18 ms·

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

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-trump-ukraine-whistleblower-published https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/sep/26/new-york-times... [2] https://dashboards.trefis.com/no-login-required/5gNimvTR/New-York-Times-Revenues-How-Does-New-York-Times-Make-Money- https://dashboards.trefis.com/no-login-required/5gNimvTR/New... [3] https://www.motherjones.com/ https://www.motherjones.com/ [4] https://www.propublica.org/ https://www.propublica.org/

alecbenzer 6y ago
The implication being that the NYT wants to use real names to drive clicks and appease advertisers?
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  Hm, I don't know if I'd draw the cause/effect so directly. To me, these are two separate problems: 1) NYT doxxes sources, 2) NYT serves advertisers rather than readers. There might be some relation between these two problems but I don't personally have enough information to conclude that. I didn't make that clear in my previous post, my apologies. No implication was intended.
  - stupendousyappi 6y ago
    I have a hard time seeing how the statistic that the Times receives twice as much money from readers as from advertisers is evidence that the NYT "serves advertisers rather than readers". I think that probably puts them in the top 10% of media outlets in terms of how financially independent of advertising they are.
    - kerkeslager 6y ago
      I think any amount of money from advertisers is toxic. There's a fundamental disconnect between the mission of a news organization and getting paid to lie (which is, fundamentally, what advertising is). You cannot accept ad dollars and be an effective purveyor of truth.
      - philh 6y ago
        > getting paid to lie (which is, fundamentally, what advertising is). Not fundamentally. A lot of advertising may be well be outright lying, or close enough as makes no difference. But... I used to go by a shop named "Cards Galore", it had its name in reasonably sized letters hanging over the sidewalk, and then when I wanted to buy a card I knew where I could get one. Nothing lying about that. I think there's a lot of advertising which is like that. Something weaker might be true, like "large-scale advertising will inevitably lead to large-scale lying". But "advertising is fundamentally lying" is not true.
        kerkeslager 6y ago
        I don't really consider labeling a business to be advertising, though. That's like if I go to Wikipedia and see the Wikipedia logo--it's just showing me where I am. Internet advertising is pretty much all lying. Even when what an ad says is factual, they're not telling you the whole truth, they're telling you a partial truth that leaves out pieces of information which they know would be relevant to you--that's a lie because their intent is to deceive you. And by the way, I do get it: in a lot of businesses you have to advertise because your competitors are advertising. Advertising is a blight on society that infects everyone: opting out of advertising isn't a viable option without major sacrifice. I'd like to see a future where we all agree to stop advertising and rely on consumer-reports-style reviewers to obtain unbiased product information.
- gwbas1c 6y ago
  I think it's best to hear from NYT about why they strictly only use real names.
  - catacombs 6y ago
    Factual accuracy is the cornerstone of the profession. In reporting out a story, it is the journalist's responsibility to obtain factual and verifiable information. People are the center of the story, and using their real names adds credibility to the story. Now, there are circumstances where reporters use pseudonyms for sources -- mainly to protect victims of sex crimes -- or anonymous sources entirely. The latter is constantly debated among journalists. However, the consensus is using anonymous sources is necessary when all other avenues of getting someone on the record is exhausted or the story is so explosive that people close to the information are willing to shed light on an issue so long as their name is not used in print, mostly from fear of retribution, which is more common than you think.
    - gwern 6y ago
      Using anonymous sources to relay secret information like government insiders is very different from public pseudonymous writers. 'Scott Alexander' is of interest only as 'Scott Alexander'; he is famous for writing as 'Scott Alexander'; if you want to find criticism of Scott Alexander, you will find it by asking people about 'Scott Alexander'; and he blogs about general topics with reference to publicly verifiable things like scientific research, as opposed to focusing solely on his anecdotal experience; what does knowing his real name add or let a journalist verify? Does it somehow let you verify that he does in fact blog at SSC...? (Yes, he sometimes talks about his psychiatric patients, but like all psychiatrists, he blends and tweaks stories to protect his patients, and knowing his real name is John Smith gives you no more way of verifying said stories than when they were written by 'Scott Alexander'.)
      - zaroth 6y ago
        It’s even worse than not having his name being irrelevant. By forcing the issue the NYT has now become the story. Whatever piece the NYT originally wanted to write is now subsumed by their own actions. I am not a journalist, but I have to imagine that “don’t become the story” is pretty high up on the list of journalistic ideals. When it’s someone the NYT feels they want to protect, they will go to any length, even jail time, to protect them. It’s very hard for me not to conclude ill intent on behalf of the NYT in wanting to draw fire toward SSC based on Scott’s ideology. Asking the question “why this story now” in the current hyper-partisan and cancel-rage environment brings me to one obvious conclusion even though Scott himself doesn’t make such a leap.
- catacombs 6y ago
  > 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.
  - crazypython 6y ago
    Well, in that case, the journalists should adapt and give credibility through pseudonymity.
    - catacombs 6y ago
      Which is possible through the use of other sources. But it depends on the situation. A pseudonym is appropriate for victims of sex crimes and exploitation.
      - Fnoord 6y ago
        Anonymity and/or pseudonym are appropriate in certain situations. In this situation, you have a source you know which is credible (you know their name), and they ask you not to publish their name. In such a case, it is standard journalist ethics in The Netherlands to not disclose the name. Sex crimes and exploitation are two (good) examples of such, but there are other examples as well. Consider for example a whistle blower, a (former) member of a cult, or -to put it generally- someone who can, realistically, be threatened when their real name is released. Such is the very case here. I am in awe that The New York Times does not adhere to the very same principles as the Dutch media do, although I am aware that the vow has been broken here as well (such as in the case of Rob Oudkerk and Parool's Heleen van Royen).
        catacombs 6y ago
        > In such a case, it is standard journalist ethics in The Netherlands to not disclose the name. That's in The Netherlands, a country with different laws and regulations for the press. This case is specific to the United States, with its own rules and protections.
- nillium 6y ago
  Advertisers do not directly care about real names. What matters is journalistic integrity. We are in a time when reporters are consistently hammered for quoting anonymous sources.
  - lvh 6y ago
    An anonymous source seems materially different from a pseudonymous source, especially when that source is being quoted about their enormous body of work.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  It’s multi-faceted. In some cases NYT (or any news org of any prevailing political inclination) might want to expose real names to exercise control or rally people to cancel someone. Other times it might be more mundane, just wanting a better angle for the story or more solid corroborative details. In the case of SSC I really worry that NYT would be trying to exercise control. They probably like many things written on the blog, but also hate other things like diving into statistics of gender based pay discrimination or statistics of racial motivation in police violence. These are topics which the modern left (which I’m a million percent a part of) is increasingly pushing out of scope of the Overton window and treating them like they are not allowed to be subject to statistical evidence or neutral discussion. There is only One Right Thing To Believe about police violence (that is targets blacks and minorities, even if this is simply not supported by data). There is only One Right Thing To Believe about gender-based pay discrimination (the popular notion of “women make 70 cents on the dollar” which is not close to the real effect size, and requires a ton of uncomfortable nuance to discuss properly because of confounding effects of women staying at home more often and choosing to stay home after maternity leave). I think they want SSC to write about things that comply with their moral narrative, and see doxxing as a way to turn the screws and essentially promote a vague threat that if he writes something controversial about IQ or sexism or income inequality or whatever, and it doesn’t stick to liberal talking points, they can do a damaging hit piece.
  - coffeemaniac 6y ago
    The modern left is constantly diving into the statistics of these topics, and if you think they're not it probably signals more that you're just not a part of that discussion. If you've let your conclusions be influenced by SSC and other reactionary blogs I'd urge you to check out some leftist spaces and ask around. There's a lot of nuance, and more importantly, a lot of disagreement even in those spaces on these very issues.
    - zozbot234 6y ago
      SSC is not a "reactionary blog" by any stretch of the imagination. The author is well known for their comprehensive debunking of politically reactionary views.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- closeparen 6y ago
  Generally it's anonymous sources who tell the wild and not-necessarily-true stories that drive clicks. A policy limiting their use is intended to make the publication more sober. But that's supposed to happen by just not printing the story. Outing people who don't want to be outed is something else.
DaniloDias 6y ago
“ We're better off with organizations who receive their money from donations. ” We get value, in exchange for value.
- jeegsy 6y ago
  ITM?
  - DaniloDias 6y ago
    33
    - jeegsy 6y ago
      Thank you for your courage...Always great to see a member of the tribe!!!!
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lowdose 6y ago
Taking in to account that NYT is quitting 3th party advertisement cold turkey [0], this would mean the NYT will publish anything that ensures the future existence of the NYT. Even if it means fluffing up an octogenarian with a visual deteriorating memory function against a thoroughbred Arabian horse in the race. Run Forrest, Run! [0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.axios.com/new-york-times-advertising-792b3cd6-4bdb-47c3-9817-36601211a79d.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.axios.com/new-york-times-ad...
kopochameleon 6y ago
Interestingly in https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/style/women-gaming-streaming-harassment-sexism-twitch.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/style/women-gaming-stream... from today they seem to possibly withhold discoverable legal names: > (The streamers did not provide their legal names to The New York Times. In years past, women gamers who have spoken out against the industry using their legal names have been subjected to further harassment, hacking and doxxing.)
- at_a_remove 6y ago
  Nothing like selective enforcement of the rules as your politics so moves you.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  One wonders what criteria the Times must be using to determine that it's worth putting Scott at credible risk for further harassment but not women gamers. Is the Times really more sympathetic to gamers than psychiatrists or bloggers? That seems like an unlikely policy, but what else could explain it? I'm stumped.
  - kps 6y ago
    > what else could explain it? I'm stumped. That's irony, right? It's hard to tell these days.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      The only alternative I can imagine is so uncharitable and goes against everything an institution as famously progressive as the Times stands for that I dare not utter its name.
      - kps 6y ago
        Walter Duranty has entered the chat
      - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
radomysisky 6y ago
NYT subscribers: to cancel your subscription online, change your address to California and a button will appear allowing you to cancel immediately. Unsubscribing won’t change much, as they can afford it. What will is freezing them out. By RTing #ghostnyt you commit to not talking to NYT reporters or giving them quotes. Go direct if you have something to say. https://twitter.com/hashtag/ghostnyt https://twitter.com/hashtag/ghostnyt
gasull 6y ago
Add https://theintercept.com https://theintercept.com to the list.
sukilot 6y ago
Mother Jones and ProPublica are investigative journalists. Why would you think they wouldn't doxx subjects? Doxxing public figures is their job.
DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
from Feb, 2019: Who is Slate Star Codex? - A thread https://twitter.com/TLDRSlateStar/status/1100867507194396673 https://twitter.com/TLDRSlateStar/status/1100867507194396673 Slate Star Codex is one of the biggest dangers to people (esp marginalized groups) who want to use the internet without being abused. TLDR is that Slate Star Codex is a blog that promotes platforming white supremacists and the like, whips up frenzies about the dangers of feminism, and serves as a vector for promoting the work of white supremacists Ever wonder why Twitter is a "nazi haven"? Reddit a cesspool of hate? Well one of the reasons is that people working at this companies read and follow the precepts of Slate Star Codex. Slate Star Codex is the blog of a guy named Scott who got his start blogging in the "rationalist" community. Slate Star Codex is basically Tucker Carlson for "smart" dudes in tech. The only difference is Scott buries his ideology in mountains of text and disclaimers. His typical rhetorical technique is "I love the gays/hate racists/am not a conservative BUT" The BUT is usually "this racist/sexist/etc. Has some points and we should hear them out." Unsurprisingly, he's cultivated a community where racists/sexists/etc. Are VERY comfortable. In the comments and on a slatestarcodex reddit. Now I know he didn't create the subreddit, but he approved of it and he was a moderator there. And when things went wrong with a popular thread called "the culture wars thread" he wrote a long blog post about what a tragedy it was. Now I am a minority in tech so I've had his blog posts thrown at me by dudes for years. I saw his blog post go "viral" on both private work slacks and communities that techies frequent. https://archive.is/v62cM https://archive.is/v62cM The thing people took away from his post is that internet toxicity is drowning out "open debate." Now let's talk about the "open debate" he so wants to protect. By his own stats it was mostly white men. Sure a lot of them were professed "liberals" but in tech "liberal" means "I have a gay friend but don't make me uncomfortable by talking about things like privilege." The thread debated things like "maybe eugenics is good." It had "only" about 20 percent far righters which Scot delusionally thinks is normal. I'm sorry but while your everyday Republican might be racism he's also probably not a racial IQ stats aficionado like these dudes. While Scott claims to hate racism, his top priority is preserving a seat at the table for a ragtag group of far righters. Unfortunately this philosophy is shared with a lot of people in tech and they use his posts to spread it. I know because I work with a team that does abuse/moderation design and they post his stuff all the time saying how "insightful" it is. Their argument is you have to "hear out" the white supremacists and the like and that in the end "rationality" will win. If only that were true. And it's especially not true in an environment where the comfort of white "liberal" dudes is the top priority. I wonder how many people started reading white supremacists because of Scott's blog? How unfair you say, he can't control the subreddit. Well besides being a moderator there so he can control it to some degree, you don't even need to go there to find links to white supremacists. Right on his very blog roll are links to "Gene Expression" whose author was fired by the NYT for his links to white supremacists. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/03/20/new-york-times-signs-contract-writer-razib-khan-then-dumps-him/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/03/... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0cRBkMUUAI42ci?format=png&name=small https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0cRBkMUUAI42ci?format=png&name=... Next to it? West Hunter, written by Gregory Cochrane. His pet theory is that gayness is literally a disease and he was a regular collaborator with "race scientist" Henry Harpending https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/depths-of-madness/ https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/depths-of-madness/ Slate Star Codex is essentially a blog about how the "real" danger in the world is SJWs, feminists, and other "leftists." They, not white supremacists, are the real threat. The worst part about all of it is that he buries it in such obtuse language that only the interested will wade into it. And his followers are rabid at defending the precept that Scott is a moderate centrist liberal.

alecbenzer 6y ago

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

kerkeslager 6y ago
Hm, I don't know if I'd draw the cause/effect so directly. To me, these are two separate problems: 1) NYT doxxes sources, 2) NYT serves advertisers rather than readers. There might be some relation between these two problems but I don't personally have enough information to conclude that. I didn't make that clear in my previous post, my apologies. No implication was intended.
- stupendousyappi 6y ago
  I have a hard time seeing how the statistic that the Times receives twice as much money from readers as from advertisers is evidence that the NYT "serves advertisers rather than readers". I think that probably puts them in the top 10% of media outlets in terms of how financially independent of advertising they are.
  - kerkeslager 6y ago
    I think any amount of money from advertisers is toxic. There's a fundamental disconnect between the mission of a news organization and getting paid to lie (which is, fundamentally, what advertising is). You cannot accept ad dollars and be an effective purveyor of truth.
    - philh 6y ago
      > getting paid to lie (which is, fundamentally, what advertising is). Not fundamentally. A lot of advertising may be well be outright lying, or close enough as makes no difference. But... I used to go by a shop named "Cards Galore", it had its name in reasonably sized letters hanging over the sidewalk, and then when I wanted to buy a card I knew where I could get one. Nothing lying about that. I think there's a lot of advertising which is like that. Something weaker might be true, like "large-scale advertising will inevitably lead to large-scale lying". But "advertising is fundamentally lying" is not true.
      - kerkeslager 6y ago
        I don't really consider labeling a business to be advertising, though. That's like if I go to Wikipedia and see the Wikipedia logo--it's just showing me where I am. Internet advertising is pretty much all lying. Even when what an ad says is factual, they're not telling you the whole truth, they're telling you a partial truth that leaves out pieces of information which they know would be relevant to you--that's a lie because their intent is to deceive you. And by the way, I do get it: in a lot of businesses you have to advertise because your competitors are advertising. Advertising is a blight on society that infects everyone: opting out of advertising isn't a viable option without major sacrifice. I'd like to see a future where we all agree to stop advertising and rely on consumer-reports-style reviewers to obtain unbiased product information.
gwbas1c 6y ago
I think it's best to hear from NYT about why they strictly only use real names.
- catacombs 6y ago
  Factual accuracy is the cornerstone of the profession. In reporting out a story, it is the journalist's responsibility to obtain factual and verifiable information. People are the center of the story, and using their real names adds credibility to the story. Now, there are circumstances where reporters use pseudonyms for sources -- mainly to protect victims of sex crimes -- or anonymous sources entirely. The latter is constantly debated among journalists. However, the consensus is using anonymous sources is necessary when all other avenues of getting someone on the record is exhausted or the story is so explosive that people close to the information are willing to shed light on an issue so long as their name is not used in print, mostly from fear of retribution, which is more common than you think.
  - gwern 6y ago
    Using anonymous sources to relay secret information like government insiders is very different from public pseudonymous writers. 'Scott Alexander' is of interest only as 'Scott Alexander'; he is famous for writing as 'Scott Alexander'; if you want to find criticism of Scott Alexander, you will find it by asking people about 'Scott Alexander'; and he blogs about general topics with reference to publicly verifiable things like scientific research, as opposed to focusing solely on his anecdotal experience; what does knowing his real name add or let a journalist verify? Does it somehow let you verify that he does in fact blog at SSC...? (Yes, he sometimes talks about his psychiatric patients, but like all psychiatrists, he blends and tweaks stories to protect his patients, and knowing his real name is John Smith gives you no more way of verifying said stories than when they were written by 'Scott Alexander'.)
    - zaroth 6y ago
      It’s even worse than not having his name being irrelevant. By forcing the issue the NYT has now become the story. Whatever piece the NYT originally wanted to write is now subsumed by their own actions. I am not a journalist, but I have to imagine that “don’t become the story” is pretty high up on the list of journalistic ideals. When it’s someone the NYT feels they want to protect, they will go to any length, even jail time, to protect them. It’s very hard for me not to conclude ill intent on behalf of the NYT in wanting to draw fire toward SSC based on Scott’s ideology. Asking the question “why this story now” in the current hyper-partisan and cancel-rage environment brings me to one obvious conclusion even though Scott himself doesn’t make such a leap.
catacombs 6y ago
> 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.
- crazypython 6y ago
  Well, in that case, the journalists should adapt and give credibility through pseudonymity.
  - catacombs 6y ago
    Which is possible through the use of other sources. But it depends on the situation. A pseudonym is appropriate for victims of sex crimes and exploitation.
    - Fnoord 6y ago
      Anonymity and/or pseudonym are appropriate in certain situations. In this situation, you have a source you know which is credible (you know their name), and they ask you not to publish their name. In such a case, it is standard journalist ethics in The Netherlands to not disclose the name. Sex crimes and exploitation are two (good) examples of such, but there are other examples as well. Consider for example a whistle blower, a (former) member of a cult, or -to put it generally- someone who can, realistically, be threatened when their real name is released. Such is the very case here. I am in awe that The New York Times does not adhere to the very same principles as the Dutch media do, although I am aware that the vow has been broken here as well (such as in the case of Rob Oudkerk and Parool's Heleen van Royen).
      - catacombs 6y ago
        > In such a case, it is standard journalist ethics in The Netherlands to not disclose the name. That's in The Netherlands, a country with different laws and regulations for the press. This case is specific to the United States, with its own rules and protections.
nillium 6y ago
Advertisers do not directly care about real names. What matters is journalistic integrity. We are in a time when reporters are consistently hammered for quoting anonymous sources.
- lvh 6y ago
  An anonymous source seems materially different from a pseudonymous source, especially when that source is being quoted about their enormous body of work.
mlthoughts2018 6y ago
It’s multi-faceted. In some cases NYT (or any news org of any prevailing political inclination) might want to expose real names to exercise control or rally people to cancel someone. Other times it might be more mundane, just wanting a better angle for the story or more solid corroborative details. In the case of SSC I really worry that NYT would be trying to exercise control. They probably like many things written on the blog, but also hate other things like diving into statistics of gender based pay discrimination or statistics of racial motivation in police violence. These are topics which the modern left (which I’m a million percent a part of) is increasingly pushing out of scope of the Overton window and treating them like they are not allowed to be subject to statistical evidence or neutral discussion. There is only One Right Thing To Believe about police violence (that is targets blacks and minorities, even if this is simply not supported by data). There is only One Right Thing To Believe about gender-based pay discrimination (the popular notion of “women make 70 cents on the dollar” which is not close to the real effect size, and requires a ton of uncomfortable nuance to discuss properly because of confounding effects of women staying at home more often and choosing to stay home after maternity leave). I think they want SSC to write about things that comply with their moral narrative, and see doxxing as a way to turn the screws and essentially promote a vague threat that if he writes something controversial about IQ or sexism or income inequality or whatever, and it doesn’t stick to liberal talking points, they can do a damaging hit piece.
- coffeemaniac 6y ago
  The modern left is constantly diving into the statistics of these topics, and if you think they're not it probably signals more that you're just not a part of that discussion. If you've let your conclusions be influenced by SSC and other reactionary blogs I'd urge you to check out some leftist spaces and ask around. There's a lot of nuance, and more importantly, a lot of disagreement even in those spaces on these very issues.
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    SSC is not a "reactionary blog" by any stretch of the imagination. The author is well known for their comprehensive debunking of politically reactionary views.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
closeparen 6y ago
Generally it's anonymous sources who tell the wild and not-necessarily-true stories that drive clicks. A policy limiting their use is intended to make the publication more sober. But that's supposed to happen by just not printing the story. Outing people who don't want to be outed is something else.

DaniloDias 6y ago

“ We're better off with organizations who receive their money from donations. ” We get value, in exchange for value.

jeegsy 6y ago
ITM?
- DaniloDias 6y ago
  33
  - jeegsy 6y ago
    Thank you for your courage...Always great to see a member of the tribe!!!!

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lowdose 6y ago

Taking in to account that NYT is quitting 3th party advertisement cold turkey [0], this would mean the NYT will publish anything that ensures the future existence of the NYT. Even if it means fluffing up an octogenarian with a visual deteriorating memory function against a thoroughbred Arabian horse in the race. Run Forrest, Run! [0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.axios.com/new-york-times-advertising-792b3cd6-4bdb-47c3-9817-36601211a79d.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.axios.com/new-york-times-ad...

kopochameleon 6y ago

Interestingly in https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/style/women-gaming-streaming-harassment-sexism-twitch.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/style/women-gaming-stream... from today they seem to possibly withhold discoverable legal names: > (The streamers did not provide their legal names to The New York Times. In years past, women gamers who have spoken out against the industry using their legal names have been subjected to further harassment, hacking and doxxing.)

at_a_remove 6y ago
Nothing like selective enforcement of the rules as your politics so moves you.
throwaway894345 6y ago
One wonders what criteria the Times must be using to determine that it's worth putting Scott at credible risk for further harassment but not women gamers. Is the Times really more sympathetic to gamers than psychiatrists or bloggers? That seems like an unlikely policy, but what else could explain it? I'm stumped.
- kps 6y ago
  > what else could explain it? I'm stumped. That's irony, right? It's hard to tell these days.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    The only alternative I can imagine is so uncharitable and goes against everything an institution as famously progressive as the Times stands for that I dare not utter its name.
    - kps 6y ago
      Walter Duranty has entered the chat
    - 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

radomysisky 6y ago

NYT subscribers: to cancel your subscription online, change your address to California and a button will appear allowing you to cancel immediately. Unsubscribing won’t change much, as they can afford it. What will is freezing them out. By RTing #ghostnyt you commit to not talking to NYT reporters or giving them quotes. Go direct if you have something to say. https://twitter.com/hashtag/ghostnyt https://twitter.com/hashtag/ghostnyt

gasull 6y ago

Add https://theintercept.com https://theintercept.com to the list.

sukilot 6y ago

Mother Jones and ProPublica are investigative journalists. Why would you think they wouldn't doxx subjects? Doxxing public figures is their job.

DyslexicAtheist 6y ago

from Feb, 2019: Who is Slate Star Codex? - A thread https://twitter.com/TLDRSlateStar/status/1100867507194396673 https://twitter.com/TLDRSlateStar/status/1100867507194396673 Slate Star Codex is one of the biggest dangers to people (esp marginalized groups) who want to use the internet without being abused. TLDR is that Slate Star Codex is a blog that promotes platforming white supremacists and the like, whips up frenzies about the dangers of feminism, and serves as a vector for promoting the work of white supremacists Ever wonder why Twitter is a "nazi haven"? Reddit a cesspool of hate? Well one of the reasons is that people working at this companies read and follow the precepts of Slate Star Codex. Slate Star Codex is the blog of a guy named Scott who got his start blogging in the "rationalist" community. Slate Star Codex is basically Tucker Carlson for "smart" dudes in tech. The only difference is Scott buries his ideology in mountains of text and disclaimers. His typical rhetorical technique is "I love the gays/hate racists/am not a conservative BUT" The BUT is usually "this racist/sexist/etc. Has some points and we should hear them out." Unsurprisingly, he's cultivated a community where racists/sexists/etc. Are VERY comfortable. In the comments and on a slatestarcodex reddit. Now I know he didn't create the subreddit, but he approved of it and he was a moderator there. And when things went wrong with a popular thread called "the culture wars thread" he wrote a long blog post about what a tragedy it was. Now I am a minority in tech so I've had his blog posts thrown at me by dudes for years. I saw his blog post go "viral" on both private work slacks and communities that techies frequent. https://archive.is/v62cM https://archive.is/v62cM The thing people took away from his post is that internet toxicity is drowning out "open debate." Now let's talk about the "open debate" he so wants to protect. By his own stats it was mostly white men. Sure a lot of them were professed "liberals" but in tech "liberal" means "I have a gay friend but don't make me uncomfortable by talking about things like privilege." The thread debated things like "maybe eugenics is good." It had "only" about 20 percent far righters which Scot delusionally thinks is normal. I'm sorry but while your everyday Republican might be racism he's also probably not a racial IQ stats aficionado like these dudes. While Scott claims to hate racism, his top priority is preserving a seat at the table for a ragtag group of far righters. Unfortunately this philosophy is shared with a lot of people in tech and they use his posts to spread it. I know because I work with a team that does abuse/moderation design and they post his stuff all the time saying how "insightful" it is. Their argument is you have to "hear out" the white supremacists and the like and that in the end "rationality" will win. If only that were true. And it's especially not true in an environment where the comfort of white "liberal" dudes is the top priority. I wonder how many people started reading white supremacists because of Scott's blog? How unfair you say, he can't control the subreddit. Well besides being a moderator there so he can control it to some degree, you don't even need to go there to find links to white supremacists. Right on his very blog roll are links to "Gene Expression" whose author was fired by the NYT for his links to white supremacists. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/03/20/new-york-times-signs-contract-writer-razib-khan-then-dumps-him/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/03/... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0cRBkMUUAI42ci?format=png&name=small https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0cRBkMUUAI42ci?format=png&name=... Next to it? West Hunter, written by Gregory Cochrane. His pet theory is that gayness is literally a disease and he was a regular collaborator with "race scientist" Henry Harpending https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/depths-of-madness/ https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/depths-of-madness/ Slate Star Codex is essentially a blog about how the "real" danger in the world is SJWs, feminists, and other "leftists." They, not white supremacists, are the real threat. The worst part about all of it is that he buries it in such obtuse language that only the interested will wade into it. And his followers are rabid at defending the precept that Scott is a moderate centrist liberal.