4 ms·

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

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)
  - reedwolf 6y ago
    The issue is that those two people are one and the same. Many of Scott's patients would find his writings to be very relevant information.
    - FeepingCreature 6y ago
      Not every relevant interest is legitimate.
      - reedwolf 6y ago
        Fortunately it will now be up to his patients and colleagues to decide that.
        solveit 6y ago
        Colleagues, sure. Patients, NO. Especially since this will harm even potential patients who would have had no problem with Scott. The problem isn't that patients will read SSC, decide that Scott isn't cool, and Scott loses business. It's that patients will read SSC, learn too much about how and what Scott thinks, and this will hinder Scott's ability to help these patients regardless of what said thoughts are. For instance, if Scott talks about hating PE class in high school (he very well might have, I don't know), that could stop patients from opening up to him about their passion which happens to be sports or something. But, you say, surely that's not a problem for well-adjusted people! Guess what the hell a psychiatrist does.
radomysisky 6y ago
https://twitter.com/CadeMetz https://twitter.com/CadeMetz
- jamesrcole 6y ago
  Is there any way to verify that this is the person? Obviously, it would be wrong to pin the blame on the wrong person.
  - dunkelheit 6y ago
    https://web.archive.org/web/20200620130623/https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/16/open-thread-156-25/#comment-917760 https://web.archive.org/web/20200620130623/https://slatestar...
  - Forlien 6y ago
    According to posters on the subreddit for the blog, he emailed people who had been to in-person meetups for the blog. https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/hbk52q/psa_apparently_a_nyt_reporter_is_writing_a_piece/fvbxd31/ https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/hbk52q/psa_...
- Lewton 6y ago
  Don't blame the journalist too much for what is probably a NYT general policy https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/he95ak/blog_deleted_due_to_nyt_threatening_doxxing_of/fvq3il7/ https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/he95ak/blog...

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)
- reedwolf 6y ago
  The issue is that those two people are one and the same. Many of Scott's patients would find his writings to be very relevant information.
  - FeepingCreature 6y ago
    Not every relevant interest is legitimate.
    - reedwolf 6y ago
      Fortunately it will now be up to his patients and colleagues to decide that.
      - solveit 6y ago
        Colleagues, sure. Patients, NO. Especially since this will harm even potential patients who would have had no problem with Scott. The problem isn't that patients will read SSC, decide that Scott isn't cool, and Scott loses business. It's that patients will read SSC, learn too much about how and what Scott thinks, and this will hinder Scott's ability to help these patients regardless of what said thoughts are. For instance, if Scott talks about hating PE class in high school (he very well might have, I don't know), that could stop patients from opening up to him about their passion which happens to be sports or something. But, you say, surely that's not a problem for well-adjusted people! Guess what the hell a psychiatrist does.

radomysisky 6y ago

https://twitter.com/CadeMetz https://twitter.com/CadeMetz

jamesrcole 6y ago
Is there any way to verify that this is the person? Obviously, it would be wrong to pin the blame on the wrong person.
- dunkelheit 6y ago
  https://web.archive.org/web/20200620130623/https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/16/open-thread-156-25/#comment-917760 https://web.archive.org/web/20200620130623/https://slatestar...
- Forlien 6y ago
  According to posters on the subreddit for the blog, he emailed people who had been to in-person meetups for the blog. https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/hbk52q/psa_apparently_a_nyt_reporter_is_writing_a_piece/fvbxd31/ https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/hbk52q/psa_...
Lewton 6y ago
Don't blame the journalist too much for what is probably a NYT general policy https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/he95ak/blog_deleted_due_to_nyt_threatening_doxxing_of/fvq3il7/ https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/he95ak/blog...