicsm, they are just less scrutenized.

The mainstream P2P communication is your Uncle of whatsapp and random people on Twitter. Journalism might not always be great but I'll take it over that.

<comment><USER129> You missed my point. Sure, blogs are written by "some guy on the internet", and anyone should be skeptical about anything they write. But journalists are also "some guys on the internet"! They should be kept in the same security ring. There's no difference in competence or accountability between a rando and an entitled journalist.

<comment><USER130> I didn't miss you point. I just very much disagree that there is no difference in competence between a rando and a journalist, and there are not just some guys on internet.

Reporting news and investigating is very complicated, so complicated that yes some people are professionals and paid to do it. This is type of job where people easily say "why they didn't say that", "why they reported it this way", "I would have done it better", truth is it's not that simple. I personally think it's a difficult job to do and try not to diminish it.

<comment><USER129> "Safe Ruthenium rain falls over Bashkortostan", "27 police officers injured in a largely peaceful anti-racist protest"... -- how could I forget about these exceptional examples of very complicated news reporting job well done.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER131> I have become increasingly frustrated with the NYT's reporting practices. They are very hypocritical about criticizing tech while continuing to advertise heavily on the same services they criticize to promote their journalism.

A lot of what they publish nowadays is often "technically correct" but misleading to the point of being dangerous. That, combined with the philosophy of the younger journalists working there to refuse having any contrasting opinions published (I say this as someone under 30), and it's clear that the NYT feeds off of bipartisan hatred and conflict in order to make money. It's astounding that the same practices they criticize others of they engage in themselves. The nation is becoming ever more deeply polarized, and I put much of the blame on the NYT and similar publications.

<comment><USER132> It's Fox News for psuedo-intellectuals. My mother is a subscriber so I read a bit and it is absolutely atrociously biased and blatantly misleading in a similar way to how Fox News operate. The main difference is NYT add a minor sheen of intellectual language over the top to try obfuscate it.

<comment><USER133> Do you have any links to articles you find particularly egregious?

<comment><USER132> Would you ask the same question about Fox News? It's a little redundant no?

<comment><USER133> I wouldn't only because I've already seen enough examples of them impugning their credibility that I've been able to form my own conclusions.

I wasn't aware that the NYT was considered equivalently and oppositely biased. The articles I have read have not put up any red flags for me, but I'm not closed off to the possibility that I've missed the signs or haven't read the right articles. Hence my question.

I take it you think virtually all their reporting is sufficiently biased so as not to be considered trustworthy?

<comment><USER132> Yes I would consider all reporting from NYT to be biased. However what they choose to print in their editorials is worth particular scrutiny.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER134> Wow, those are effing serious reasons to stay pseudonymous. If that doesn't convince a reporter to not publish that name, they should really ask themselves how mercenary they've become.

</comment><comment><USER135> Dark ages are upon us and NYT leads the way. This is the most significant blog in the last decade plus. NYT should be canceled before they cancel every shred of independent thinking in the country.

</comment><comment><USER136> Any thoughts on the importance of deleting the blog when various backups such as archive.org exist?

<comment><USER137> There's a difference between "Scott, who blogs at slatestarcodex.com" and "Scott, who used to blog before we threatened him, and now can be found only on archive sources".

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> This blog and its insights into the workings of the human brain has been a great source of comfort to me and helped me get past several places in my life that I was stuck.

</comment><comment><USER138> Wow, screw the new york times. I was recently directed to this site by an HN commenter, and found that there was quite a nice community of smart people who wanted to discuss different ideas and potentially even change their minds. A piece by the new york times covering that would destroy it. And it's irresponsible for a reporter to insist on publishing a name in a situation like this "becAUsE PolIcY".

</comment><comment><USER16> It would be a little less galling if the NYT didn't let anonymous sources throw shade on people so readily. It shows the class divide here.

</comment><comment><USER139> I'm sure that blog has been archived somewhere pretty hard to just delete stuff from the internet. Take for instance this website I use an RSS feed aggregator to pull the top stories out of this site and put them on my feed within the last year I would say most of the stories are flagged removed basically somebody trying to remove a certain opinion.

<comment><USER93> Author dives into this in the post a bit, it's more about how would the NYT write the article about a blog that's no longer there without having to explain their part of poisoning the story. They also talk about prior run-ins with doxing and people calling their practice to try to get them fired off reddit witchhunts, so I think they know this, it's all about preventing a NYT- sized catastrophe when they've already seen low-yield reddit-sized explosions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER140> Reminiscent of CNN threatening the creator of a GIF that Trump retweeted with doxing if he didn't behave: [https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/7/5/15922224/cnn- blackmail-...](https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/7/5/15922224/cnn-blackmail- doxxing-hanassholesolo-reddit-wrestling-gif)

</comment><comment><USER52> In addition to any emails one might send the relevant editor at the NYT, you may also email your concerns to firstname.lastname@example.com

The Columbia Journalism Review does a lot of "reporting on reporting," and has a very high profile in their field. I CC'd them on my email to the NYT section editor.

</comment><comment><USER141> This is a very smart and calculated move on his behalf.

One that is surely unexpected by the scumbag reporter. I predict the reporter will be forced to back off, he'll keep his job and go on shitting on other people's lives for a living, but SSC gets to keeps his privacy, for a while longer.

</comment><comment><USER88> Thank you for all you have written, Scott. Hopefully this will be resolved quickly. I wish you the best.

</comment><comment><USER142> I unsubscribed from the NYT after the Tom Cotton editorial. That's when it became clear to me that their ethics were driven by a need to drive traffic to their site and I wanted no part in it.

Stuff like this just reaffirms my decision. Good riddance.

<comment><USER143> I think that decision was worse than a sign that they have given in to market forces. They have given in to internal activists who have no desire to learn, think, or report the truth, merely use the paper as a weapon for social change.

<comment> at-fates-hands > They have given in to internal activists who have no desire to learn, think, > or report the truth.

I am shocked and saddened this is where we are as a society. Literally one man's opinion distressed so many people, in such a way, they felt the need to raise an army and then descend on their employer and demand they remove, recant and say it will never happen again?

We have arrived at a time in place where you cannot have your own opinion without fear of the rage mob coming after you.

 _"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right."_

 _George Orwell_

 _-1984_

<comment><USER144> That man was a United States Senator who suggested using the military to suppress political dissent. The suggestion that this is some minor newspeak squabble or a brief outbreak of political correctness grossly underplays how dangerous this suggestion was and the seeing you try to use Orwell to support your point is even more ridiculous.

<comment><USER145> Actually, the op-ed states:

> Some elites have excused this orgy of violence in the spirit of radical > chic, calling it an understandable response to the wrongful death of George > Floyd. Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters > and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to > protest peacefully shouldn't be confused with bands of miscreants. But the > rioting has nothing to do with George Floyd, whose bereaved relatives have > condemned violence.

Setting aside whether using the Insurrection Act to respond to rioting and looting is an appropriate response, it is quite clear that Tom Cotton is not advocating the use of the the military to "suppress political dissent", which would obviously violate the First Amendment.

<comment><USER146> > it is quite clear that Tom Cotton is not advocating the use of the the > military to "suppress political dissent"

That's wrong. Regardless of how you feel about the tactics used by the protesters, their dissent is clearly political in nature, and Cotton was advocating stopping their demonstrations with the military. It's a terrible mistake to misunderstand or sugar-coat his message and you shouldn't do it.

<comment><USER147> >...their dissent is clearly political in nature, and Cotton was advocating stopping their demonstrations with the military.

Calling the burning of buildings, the vandalism of public buildings and monuments, and the violence we've seen "political in nature" is really quite something. It's very revealing in terms of what the end goal is.

<comment><USER146> > It's very revealing in terms of what the end goal is.

I wonder what "end goal" you believe has been revealed, beyond the obvious: the reduction in unjustified police violence that is the subject of the protests. My sense is that you might have misinterpreted my comment.

Protesting police abuses is a political act, i.e., _relating to the government or the public affairs of a country._ This is true whether you're talking about a purely nonviolent demonstration or one that gets completely out of control.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER148> Wishful Anti-Doxxing is untenable. The arc of technology is destroying the concept of anonymity. The only hope for avoiding the harm of doxxing is to create a society where being known isn't harmful or every single person is prevented from doxxing (not merely punished, though that may be part of a solution.)

It's also not clear to me that someone with such a huge public audience deserves anonymity. Scott had a choice -- he could post anonymously to message boards and not be exposed to doxxing. But he chose to cultivate fame. And he used two-thirds of his real name and his publicly licensed profession.

</comment><comment><USER149> I stopped trusting reporters when I was 14. Did some cool CS shit that got national press - reporters wrote ridiculous made up things in articles all over. Most common was putting words in my mouth, less common was using my words without attribution.

That's about when I started reading multiple sources to figure out wtf happened anywhere.

It's super prevalent. If a reporter wants to chat, tell them to fuck off.

</comment><comment><USER5> 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...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200516181754/https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations- on-moloch/)

I Can Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup: [https://web.archive.org/web/20200516181754/https://slatestar...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200516181754/https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations- on-moloch/)

Proving too Much: [https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/13/proving-too- much/](https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/13/proving-too-much/)

<comment><USER150> Proving Too Much: [https://archive.md/M1XHf](https://archive.md/M1XHf)

<comment><USER5> Thank you so much!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER151> I would encourage people to stop linking to and submitting New York Times articles, I didn't read Slate Star Codex but having just read the clear reasons Scott wanted to keep his anonymity I am disgusted the NYT would abuse someone's trust like this. I'm going to pretend they don't exist from now on and I expect a lot of others will too. I won't read another article by the New York Times no matter how click baity the headline. It won't really make a difference but this sort of immoral shit seems to happen everywhere now. Once an institution of quality journalism it's now click baiting with peoples livelihoods. Fuck them.

</comment><comment><USER152> I never believe the newspaper and hard to trust the TV news you have to investigate and get the Truth always,they all want headlines and ratings, so always check it out before you believe

<comment><USER130> Truth with a capital "T" is a myth. If you ever think you've found it then you've lost your way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER130> Can you be an influential character and asked to remain anonymous? If you have opinions and you've broadcasted them you can assume them. We blame politics, journalist but at least they sign their articles. Don't you think they receive death treats all the time ?

You can blame NYT but at least they have a clear policy, whether you agree with it or not. I feel a lot of people here are reacting emotionally, as part of the SSC community.

Is the problem a journalist revealing a name, or is it virtual trolls and mobs?

<comment><USER153> > We blame politics, journalist but at least they sign their articles. Don't > you think they receive death treats all the time ?

1\. They are professionals. SSC is a hobbyist.

2\. No, I don't think they receive a lot of threats. This days people expect very very little of journalists. Many consider journos to be the lowest form of life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER154> I am cancelling my NYT subscription.

</comment><comment><USER155> This is so frustrating and rage inducing!

I enjoy reading blogs like gwern and SSC. The fact that the blog has just gone away because somebody threatened to doxx the author against his will is sad and a loss to the community.

Scott, on Reddit[1], has mentioned that there is a possibility for the blog to come back but it all depends on how things pan out in the next few months. So I hope NYT just dumps the story, apologises and reevaluate their ethics.

[1] [https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/he95ak/blog...](https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/he95ak/blog_deleted_due_to_nyt_threatening_doxxing_of/fvpx1rv/)

</comment><comment><USER156> This is a tragedy, Scott Alexander is such a thoughtful writer.

I wish journalists would come up with some professional standards and make the title licensed, like doctor or lawyer. Right now we all recognize how important journalism is but journalists themselves run the gamut from ethical investigative journalists to clickbait manufacturers. Imagine if journalists also had to adhere to the equivalent of attorney client privilege for sources.

<comment><USER157> I 100% agree and talked about this a lot in j school. Would love to see some type of society body emerge with a coalition of Pulitzer Prize winners (the only real framework that possibly stands to live past the inevitable calls about its legitimacy from the News Corp -owned bodies of media, honestly) and ideally backed by the biggest news media companies in the world. I would love to see a further membership based element where members of the public and journalists could critique reportage and possible ethical lapses all publicly, adhering to principles set by the society itself.

Honestly I think it's time journalists take back some of the responsibility and importance of their roles that's been stripped by colleague and company malpractice (and the side effects of a business model twisted inside out in rapid succession), as many DO recognize their importance. But like politics any real "talk" of media quickly devolves into sports-like tribalism and never gets beyond hating the 'players' not the game itself.

<comment><USER158> You don't have a self-governing body for journalism?

<comment><USER97> There's this, but I don't see much discussion about it: [https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp](https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER159> This really highlights the difference between sources and subjects in journalism. Has a 2-tier system been hiding in plain sight all this time? If so, this would indicate an almost systemic bias behind the facade of neutrality. One which escaped notice, even during an earlier period of debate about forcing use of real names on the Internet vs. handles or nicks.

</comment><comment><USER160> Anyone that cared to try already knew Scott's real name. It was a simple Google dork away because of bad opsec from the beginning.

<comment><USER62> It's harder the other way around: starting with his real name and finding slatestarcodex, which is what he's concerned about since his patients will be googling his real name.

Now, for me google autocompletes "scott $REALNAME slatestarcodex", but it's not clear whether that is personalsied to me since I'm an avid slatestarcodex reader and have been googling this all over the place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER161> There's quite a lot of scope for interpretation of this statement:

> Unfortunately, he told me he had discovered my real name and would reveal it > in the article, ie doxx me.

It's not clear from the post whether there was any conversation with the journalist about this aspect of the planned article, and/or whether there were any requests not to include the person's full name.

I think most of us agree that staying well-informed is useful and important, and I'd argue that news organizations contribute effectively to that.

Blogging and tweeting are useful additional mediums, but they can't always achieve the same results as publications that have research teams, archives, experienced investigative reporters, and legal teams to defend them when they encounter powerful opposition.

It could be worth taking a pause and waiting for more details before attributing all of the blame to the NYT (or even more wildly, journalism as a whole) here.

Edit (append-only): as noted elsewhere (see child comments) there _had_ been some two-way conversation with the journalist regarding publication of the author's name.

It could be useful to learn more about what the nature of NYT's policy on publishing real names is, and the intent and reasoning behind that.

<comment><USER162> > It's not clear from the post whether there was any conversation with the > journalist about this aspect of the planned article, and/or whether there > were any requests not to include the person's full name.

There were; this has been made clear elsewhere. The reporter was also made aware that the blog would be shut down if it came to that, and still refused to redact OP's real name from their article.

(Allegedly, it seems that NYT general policy can allow a person to be _anonymous_ if warranted, but it's less clear that pseudonimity is contemplated.)

<comment><USER161> Thank you - could you provide a link about those requests and discussion? I'd like to update my understanding (and comment) based on those.

<comment><USER117> [https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/he95ak/blog...](https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/he95ak/blog_deleted_due_to_nyt_threatening_doxxing_of/fvq3il7/)

<comment><USER161> Thanks. This is going to take a little time to digest.

Often in conflicts like this it's worth considering what the outcome of the battle will be and what the implications are.

The thread you linked to here sounds reasonable and it's good to see that it doesn't assign blame to the journalist and appreciates that they've been acting within what may be the confines of their workplace policy.

That said -- the real name policy probably exists for a reason, perhaps to ensure that subjects of news that is in the public interest find it more difficult to evade scrutiny. (edit: add word 'perhaps'; conjecture)

I'm not implying that scrutiny of the blog and community are necessarily a good thing. I honestly don't know how much influence they have. But policy changes can have lasting effects in other, potentially very different, circumstances, so I'll take a bit of time and update my comment based on this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER163> Of interest, about that particular NYT journalist: [https://medium.com/@garyweiss_86200/cade-metz-pulls-a- deep-c...](https://medium.com/@garyweiss_86200/cade-metz-pulls-a-deep-capture- on-slate-star-codex-da649e8efe7)

</comment><comment><USER164> I applied for a job with the NYtimes a year ago and they treated me very poorly in the application process. Long waits for minimal communication, and then they just ghosted me. Then I read Taiabbis article and cancelled my subscription. It's becoming the Fox news of the left.

</comment><comment> 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.

</comment><comment><USER165> Isn't this a double standard? The NYT was one of the many papers that decided not to publish the name of the whistleblower in the Trump-Ukraine scandal. They published many articles on the scandal and his name is definitely known to them as they did a profile on the wistleblower without naming him and he has been named by the president's son and many others in government (and no, he was not a source for the NYT. He was a whistleblower who went through official channels to blow the whistle, he didn't go to the press).

I am not going to post his name here as it tends to get comments deleted. Youtube will even automatically delete your comment if it contains his name (maybe even relieving his gender goes too far, I guess we will find out). If anyone doubts this you can just try it yourself. Or just believe the company's own spokesperson [https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/08/tech/facebook- whistleblower-n...](https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/08/tech/facebook- whistleblower-name/index.html)

<comment><USER166> The idea that the public "can't be trusted" with information like this has always deeply frustrated me. Information should be openly shared and this story serves as another demonstration that journalists are not a special class of citizens that can be trusted with the information.

His name is Eric Ciaramella for anyone else wondering. Took me a frustrating 30 minutes of googling to figure it out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER167> Surprised that P.Z. Myers is such a critic of SSC

[https://twitter.com/pzmyers/status/1275381580182073346](https://twitter.com/pzmyers/status/1275381580182073346)

<comment><USER62> I'm not. PZ Myers was on the Atheism+ side of the schism in online Atheism in 2011 (from which my pseudonym derives), and Scott was firmly on the other side. They've been on opposite sides of the culture war since either of them became aware of it.

But even if you didn't know that ancient history, Myers is orthodox progressive, Scott is heterodox. They're natural enemies.

<comment><USER167> Funny how an anti-ideology that purports to be not a religion but rather the absence of religion would spawn so many schisms and holy wars.

<comment><USER62> Took everyone involved by surprise, but it made sense in hindsight. Half the people were there because religion was oppressive, and half were there because religion was factually wrong.

These two groups were never the same, and they got along only until it became obvious that the first group didn't care about facts and (according to the first group) that the second group didn't care about justice (I would say they do, but not if it means lying about facts).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER168> I think it is more likely they are going after him over his support for Steve Hsu.

</comment><comment><USER169> the ability to speak pseuodononymously and or separate out your personal and professional life is critical.

we can try to help you - at least a bit - JoinDeleteMe.com

</comment><comment><USER170> Seems reasonable. If you can't deplatform someone than dox them. This looks like a service in favor NYT's increasingly rabid readership.

</comment><comment><USER171> (Meta) I'm curious why this isn't on the front page, given the number of upvotes. Has this been flagged or is it in some way being hidden?

</comment><comment><USER172> What does he normally write about? It seemed to be a pretty popular blog but I never dug into the content and now the content is offline.

<comment><USER173> If all you're interested in is a list of topics he wrote about, the table of contents on that page serves that function reasonably well. Some of the links in it are even live because they are to places he wrote other than SSC.

I. Rationality and Rationalization

II. Probabilism

III. Science and Doubt

IV. Medicine, Therapy, and Human Enhancement

V. Introduction to Game Theory

VI. Promises and Principles

VII. Cognition and Association

VIII. Doing Good

IX. Liberty

X. Progress

XI. Social Justice

XII. Politicization

XIII. Competition and Cooperation

[0] [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vwqLfDfsHmiavFAGP/the- librar...](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vwqLfDfsHmiavFAGP/the-library-of- scott-alexandria)

</comment></comment><comment><USER174> > Or at least the story will have to include some discussion of NYT's strategy > of doxxing random bloggers for clicks.

In fairness, they overtly slandered a group of schoolchildren and sent a nationwide mob after them (including celebrities who made very thinly veiled threats against them on social media). That didn't seem to drive much ethical change within the NYT, so I don't have much hope for this ("merely" doxxing a psychiatrist/blogger) to reform them.

</comment><comment><USER175> Scott Alexander uses "hyper-rational critism" to push race science that borders on straight on bigotry. Even worse, he's allowed a community to build around him that views iq heritability as the main essentialist frame with which to view the world. This kind of mindset is unfortunately common in technology spaces, and the world will only be better as these kinds of people are pushed out of the overton window.

<comment> radford-neal "...he's allowed a community to build around him that views iq heritability as the main essentialist frame with which to view the world"

This is complete nonsense. Anyone who has read SSC knows that both Scott Alexander's posts and the comments cover a very wide range of topics. Occasional mentions of scientific views of human biology that don't fit your ideological preconceptions are a dominant part of the blog/community only in your distorted perceptions.

<comment><USER175> I read this as "occasional dalliances with race realism are acceptable because he talks about other topics."

<comment> radford-neal No. It means that anyone who is not a hopeless ideologue knows that a just and humane society cannot be created on the basis of compelling people to assert things that anyone sane understands are simply not true.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER152> I never trust the papers especially,or I am choosy on the news also you have to investigate and get the Truth always

</comment><comment><USER176> For those of us out of the loop could someone take 2 minutes to give us some context please? Thanks

</comment><comment><USER177> Has the post been changed? I remember it containing some quotes from the journalist in question.

</comment><comment><USER178> I have increasingly lost faith in NYT as my faith in WashPo has increased

<comment><USER179> Meh they also lost my respect with how they treated Snowden. Killed my account for digital subscription after this editorial. He revealed a far bigger evil than anything he ever did to get the info or what was revealed. They know if he comes back to the USA he will go to prison for life without parole. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/edward-snowden- doesn...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/edward-snowden-doesnt- deserve-a-pardon/2016/09/17/ec04d448-7c2e-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER180> Where was NYT's policy of using real-names when they:

\- quoted anonymous source behind the White House "Op-Ed",

\- used "well-connected", (but anonymous) sources reporting on the "Russia collusion" news?

I must be missing something here?

</comment><comment><USER181> [https://twitter.com/gary_weiss/status/1275879266450919427?s=...](https://twitter.com/gary_weiss/status/1275879266450919427?s=19)

</comment><comment><USER182> Sad times. I saw this coming. People are mean. :/

</comment><comment><USER183> > my patients – who run the gamut from far-left anarchists to far-right gun > nuts

This strikes me as an off way for a mental health professional to publicly refer to his patients, even anonymously ...

<comment><USER100> "gun nut" isn't an insult to gun nuts.

<comment><USER184> neither is "anarchists" to anarchists. Not sure what's the point OP is making

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER185> Can someone tell this person that this site is probably still on way back machine? And he or she should request it to be removed.

<comment><USER186> Scott didn't delete his blog to remove all traces of it from the internet. He deleted it so that if the NYT publishes the article, they'll be forced to include the story of how they threatened to doxx him. Can't publish an article about a blog that doesn't exist without talking about why it's gone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER187> Worth noting archived material on the Wayback Machine[0].

[0] [https://web.archive.org/web/*/slatestarcodex.com](https://web.archive.org/web/*/slatestarcodex.com)

Edit: there are some references in the comments already (didn't spot them because I missed the "More" link).

</comment><comment><USER188> But that's not entirely effective. The blog is accessible on archive.org [https://web.archive.org/web/20200609065651/https://slatestar...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200609065651/https://slatestarcodex.com/)

<comment><USER87> It's effective enough to force the hand of the NYTimes to respond -- likely by removing his name or removing the article altogether.

</comment></comment><comment><USER189> The NYT has reported on Bansky without revealing his name. Why is this different?

</comment><comment><USER190> New York Times has been a piece of shit lately.

</comment><comment><USER191> Edit: this comment was not constructive.

<comment><USER192> This behaviour is very much not going to help. One of the many reasons doxxing is bad is because "speculation" is so often wrong. Anyway, it rather diminishes the force of an argument that the NYT is in the wrong if a mob publishes someone's name in a spasm of outrage over the fact that the NYT wanted to publish someone's name.

<comment><USER191> It's not really the same. One person is a pseudonymous blogger who requested to keep their pseudonimity. The other is a reporter for the best known newspaper in the world. But I agree it's a bad look, I have removed the comment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER193> GDPR for the win. In Europe you could demand to be deleted from all databases at the time. You could demand them not to disclose _any_ personal information without your consent. If they do regardless (and newspapers tend to think they are above data protection issues sometimes) you could sue them. They might have to pay _enormous_ sums for deliberately not complying. I don't think that you would pocket that money, but you would have quite some power in the whole matter.

<comment><USER194> The GDPR is somewhat restricted for public figures as there is a "legitimate interest" in reporting about them.

As Scott did publish his own name I don't think the GDPR would be a very sharp sword in this case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER195> I still miss 'Alone' a lot.

</comment><comment><USER196> Similar effect when reading the news on a topic that one is an expert in - they usually get it incredibly wrong. And then you turn the page and read the next article completely forgetting how bad the reporting actually is - <USER4> is no reason to assume they do a better job on topics that one is not an expert in! I think this bias had a name but I can't remember it.

<comment><USER197> I first heard this explained by John C. Dvorak and it has terrified me ever since.

Originally I just believe that journalist just had a terrible understanding of IT, but when you think about it, there's no reason why it's just IT. Why would journalist have a better understanding of medicine, politics, climate, finance or any other topic covered. Basically you're left it a situation where you can only trust highly specialized publication, who hire subject matter experts and let them act as the journalist.

This raises the question: Are journalists actually required?

<comment><USER198> As a journalist who's a CS dropout, then later a BoA, and who works as a web dev on the side: I agree. BUT:

1) The journalist's work is sometime a soul-crushing effort to turn complex things that can't really be made simple into a readable summary. I cover Quantum tech as someone who has at least a grasp of physics: it's insanely difficult.

2) Journalists that behave like the ones you describe, are bad for the whole profession. What you describe is a systemic problem in journalism, which I think it's especially bad in the big newsrooms of big newspapers that are struggling to survive or have still to figure out a proper business model for their future.

That said, I think there are a lot journalist who, like yours truly, tend to stick to what they've studied and know. I would never write about medicine, but I know I'm able to write about tech avoiding the complete lack of knowledge some colleagues show. The real problem: this works for me as a freelancer. Staff writers are considered fungible, and they have to adapt to whatever needs to be written.

Sorry for the sparse thoughts, I have to much in my mind about this, but not enough time to put it down properly right now. I still wanted to chime in, though. :)

P.s. Journalism schools are also part of the problem. They form a cohort of people who think they can do exactly that: write about anything. It's bullshit, and it does not work well for the category. The best colleagues I know all come from very different study fields, and they sort of fell into journalism by chance.

<comment><USER199> It is not a journalist's job to be an expert in the subject they are covering. That's why journalists interview experts, and why journalists don't use themselves as sources.

If you are writing from your own knowledge rather than attributing your information to others, I would argue that you aren't really practicing journalism. (There's nothing wrong with that, I just think it's something else.)

<comment><USER200> Would it be too much to ask that, when a journalist writes on a topic they don't understand, they should ask an expert "hey can you sanity check this" before publishing?

<comment><USER201> It's not necessarily malice. Experts rarely have time to review some bullshit for free and the tight timelines don't help.

<comment><USER202> I asked some science journalists about this on Twitter. Tight deadlines are a problem, but the bigger issue is that there's some sort of journalistic principle about not letting "sources" see—-or approve—-the completed article.

I don't totally understand why, but I think they were a little unclear on what most scientists want, which is more like checking language and details (a lot of words that seem synonymous aren't in technical contexts) than controlling the overall message.

<comment><USER162> Seems like the obvious argument for open, post-publication review.

<comment><USER203> ... and yet newspapers are shutting down comment sections

<comment><USER146> Newspaper comment sections are highly problematical. You have occasional thoughtful posts mixed in with hundreds of completely moronic, bigoted, and deeply stupid posts. When a comments section gets bad enough that it demands moderation, perhaps it's better to get out of that business entirely. (No need to get rid of the letters to the editor.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER204> Somewhat related — does anyone know an easier way to cancel one's NYT subscription than going through the rigmarole of waiting for/talking with multiple "customer service" reps?

After NYT's all-too-credulous parroting of Barr's mischaracherization of the Mueller report I tried to cancel mine, but spent over an hour on the phone with no progress, and gave it up. I should have persisted — I don't want to give them my money any more, and this is all the more reason to cancel. At the same time, I don't have the time or patience to subject myself to phoning them again in the near future. Surely there must be an easier way? Certainly there should be.

<comment><USER205> Credit card chargebacks really hurt, and are the appropriate response to a situation where they continue to take your money.

<comment><USER206> This is the more punitive action, and I will note that a credit card company will side with you as long as you made a decent effort at canceling. I considered it when I waited 3 hours for a chat without a response, but ended up doing the PayPal way because it required less dealing with a bank in this time of Covid-19 delays.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> Never trust a journalist - they are not in it to educate or inform, but rather for their own self-interest and celebrity.

<comment><USER207> All Journalists Are Bastards

(In precisely the same sense as All Cops Are Bastards, namely that they have a job which purports to be in the public interest, but which is highly distorted by a bunch of societal factors and mostly winds up serving powerful interests. Any given interaction with a journalist/cop has a chance of going badly, and if it _does_ go badly you can be damn sure that you're going to the one that suffers, while the cop/journalist gets away with it.)

<comment><USER208> I actually think there's quite a strong parallel. Both are necessary to the proper functioning of a society in small amounts, and large amounts of either go hand-in-hand with societal dysfunction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER97> Edit: Looks like they updated the link and title. Thanks!

@dang, you might consider somehow incorporating the name of the blog into the title. I almost didn't click on this because "his blog" is quite generic. Slate Star Codex is frequently posted on HN and is fairly notable.

<comment><USER23> It's displayed after the title though. There's even a site guideline about this: " _If the title includes the name of the site, please take it out, because the site name will be displayed after the link._ "

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><USER97> The link and title was changed. It was originally another site and a worse title.

<comment><USER23> The link hasn't changed. The submitted title was "NYT threatens to dox blogger who often gets death threats. He deletes his blog", which broke the site guideline against editorializing, so we changed it.

<comment><USER97> Thanks for clarifying!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER209> If you haven't read it, _I Can Tolerate Anything Except The Outgroup_ (archive link required now):

[https://web.archive.org/web/20200419232247/https://slatestar...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200419232247/https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can- tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/)

</comment><comment><USER210> 2020 is the year that poaches all good things!

</comment><comment><USER211> Feel free to use Trim to remove all paywalls and JavaScript from places like the New York Times: [https://beta.trimread.com](https://beta.trimread.com).

<comment><USER212> How is this not theft?

Journalism is expensive. Of course, there are other business models (full disclosure, we're building one too: [https://blog.nillium.com/what-can- napster-teach-local-news/](https://blog.nillium.com/what-can-napster-teach- local-news/)) but circumventing a paywall is not the answer.

Yes, the NYT is one of the few outlets that is doing reasonably well right now. But many newspapers are going out of business, or at least furloughing employees -- employees who already were not earning huge salaries.

If you read the article, and they ask for money to let you do that -- then honor that request. Just because you can hop over a paywall doesnt mean you should.

<comment><USER213> Loading a page and choosing not to run the code they ship with it is not theft.

<comment><USER214> Evading a paywall is.

<comment><USER215> You don't deserve the downvotes. Just because the technical measures used to protect the content are weak doesn't grant you the right to circumvent it. Hacker-types always seem have this fallacy of "if I can do it, I'm allowed to do it. I understand it -- we're all hackers because we get joy out of breaking technical locks and using things for purposes they weren't intended and rule- layering digital systems. But just because someone uses a cheap lock it doesn't mean you have the right to break it.

Who even cares about the copyright violation vs theft distinction at this point? They're offering access to their content for a price, they're not bothering with draconian DRM and so it's a dick move to just take it.

<comment><USER213> Do you have some kind of obligation to read the advertisement sections of a newspaper that gets delivered to your home for free?

<comment><USER215> Do you have the right to modify your on-prem installation of Gitlab to enable Enterprise features you're not paying for?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER216> Can we now stop linking to NYTimes? I have complained about the encroachment of having bulk paywalled stuff on here before, but now with this, it's like anyone linking to these journos are promoting them (Especially now, seeing how badly the ethics is). The best we can do is try to avoid them.

</comment><comment><USER217> Never trust a journalist

</comment><comment><USER218> This might be a controversial opinion, but I have just one word to describe most journalists nowadays: "scum".

They seek exciting and sensationalist stories without regard for any consequences in the real world. They twist their stories to manipulate the readers towards their viewpoint.

But worst of all, they have the gall to present themselves as the upholders of morality and the paragons of democracy. Any criticism you may have for these people is deemed "anti-democratic", which in most peoples heads already is a trigger word for "evil", no amount of arguments can sway them.

<comment><USER219> There's a novel by Balzac (forgot which one), which shows the behind-the- scenes of mid-XIX century Paris journalism. It's essentially the same as you described, but also, the journalists don't flaunt their views, but rather their masters' (the owners of the papers).

<comment><USER91> The nature of news, gossip, and propaganda predates 19th century France. The Roman god Fama, attendant to Jupiter, trumpeting his words, heedless of truth or falsity:

"At the world's centre lies a place between the lands and seas and regions of the sky, the limits of the threefold universe, whence all things everywhere, however far, are scanned and watched, and every voice and word reaches its listening ears. Here Fama (Rumour) dwells her chosen home set on the highest peak constructed with a thousand apertures and countless entrances and never a door. It's open night and day and built throughout of echoing bronze; it all reverberates, repeating voices, doubling what it hears. Inside, no peace, no silence anywhere, and yet no noise, but muted murmurings like waves one hears of some far-distant sea, or like a last late rumbling thunder-roll, when Juppiter [Zeus] has made the rain-clouds crash. Crowds throng its halls, a lightweight populace that comes and goes, and rumours everywhere, thousands, false mixed with true, roam to and fro, and words flit by phrases all confused. Some pour their tattle into idle ears, some pass on what they've gathered, and as each gossip adds something new the story grows. Here is Credulitas (Credulity), here reckless Error (Error), groundless Laetitia (Delight), Susurri (Whispers) of unknown source, sudden Seditio (Sedition), overwhelming Timores (Fears). All that goes on in heaven or sea or land Fama (Rumour) observes and scours the whole wide world. Now she had brought the news [to Troy] that ships from Greece were on their way with valiant warriors: not unforeseen the hostile force appears."

\-- Ovid, Metamorphoses 12. 39 ff

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER220> If I was able to find out Scott's real last name with literally a single Google search, I hardly think writing that name in a news article can be called "doxxing"

</comment><comment><USER221> > he had discovered my real name and would reveal it in the article

So it's an OPSEC failure. Why not learn from it and start a new blog under a different, better pseudonym, then avoid giving details that can get you doxxed.

<comment><USER222> He would have to stop going to meet-ups etc. as well. Really sad that it has come to this. People have to go underground and be paranoid and distribute material like the samizdat of Eastern Europe under the communist dictatorships.

Scott is such a nice, open-minded, compassionate and careful, educated, well- Red intellectual who gives everyone the benefit of the doubt, goes out of his way not to be mean to his critics. If even he gets thrown under the bus, it's a sign of bad times coming. I'd say I'm glad I'm in Europe, but "we're all living in America", these things spread quickly over the pond.

I fear that this whole debacle will attract enough attention to him that many curious people will doxx him and his job could be at great risk. I hope I'm wrong. But it's very hard to put the genie back in the bottle, once it's out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER223> I hope not. He was always on my list of people to troll at some point. Current outrage would make that stale however. Still, good reading for what it's worth!

</comment><comment><USER224> When did "investigative journalism" become "doxxing"? Terminal internet brain.

<comment><USER192> Why is Scott's real name even relevant to the article? He has good reason not to want it published, and his real name is of no interest to most readers given that his entire public online presence is in the name "Scott Alexander". Knowing that Lewis Carroll was really called Charles Dodgson may be a piece of trivia that makes you win a pub quiz one day, and it may be of niche interest to someone who reads one of his mathematical papers and realises that the author is the same as the author of Alice, but Scott's real name won't even win you a pub quiz and has similarly niche publications that are not of remotely general interest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> I dont think the NYT is what it purports to be.

Still run by the BBC's Mark Thompson I see.

[https://imgur.com/VUdcIou](https://imgur.com/VUdcIou)

[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIMxvS- WEAER49I.png](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIMxvS-WEAER49I.png)

[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CINJUoqUwAEkSip.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CINJUoqUwAEkSip.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER225> I'm not super clear what this blog is or the overall context, but after reading the post my takeaways is "this guy did an interview with a reporter, on the record, and then asked not to be quoted by name". Is that accurate?

Being quoted by name is not being doxxed. If you don't want to be named in a newspaper article, do not talk to a newspaper reporter.

My main takeaway here is that this is yet another example of people co-opting the language of woke victimhood to avoid accountability.

</comment><comment><USER226> Scott Alexander is reaching Scott Aaronson levels of hysterics.

</comment><comment><USER227> It's specifically telling that they would choose to do this with Scott Alexander and not another psychiatrist prior to this point: the NYT has in the last few weeks been overcome from the inside by a new moral zealotry, and Scott makes a prime, juicy target for the moral assaults that will gain it plaudits among other zealots.

This will make the backroom media Slack quite pleased, I'm sure, especially if the article attempts to tie him back to white supremacy. It'll be seen as a good score, and might appease the mob for a short time. But they'll be back again for fresh blood soon enough.

<comment><USER128> "In the last few weeks"? The NYT has been going in this direction for years.

<comment><USER227> Correct, but the Tom Cotton op-ed in context of all other events lit a spark that caused a lot of internal tension to snap.

One of the most interesting pieces of insight we got at the time was from Matthew Yglesias of Vox Media, who tweeted[1] about discomfort with what was going on in a private media Slack group the day the NYT was reportedly going through turmoil. The tweets were shortly deleted, for clear reasons. From his description, it sounded like an effective struggle session was taking place in the Slack channel, which had been kicked off by the Cotton op-ed.

So the direction has been mounting for years, yes. But the significant shift in internal leadership, direction, and principles within the last few weeks cannot be overestimated.

[1]: [https://twitter.com/JimLaheyTPBs/status/1268718489654697984](https://twitter.com/JimLaheyTPBs/status/1268718489654697984)

<comment><USER128> I saw those tweets from Yglesias when he posted them; I didn't realise he'd deleted him.

To clarify: you say that Yglesias deleted his tweets "for clear reasons" \- are the reasons really clear (e.g. Yglesias confirmed his reasons) or is that just your surmise? Also, you mention a private media Slack group but the tweet thread you linked doesn't say anything about a Slack group - is there another link where I can learn more about this?

I remember there was some other woke controversy at the NYT a couple of years ago where a private NYT Slack thread was leaked; I can only imagine the inner turmoil at the NYT given recent controversies (and an extra two years' worth of new, woke graduates entering the org.)

<comment><USER227> Best I can tell, he would have gotten in immediate trouble for even hinting he had a problem with / that there was anything happening behind the scenes. The specific reason is pure speculation, but I can't see him remaining unpressured to take them down. That said, yes, it's just my surmise.

You have a fair point - looking back on the tweets, I think I conflated two things: that he mentioned something in (presumably Vox) Slack, and that his concerns stemmed from a Slack conversation. The latter has no evidence, and I incorrectly assumed it.

I'm still expecting that the discussion was happening between multiple media orgs - at minimum, NYT and Vox, given context and timing - but I can't speak to more than that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER228> I thought he was smarter than this. Of course talking to the press would put him in the spotlight and the press doesn't like pseudonyms (it might be accused of making it all up). Just suppress the narcissistic instincts and don't talk to the press if you like your privacy. As for the NYT's actions... It's as good as many other occasions to rethink one's attitude towards that paper.

</comment><comment><USER229> Knowing well how NYT "operates" I don't believe this story, sorry. Surely this is about some sort of de-escalation or weird deal with them, but I don't buy the motivation about staying pseudonymous. It literally takes less than a minute of browsing Wikipedia to find his full name. And I just assume more people have access to Wikipedia than to NYT.

<comment><USER60> Currently if you google his real name SSC is not even on the first page of results. If the NYT publishes his name in an article about SSC it will be the top result.

Also I am not sure what you mean about Wikipedia - I don't see a current article about him (there was an old one with a wrong name but it was marked for deletion).

</comment></comment><comment><USER230> Has anyone considered this is fake?

After Steve Hsu was cancelled a few days ago due to the Twitter mob wilfully misinterpreting his words, I reqd a comment somewhere saying "Scott Alexander is next" (which could make sense, as he's posted "wrong" opinions on his blog before).

Maybe the NYT story is just a cover, or maybe the article wouldn't be that "positive"...

<comment><USER192> I don't believe Scott would lie like that in that situation. Sure, it's a judgement call on his character; but I really do not think this is a likely thing we'd see from him if your scenario were the case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER231> Am I the only one who is reading this as Scott flexing on NYT and that there's nothing to be sad about?

> After considering my options, I decided on the one you see now. 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.

So his blog will be offline for a bit but it is clearly not permanent (if everything goes as planned).

Great move and probably will gain him even more clout within the rationalist community.

</comment><comment><USER232> This is a very dumb move on his part.

He just went from "big interesting blog" to "very suspicious behavior".

Think about it from a reporter's perspective, they were about to write about an interesting blog, and suddenly the blog gets deleted because his real name will be revealed. Well, that's a pretty big reaction, so big we can't ignore it. The reporter's first question now will be "Wow, what's he trying to cover up?"

One thing is certain, reporters are now trying to dig up the thing that they're imagining he's trying to cover up.

And maybe he does have something to hide given his irrational behavior, who knows?

This won't end now until reporters find something, and they're gonna go to great lengths to find something.

<comment><USER162> On the contrary, it's a smart and deeply reasonable move. Scott is being quite transparent about the reasons for his choice, and the NYT reporters' and editors' behavior will look far more suspicious than anything he's doing.

<comment><USER232> Except a journalist isn't going to sit back and take his "reasons for his choice" as true and go away, they're going to dig even more and he's smart enough to know that.

He just made things worse for himself by deleting that blog and drawing attention to himself.

Now it's not just the original reporter looking into this story, a whole bunch of journalists have dived in, and are now looking for an even bigger story.

<comment><USER162> They're going to "dig" in obscure web archives to try and make him look bad? Anyone could do that, but good luck trying to sell _that_ as reasonable after you've doxxed the guy. It would be so obvious that this is what they're doing, they probably wouldn't even bother.

And Scott has no reason to care about "drawing attention to himself" at this point - you can't beat a NYT article (even a sympathetic one!) as far as "attention" goes, and that was already in the cards.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER233> I'd take what Scott Alexander has to say about this with a grain of salt. He is a bit obsessed with people who criticize him on the internet, going as far as to write about his borderline paranoid suspicions behind people making fun of him online in several of his blog posts.

Some people can't handle the judgment that comes with being a somewhat public figure, and Scott is one of them.

<comment><USER192> > He is a bit obsessed with people who criticize him on the internet…

… is he? I think you've been reading a different blog to me; I have read all of SlateStarCodex. Can you give some examples?</comment></comment>