3 ms·
> By that measure, it hasn't been safe since he > started his blog. In the article, he explains > why he's always used a name he hopes people > cannot tra
by lhnz 6y ago
> By that measure, it hasn't been safe since he
> started his blog. In the article, he explains
> why he's always used a name he hopes people
> cannot trace to him.
True. The reason I said that isn't related to what he has posted about needing anonymity to not harm his work.
I believe that the journalists unstated reason for wanting to demask him, is to coerce him into silence and to make it easier for mobs to form against him in future.
Basically, they are too smart to attack him directly, but have decided to paint a target on his back, and to leave the job to bloodier hands.
- vharuck 6y agoI thought of a different and, in my view, more likely cause behind this story: He was interviewed by a junior reporter (who else would be assigned an article about a blogger). This junior reporter is too scared or naive to break the NYT policy of "always use names." Maybe NYT's orientation sessions stressed this a lot, or maybe the reporter got chewed out for not using names before. It is weird they weren't willing to leave out his name after Scott brought it up. But we do only have one side of the story right now, and it's only been a day. A secret vendetta is too far a leap for me right now.
- xhkkffbf 6y agoCade Metz is not a junior reporter. He's done great work at Wired and this isn't his first rodeo.
- imtringued 6y agoI don't think the article itself is the problem. The decision to write an article about the blog could have been made by someone else who intended to dox Scott Alexander and that person is insisting on the real name policy.