6 ms·

You're looking at the wrong side of the veil. Yes, it's trivial to find his real name if you know of his blog, but it's not easy to find his blog by searching

by mundo 6y ago

You're looking at the wrong side of the veil. Yes, it's trivial to find his real name if you know of his blog, but it's not easy to find his blog by searching his real name.

tptacek 6y ago
No, it's straightforwardly evident from a search of his real name. And, again: one of his best-known standalone pieces was originally published under that name.
- neonate 6y ago
  What piece was that? Just curious as I have no idea.
  - jefftk 6y ago
    I'm not sure which one tptacek was thinking of, but https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/efficient-charity-do-unto-others/ https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/efficient-charity... (a cross-post, which now says "Scott Alexander") comes to mind for me.
    - tptacek 6y ago
      Not that one. I'm uncomfortable sharing, though honestly I would have a hard time articulating why, since my whole point is: this guy's identity is not a secret.
KirinDave 6y ago
It is literally the second hit on an incognito google search for his full name. The address of his business is up on hit one. Please show me the veil.
- nkurz 6y ago
  > Please show me the veil. In mundo's terminology, it's not he veil that's important, but the direction that one is looking through it. Scott's stated desire is that a search for "Scott [RealLastName] psychiatrist" doesn't turn up his personal blog posts at the top of the results. This is the search that a current or potential client is likely to do, and he would like the results of this search to be professionally oriented. So far as I know (I haven't tried the searches) most casual searches of such terms don't lead to directly to the blog. He is less concerned with whether a search for "Scott Alexander Slate Star Codex real name" comes up with his real last name, since as you point out this information is already available online and won't be changed by a NYT article. His reasoning (I think correct) is that if a high profile article comes out that uses his full name and his profession, casual psychiatry related searches will highlight his blog rather than his professional career. Whether or not Scott has a right to this level of privacy is a separate matter, but does this distinction make sense?
  - tptacek 6y ago
    No. The distinction seems fanciful, because it's not how information works. It isn't even how information worked before the Internet. It's a "the floor is lava" grade of anonymity, based on offering people permission to connect 2 publicly available dots. It's also moot, since, again, one of his best-known pieces was released under his real name. Many of us have had the experience of being unhappy with what Google chooses to surface for our names. I never thought to declare "Anonymity!", Michael Scott style, to resolve that problem for myself.
    - anatoly 6y ago
      As a psychiatrist, Scott Alexander meets new patients or potential patients who haven't heard his real name before all the time, probably almost every day. It's been his experience until now, despite his blog being rather popular in certain circles and occasionally linked in national op-eds and such, that his patients, despite the inevitable cursory Googling that everyone does nowadays, are not aware of his blog and controversies that surround it (such as, e.g., numerous culture warriors on both sides loathing it). He greatly prefers it stay this way, for several very good reasons he wrote about better than I could, and suspects - I think correctly - that in the case of a NYT profile that outs his real name it will not. I don't know why you keep repeating that him deleting his blog ensures the lack of anonymity (in this sense) where there'll be a NYT article or not. I suspect he'd disagree, and I think that if this story ends with no NYT article that outs his name, all the discussions and media articles about this story that happened so far won't change the desirable status quo re: his patients not connecting his name to Online Controversies through cursory Googling.

by mundo 6y ago

You're looking at the wrong side of the veil. Yes, it's trivial to find his real name if you know of his blog, but it's not easy to find his blog by searching his real name.

tptacek 6y ago

No, it's straightforwardly evident from a search of his real name. And, again: one of his best-known standalone pieces was originally published under that name.

neonate 6y ago
What piece was that? Just curious as I have no idea.
- jefftk 6y ago
  I'm not sure which one tptacek was thinking of, but https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/efficient-charity-do-unto-others/ https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/efficient-charity... (a cross-post, which now says "Scott Alexander") comes to mind for me.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    Not that one. I'm uncomfortable sharing, though honestly I would have a hard time articulating why, since my whole point is: this guy's identity is not a secret.

KirinDave 6y ago

It is literally the second hit on an incognito google search for his full name. The address of his business is up on hit one. Please show me the veil.

nkurz 6y ago
> Please show me the veil. In mundo's terminology, it's not he veil that's important, but the direction that one is looking through it. Scott's stated desire is that a search for "Scott [RealLastName] psychiatrist" doesn't turn up his personal blog posts at the top of the results. This is the search that a current or potential client is likely to do, and he would like the results of this search to be professionally oriented. So far as I know (I haven't tried the searches) most casual searches of such terms don't lead to directly to the blog. He is less concerned with whether a search for "Scott Alexander Slate Star Codex real name" comes up with his real last name, since as you point out this information is already available online and won't be changed by a NYT article. His reasoning (I think correct) is that if a high profile article comes out that uses his full name and his profession, casual psychiatry related searches will highlight his blog rather than his professional career. Whether or not Scott has a right to this level of privacy is a separate matter, but does this distinction make sense?
- tptacek 6y ago
  No. The distinction seems fanciful, because it's not how information works. It isn't even how information worked before the Internet. It's a "the floor is lava" grade of anonymity, based on offering people permission to connect 2 publicly available dots. It's also moot, since, again, one of his best-known pieces was released under his real name. Many of us have had the experience of being unhappy with what Google chooses to surface for our names. I never thought to declare "Anonymity!", Michael Scott style, to resolve that problem for myself.
  - anatoly 6y ago
    As a psychiatrist, Scott Alexander meets new patients or potential patients who haven't heard his real name before all the time, probably almost every day. It's been his experience until now, despite his blog being rather popular in certain circles and occasionally linked in national op-eds and such, that his patients, despite the inevitable cursory Googling that everyone does nowadays, are not aware of his blog and controversies that surround it (such as, e.g., numerous culture warriors on both sides loathing it). He greatly prefers it stay this way, for several very good reasons he wrote about better than I could, and suspects - I think correctly - that in the case of a NYT profile that outs his real name it will not. I don't know why you keep repeating that him deleting his blog ensures the lack of anonymity (in this sense) where there'll be a NYT article or not. I suspect he'd disagree, and I think that if this story ends with no NYT article that outs his name, all the discussions and media articles about this story that happened so far won't change the desirable status quo re: his patients not connecting his name to Online Controversies through cursory Googling.