3 ms·

There are enough comments in this thread discussing whether this guy has any real privacy (read: is pseudonymous) or not that I decided to see for myself. Afte

by luord 6y ago

There are enough comments in this thread discussing whether this guy has any real privacy (read: is pseudonymous) or not that I decided to see for myself. After half an hour, I couldn't ferret out his last name no matter the search I tried, regardless of incognito mode, open session, etc. In fact, google kept trying to point me to some screenwriter, at least whenever I searched while logged in. Admittedly, I don't remember ever reading his blog nor anything about him... But then again, that is probably true of most of his patients too, so my search results might be more representative of the results he cares about. Now, something tells me that an NYT article would definitely bring his two personas closer together in anyone's search results. So, even assuming that my google-fu is weaker than I thought it was and it turns out that literally everyone (but me) can immediately know who he is, his fear still seems warranted to me.

tptacek 6y ago
I don't know what to tell you, since I had his real name on the simplest imaginable search, and other people have had his name autocomplete.
- luord 6y ago
  That doesn't surprise me, to be honest. From what I've seen in this thread, you seem to care more about this guy than I do, and google adapts results according to one's history and all the other data google collects. As for our incognito results, mine aren't even in English, so that also factors in why they might be so different. Though I doubt this Scott Alexander person cares about someone who won't ever be his patient.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    I think I care less than you do, since I spent less than 4 minutes, and you spent a whole half hour. I do care about bad arguments, though; very little Google skill is required to rebut them, though.
    - luord 6y ago
      > I think I care less than you do, since I spent less than 4 minutes You've been on this thread for hours and have been replying to almost everyone in it... Anyhow, what was my bad argument? Wait, scratch that, what was my argument, period? I only mentioned what my results were and some stuff about google results that everyone already knows anyway. I certainly wasn't trying to share any particular view, idea or theory. Wait, I also speculated on whether an article in one of the biggest news sites in the USA might impact the kind of results google shows about him, was that an incorrect assumption on my part?
- netsharc 6y ago
  I think he wants it the other way around... Sadly some troll posted his real name here yesterday, so I know it too. I tried and didn't get his blog as a result. I think if a (potential) patient googles him right now, they similarly won't get his blog as a result. If the NYT associates his blog and his full name, googling his name will surely show the NYT article, and people will follow on to his blog. Which he does not want.
- norswap 6y ago
  Scott has been doxed in the past, as is alluded in the post. It's not about not having anyone know who he is. It's about the volume (and the quality) of the attention he'll receive if his name is in a high-profile thing. Basically it's about the mob. And he has already been on the receiving end of the mob pseudonimously, and clearly does not want to be in his own real-name capacity. Is this really that hard to understand?

by luord 6y ago

tptacek 6y ago

I don't know what to tell you, since I had his real name on the simplest imaginable search, and other people have had his name autocomplete.

luord 6y ago
That doesn't surprise me, to be honest. From what I've seen in this thread, you seem to care more about this guy than I do, and google adapts results according to one's history and all the other data google collects. As for our incognito results, mine aren't even in English, so that also factors in why they might be so different. Though I doubt this Scott Alexander person cares about someone who won't ever be his patient.
- tptacek 6y ago
  I think I care less than you do, since I spent less than 4 minutes, and you spent a whole half hour. I do care about bad arguments, though; very little Google skill is required to rebut them, though.
  - luord 6y ago
    > I think I care less than you do, since I spent less than 4 minutes You've been on this thread for hours and have been replying to almost everyone in it... Anyhow, what was my bad argument? Wait, scratch that, what was my argument, period? I only mentioned what my results were and some stuff about google results that everyone already knows anyway. I certainly wasn't trying to share any particular view, idea or theory. Wait, I also speculated on whether an article in one of the biggest news sites in the USA might impact the kind of results google shows about him, was that an incorrect assumption on my part?
netsharc 6y ago
I think he wants it the other way around... Sadly some troll posted his real name here yesterday, so I know it too. I tried and didn't get his blog as a result. I think if a (potential) patient googles him right now, they similarly won't get his blog as a result. If the NYT associates his blog and his full name, googling his name will surely show the NYT article, and people will follow on to his blog. Which he does not want.
norswap 6y ago
Scott has been doxed in the past, as is alluded in the post. It's not about not having anyone know who he is. It's about the volume (and the quality) of the attention he'll receive if his name is in a high-profile thing. Basically it's about the mob. And he has already been on the receiving end of the mob pseudonimously, and clearly does not want to be in his own real-name capacity. Is this really that hard to understand?