6 ms·

I was scrolling through the whole article raging for an ethics paragraph, but I guess they handled that pretty well. With a nifty and I think necessary touch o

I was scrolling through the whole article raging for an ethics paragraph, but I guess they handled that pretty well. With a nifty and I think necessary touch of themselves still being in the dark; I very much doubt that the data they gathered can really reveal the author's identity, and the result they arrived on (Tom Dale) seems to largely originate from the "quotes one person far more than others" metric. You could almost consider it an anti-metric: which intently pseudonymous author would dare to retweet their own nym? However, to counter this analysis you'd have to blend in with the average Twitter user in your niche, so it then comes down to a psychological game of "what would horse_js do?".

cwmma 8y ago
The ember part is a giveaway too since it's a language that has a small but passionate base you'd expect the person behind it to care about ember. That being said the reasoning doesn't rule out wycats.
defertoreptar 8y ago
> I was scrolling through the whole article raging for an ethics paragraph, but I guess they handled that pretty well. What good is an "ethics paragraph" anyway? Isn't it like prefacing an offensive statement with "no offense, but"? It's one thing if you have a disclaimer to protect the user, since the user is making the decision. It's another thing to make a disclaimer that just lectures the user about privacy, but does nothing to protect the doxxed. That just seems like a lame attempt to make the site less liable, like when people post copyright content with the disclaimer "I do not own this."