6 ms·

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'

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.

zrkrlc 6y ago
It wasn’t an overreaction given that it’s happened to him before. And people absolutely called his clinic to try and get him fired.
dgellow 6y ago
As Scott wrote in his post, there is a difference between being somewhat-anonymous (people who want to uncover his name will effectively do it) and having his full name shared publicly in one of the biggest newspapers.
ImaCake 6y ago
It doesn't seem like an overreaction when he states that he fears for his life and the welfare of his patients. He seems to say that when faced with being doxxed, his choice is to keep the blog and threaten things he cares deeply about, or hide the blog and thus protect those things. Clearly he has decided there are things more important to him than the blog.
Lewton 6y ago
How is it an overreaction if the NYC was trying to make him famous and he didn't want to be (real-name) famous? Isn't shutting down his blog the only appropriate action then?
himinlomax 6y ago
> 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."
- mijoharas 6y ago
  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.
  - mijoharas 6y ago
    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.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - tomjakubowski 6y ago
      There is a third possibility, a negative and factual article.
      - mijoharas 6y ago
        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.
- 6y ago
mijoharas 6y ago
To be fair, I think it's somewhat different being a psychotherapist. A lot of therapy relies on the patient not knowing much about the therapist, which would be very difficult if he was professionally linked to his blog.
- carapace 6y ago
  (FWIW, psychotherapists and psychiatrists are not the same thing.)
ragazzina 6y ago
>I was part of that for years. >If you're someone who matters, people are going to want to know who you are. Have you ever felt the need of knowing his full name?
- johan_larson 6y ago
  I have occasionally been curious about that, but never curious enough to try to make an effort to find out. Call it a mix of laziness and respect for the preferences of others.
syshum 6y ago
One of the biggest problems in modern society is the lack of respect for privacy and anonymous speech. anonymous speech has been a cornerstone of the advancement of civilization many times through out history including playing a critical role in the formation of the United States as well as the US Constitution Your belief that a person should be disallowed anonymity simply because they created a popular blog is crazy to me. Further there are a few celebrities today that operate under pseudonyms in their public life and every few people know them by their true legal name so it is factually inaccurate to say it is not "realistic" to have a public life and remain somewhat anonymous.
- johan_larson 6y ago
  Anonymity is not some sort of natural right. For most of our existence as a species, we lived in small groups where you quite naturally knew everyone you dealt with. True strangers were rare, and quite rightly regarded with a certain suspicion. Anonymity only became possible when we started living in groups large enough that you might have to deal with people you hadn't met before, because there were just too many people around for you to know all of them. And even in such circumstances, if you were going to enter into some sort of serious agreement, like buying on credit or renting property, you would absolutely have been required to identify yourself. Historically, anonymity of any sort has only sometimes been possible, and anonymity in serious matters has generally not been possible at all. It is therefore not reasonable to speak of a natural right to anonymity. My position, strictly speaking, is that anonymity is generally permissible. If you want to try to remain anonymous, that is in many cases fine. But it is also quite difficult, particularly in the face of determined investigation, and is therefore rather unrealistic. Unless you really know what you are doing, your attempts will fail as soon as someone really cares about finding out. This makes combining anonymity with any sort of public prominence or celebrity status a particularly bad fit, because plenty of people care about knowing all sorts of details about celebrities, so there is plenty of reason for both amateur snoops and professional investigators to go looking. I don't find your example of celebrity pseudonyms particularly convincing. These are simply terms of convenience, part of crafting a public image. They are not true attempts to hide anyone's identity. Pull up the wiki page of most any celebrity that goes by a stage name, and you'll find their real or original name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupac_Shakur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupac_Shakur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elton_John https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elton_John https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne

zrkrlc 6y ago

It wasn’t an overreaction given that it’s happened to him before. And people absolutely called his clinic to try and get him fired.

dgellow 6y ago

As Scott wrote in his post, there is a difference between being somewhat-anonymous (people who want to uncover his name will effectively do it) and having his full name shared publicly in one of the biggest newspapers.

ImaCake 6y ago

It doesn't seem like an overreaction when he states that he fears for his life and the welfare of his patients. He seems to say that when faced with being doxxed, his choice is to keep the blog and threaten things he cares deeply about, or hide the blog and thus protect those things. Clearly he has decided there are things more important to him than the blog.

Lewton 6y ago

How is it an overreaction if the NYC was trying to make him famous and he didn't want to be (real-name) famous? Isn't shutting down his blog the only appropriate action then?

himinlomax 6y ago

> 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."

mijoharas 6y ago
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.
- mijoharas 6y ago
  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.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - tomjakubowski 6y ago
    There is a third possibility, a negative and factual article.
    - mijoharas 6y ago
      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.
6y ago

mijoharas 6y ago

To be fair, I think it's somewhat different being a psychotherapist. A lot of therapy relies on the patient not knowing much about the therapist, which would be very difficult if he was professionally linked to his blog.

carapace 6y ago
(FWIW, psychotherapists and psychiatrists are not the same thing.)

ragazzina 6y ago

>I was part of that for years. >If you're someone who matters, people are going to want to know who you are. Have you ever felt the need of knowing his full name?

johan_larson 6y ago
I have occasionally been curious about that, but never curious enough to try to make an effort to find out. Call it a mix of laziness and respect for the preferences of others.

syshum 6y ago

One of the biggest problems in modern society is the lack of respect for privacy and anonymous speech. anonymous speech has been a cornerstone of the advancement of civilization many times through out history including playing a critical role in the formation of the United States as well as the US Constitution Your belief that a person should be disallowed anonymity simply because they created a popular blog is crazy to me. Further there are a few celebrities today that operate under pseudonyms in their public life and every few people know them by their true legal name so it is factually inaccurate to say it is not "realistic" to have a public life and remain somewhat anonymous.

johan_larson 6y ago
Anonymity is not some sort of natural right. For most of our existence as a species, we lived in small groups where you quite naturally knew everyone you dealt with. True strangers were rare, and quite rightly regarded with a certain suspicion. Anonymity only became possible when we started living in groups large enough that you might have to deal with people you hadn't met before, because there were just too many people around for you to know all of them. And even in such circumstances, if you were going to enter into some sort of serious agreement, like buying on credit or renting property, you would absolutely have been required to identify yourself. Historically, anonymity of any sort has only sometimes been possible, and anonymity in serious matters has generally not been possible at all. It is therefore not reasonable to speak of a natural right to anonymity. My position, strictly speaking, is that anonymity is generally permissible. If you want to try to remain anonymous, that is in many cases fine. But it is also quite difficult, particularly in the face of determined investigation, and is therefore rather unrealistic. Unless you really know what you are doing, your attempts will fail as soon as someone really cares about finding out. This makes combining anonymity with any sort of public prominence or celebrity status a particularly bad fit, because plenty of people care about knowing all sorts of details about celebrities, so there is plenty of reason for both amateur snoops and professional investigators to go looking. I don't find your example of celebrity pseudonyms particularly convincing. These are simply terms of convenience, part of crafting a public image. They are not true attempts to hide anyone's identity. Pull up the wiki page of most any celebrity that goes by a stage name, and you'll find their real or original name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupac_Shakur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupac_Shakur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elton_John https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elton_John https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne