5 ms·

He could also name the NYT reporter.

zozbot234 6y ago
Since it seems that the reporter might have been named after all, did anyone take a quick look at their previous work to check whether they have a history of publishing problematic or misleading 'hit pieces'? It might be useful to figure out if concern really is warranted here.
ipsum2 6y ago
Why would he stoop that low?
- jamesrcole 6y ago
  Part of the reason people do things like what the journalist did is because they can do so without facing any consequences. There should be disincentives for that kind of behavior. I'm not talking about them being threatened or put at risk. I'm talking about there being consequences for their reputation.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  It may prevent the same reporter from destroying someone else's life. There are consequences to hurting another human being's life and privacy.
rebuilder 6y ago
That would be counterproductive. The reporter would get abuse from random people, the article would definitely get published with the blogger's name, with the twist of "blogger tries to suppress publication of article by leveraging an online mob."
stale2002 6y ago
There is no need to do that. As long as the reporter remains unnamed, for now, they can decide to either not publish the article, or not publish the name, and they will be able to go along with there life, without getting the negative backlash. If they do dox the person, though, their name will be on the article, and you'll be able to find it.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  Yeah if it were me there would definitely be another online release about how a certain reporter ruined my life just so he could get the "scoop".
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > how a certain reporter ruined my life just so he could get the "scoop" The point though, is that this hasn't actually happened yet. There is still a possibility that the reporter will back out, and not publish the name. At which point, the author wins, and isn't doxed. By not attacking the reporter, yet it still leaves open the possibility that everyone can back down.
- jamesrcole 6y ago
  they've already succeeded in getting the site removed from the internet, and done so with complete impunity.
jamesrcole 6y ago
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.
- fourcommas 6y ago
  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.
  - jamesrcole 6y ago
    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.
    - afarrell 6y ago
      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.
- lazyasciiart 6y ago
  People want to know who SSC is for the same reason.
  - solveit 6y ago
    So Scott the psychiatrist's reputation can take a hit? If Scott Alexander writes shitty stuff, Scott Alexander's name will take a hit. And there's nothing wrong with that, because his future work will also be published under that name. But what's the rationale for nuking Scott the psychiatrist? (who will also be nuked even if his patients see nothing wrong with his blog. Patient-psychiatrist interactions are supposed to be tightly controlled)
throwawayffffas 6y ago
Presumably the NYT article would be under the reporters name.
Doctor_Fegg 6y ago
That's been done, unsurprisingly, on Twitter already.

Since it seems that the reporter might have been named after all, did anyone take a quick look at their previous work to check whether they have a history of publishing problematic or misleading 'hit pieces'? It might be useful to figure out if concern really is warranted here.

ipsum2 6y ago

Why would he stoop that low?

jamesrcole 6y ago
Part of the reason people do things like what the journalist did is because they can do so without facing any consequences. There should be disincentives for that kind of behavior. I'm not talking about them being threatened or put at risk. I'm talking about there being consequences for their reputation.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
It may prevent the same reporter from destroying someone else's life. There are consequences to hurting another human being's life and privacy.

rebuilder 6y ago

That would be counterproductive. The reporter would get abuse from random people, the article would definitely get published with the blogger's name, with the twist of "blogger tries to suppress publication of article by leveraging an online mob."

stale2002 6y ago

There is no need to do that. As long as the reporter remains unnamed, for now, they can decide to either not publish the article, or not publish the name, and they will be able to go along with there life, without getting the negative backlash. If they do dox the person, though, their name will be on the article, and you'll be able to find it.

stjohnswarts 6y ago
Yeah if it were me there would definitely be another online release about how a certain reporter ruined my life just so he could get the "scoop".
- stale2002 6y ago
  > how a certain reporter ruined my life just so he could get the "scoop" The point though, is that this hasn't actually happened yet. There is still a possibility that the reporter will back out, and not publish the name. At which point, the author wins, and isn't doxed. By not attacking the reporter, yet it still leaves open the possibility that everyone can back down.
jamesrcole 6y ago
they've already succeeded in getting the site removed from the internet, and done so with complete impunity.

jamesrcole 6y ago

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.

fourcommas 6y ago
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.
- jamesrcole 6y ago
  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.
  - afarrell 6y ago
    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.
lazyasciiart 6y ago
People want to know who SSC is for the same reason.
- solveit 6y ago
  So Scott the psychiatrist's reputation can take a hit? If Scott Alexander writes shitty stuff, Scott Alexander's name will take a hit. And there's nothing wrong with that, because his future work will also be published under that name. But what's the rationale for nuking Scott the psychiatrist? (who will also be nuked even if his patients see nothing wrong with his blog. Patient-psychiatrist interactions are supposed to be tightly controlled)

throwawayffffas 6y ago

Presumably the NYT article would be under the reporters name.

Doctor_Fegg 6y ago

That's been done, unsurprisingly, on Twitter already.