4 ms·

You've constructed a search query that returns at least 2 conspicuous links about his reactionary blog in the first page, and depending on your search history m

You've constructed a search query that returns at least 2 conspicuous links about his reactionary blog in the first page, and depending on your search history may or may not reveal the SSC reddit. This is ridiculous. You're now litigating if things are "private" if they're below a 1080p page fold in Google.

nkurz 6y ago
I wonder if Google might be returning different results for "private" results based on some other factor, like geographic IP or browser? Searching now for "Scott [RealLastName] psychiatrist" in an anonymous Safari window from Vermont, I get 9 professional results and a link to an Overcoming Bias post by Robin Hanson. The OB link has redacted Scott's last name, doesn't contain anything immediately alarming, has a dead link to a nonexistent previous blog, and importantly doesn't link to SSC. A search from my regular account returns 100 results (as it should) and starts with the same first 10. The following 90 are mostly professional or for unrelated people. One midway down is a link to Reddit where the excerpt mentions SSC. Another at the bottom is a denunciation of him as a "low iq autist" "Jewish, clinically insane blogger", which I suppose might give a client pause. I'm also not trying to "litigate" anything. I was just trying to be sure you understood the point that 'undo' was trying to make. You are welcome (and in fact encouraged) to disagree with it as long as you explain your reasoning. ps. Separately, "reactionary blog" sounds like an odd description. Oddly, "neoreactionary" and "Moldbug" were among the banned terms on the site. Do you mean it in some other sense?
- tptacek 6y ago
  What alarming stuff would you be concerned about a search exposing?
  - nkurz 6y ago
    Is this like the joke about the condemned engineer who knows how to fix the faulty guillotine? I think Scott is correctly concerned that a Twitter mob might try to get him fired as a result of his blog. I don't really understand his reasoning for taking it down now, but I presume "real name in a national publication" was a pre-arranged line-in-the-sand for him. I think his actual opinions are secondary; the real problem is that he's clearly not fully supportive of team SJW. I suspect the main problem wouldn't be his own opinions, but that he allows others to discuss "unacceptable" topics on his site. His window for acceptable doesn't include everything (white nationalism was out) but is much wider than most. That said, I found SSC to be the best place on the internet for hearing people calmly explain views I disagree with --- and I disagree with almost everyone! There aren't a lot of places where atheists and Catholics would productively discuss why they felt the way they do about abortion, where former Mennonites could explain how community health care works without insurance, where Marxists could try to explain to gun nuts what they have in common, or where a self-proclaimed a Social Justice Warrior can field questions from an anarcho-capitalist economic professors about redistribution. I probably spent about an hour a day reading comments there, and felt that it was time fairly well spent. Although I'm mostly a reader rather than poster, for a few years now it's been my primary contact with the outside world. I'll miss it, and don't know if there will be anywhere that can replace it.
    - tptacek 6y ago
      You're making an impassioned case for something I'm not arguing about. I hold SSC itself somewhat in contempt, but I don't feel that way about everyone who gets value from it, and I'm not here to debate you about whether SSC is good or bad. You can think it's good while I think it's very bad. What I don't understand is why it is that Scott Alexander feels like he's in danger from having his affiliation with the blog exposed, while at the same time it's so clear to everyone who peruses the site that it's open-minded and productive and wholesome. If that's the case, what's so alarming about the attribution? What form does this supposed cancellation take? You've just claimed that white nationalism is off the table --- I disagree, but will happily stipulate. So what is it then? You've got a better imagination for what could happen than I do, since I think there's virtually no risk for Scott Alexander at all. Can you share more about what you foresee happening? Is it some citation to some horrible TheMotte commenter? What is that commenter saying? I mean, let's be clear right up in front: one thing we can't really debate at this point is whether Scott Alexander is "out". He's out. It's over. The NYT could shitcan the article (I kind of hope it does) and nothing will change; Scott Alexander has seen to that. So what do you think might happen next?
      - nkurz 6y ago
        > why it is that Scott Alexander feels like he's in danger I think Scott's fear (rightly or wrongly) isn't that his own opinions will be his downfall, but that those politically on his own side will attack him for providing a platform to the enemy. I think he sees himself in the same position as Steve Hsu, who was just forced out of his position at Michigan State despite Scott's attempt at public support. The were various criticisms of Hsu, but the main ones seemed to be that he provided a platform for people with unacceptable opinions (Stefan Molyneaux, Ron Unz). I don't think these two are active on SSC, but given anonymous handles, they might turn out to be. Others with bad reputations (Steve Sailer comes to mind) post there civilly, and are treated with respect. I think indisputably there exist some people who consider this to be grounds for "cancellation". > What form does this supposed cancellation take? The same as pushed out Steve Hsu: public pressure by a small number of people against his employer for his promotion/tolerance/association with someone who holds less socially acceptable opinions than he does. Scott's view (and mine) is that it's better to have open discussion of unpopular opinions so that they can either be refuted or become accepted. Others think that the ideas are too dangerous to be discussed, and discussion needs to be prevented lest they become more widespread. Some of those who hold this second belief have shown themselves to be effective at pressuring employers to fire those who they choose as their targets. > one thing we can't really debate at this point is whether Scott Alexander is "out" I think you are viewing things with more of a binary computer security point-of-view than is appropriate: in normal life obscurity does make a difference. Making up numbers, at this point, 99.99% of the world has never heard of Scott by either his real name or his pen name. Of the remaining .01%, 1 out of 100 know him only by his real name as a local psychiatrist, 98 out of 100 know him by only by his pen name as a blogger, and 1 knows and associates both identities. A prominent NYT article might double the number of people who associate his identities, and he thinks this might double his risk of having professional problems. Is he wrong? Maybe, but I can see why he has the fear even if he thinks his beliefs and approach are overall good for the world. > You can think it's good while I think it's very bad. I think this thread has run its course, but perhaps in some future one (if it comes up) you could explain what you think made SSC "very bad". Like HN, I feel it had problems as a community, but was overall a good thing: it enabled better direct communication between people who otherwise communicate only through garbled media proxies. Is this the problem itself, or do you agree that this is a a positive but think it is outweighed by something larger?
- KirinDave 6y ago
  On your ps: "Reactionary" is originally a definition of a political and social stance essentially characterized as opposed to some or all of the idea of social and economic reforms put forth during the French Revolution. It has subsequently evolved into a sort of a catch term for a position somewhere near authoritarianism and a specific type of social conservatism. It's often applied to counter-revolutionary types as well, depending on context. This is a label Scott has earned through his work.
  - nkurz 6y ago
    Now that the crowds have left, I'll offer an addendum. The odd part about calling it a "reactionary blog" is that part of Scott's early notoriety was for being an anti-reactionary on Less Wrong, a blog that had a lot of neo-reactionary support. In particular, he's the author of the "The Anti-Reactionary FAQ (or, Against Moldbug)": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6585715 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6585715. Unfortunately, it's hard to link to right now, as it disappeared along with the blog. Archive.org has a download in an odd format, but no preview: https://archive.org/details/perma_cc_49D9-R67Y https://archive.org/details/perma_cc_49D9-R67Y. I haven't read it recently, and thus can't summarize, so perhaps it reinforces your belief. From one of your other comments, I don't think I agree that "No one can really dispute that there is at least one frighteningly racist piece of work and at least one frighteningly sexist piece of work we can all point to from SSC." Or rather, I'd agree if we are to include all the comments written by others on the site, but I probably do not if we are to consider only things Scott wrote himself. This may be because I probably tend to different definitions of "racism" and "sexism" than you. I'm guessing you might feel it applies to almost all claims that one race or sex is statistically different than another, whereas I tend to reserve it for personal discrimination against individuals for belonging to a particular class. Thus, I don't feel that Charles Murray is racist, or that Larry Summers is sexist, at least not for the reasons that they are generally accused. As a result, I don't agree that defending Scott implies 'that writers who write racist material have a "right" to not be called to task if that's financially damaging', unless we're using a definition of racism that assumes "everyone is a little bit racist". Rather, I think honest discussion of race and sex include discussion of the possibility that there are genetic differences in intelligence --- as well as discussing the alternatives that the tests are flawed, that maybe there aren't actually any measured differences, or that the differences may be purely cultural or environmental. While there are risks and downsides to this discussion, I think the societal effects of prohibiting the discussion are even worse. I do appreciate your responses so far, though.

nkurz 6y ago

I wonder if Google might be returning different results for "private" results based on some other factor, like geographic IP or browser? Searching now for "Scott [RealLastName] psychiatrist" in an anonymous Safari window from Vermont, I get 9 professional results and a link to an Overcoming Bias post by Robin Hanson. The OB link has redacted Scott's last name, doesn't contain anything immediately alarming, has a dead link to a nonexistent previous blog, and importantly doesn't link to SSC. A search from my regular account returns 100 results (as it should) and starts with the same first 10. The following 90 are mostly professional or for unrelated people. One midway down is a link to Reddit where the excerpt mentions SSC. Another at the bottom is a denunciation of him as a "low iq autist" "Jewish, clinically insane blogger", which I suppose might give a client pause. I'm also not trying to "litigate" anything. I was just trying to be sure you understood the point that 'undo' was trying to make. You are welcome (and in fact encouraged) to disagree with it as long as you explain your reasoning. ps. Separately, "reactionary blog" sounds like an odd description. Oddly, "neoreactionary" and "Moldbug" were among the banned terms on the site. Do you mean it in some other sense?

tptacek 6y ago
What alarming stuff would you be concerned about a search exposing?
- nkurz 6y ago
  Is this like the joke about the condemned engineer who knows how to fix the faulty guillotine? I think Scott is correctly concerned that a Twitter mob might try to get him fired as a result of his blog. I don't really understand his reasoning for taking it down now, but I presume "real name in a national publication" was a pre-arranged line-in-the-sand for him. I think his actual opinions are secondary; the real problem is that he's clearly not fully supportive of team SJW. I suspect the main problem wouldn't be his own opinions, but that he allows others to discuss "unacceptable" topics on his site. His window for acceptable doesn't include everything (white nationalism was out) but is much wider than most. That said, I found SSC to be the best place on the internet for hearing people calmly explain views I disagree with --- and I disagree with almost everyone! There aren't a lot of places where atheists and Catholics would productively discuss why they felt the way they do about abortion, where former Mennonites could explain how community health care works without insurance, where Marxists could try to explain to gun nuts what they have in common, or where a self-proclaimed a Social Justice Warrior can field questions from an anarcho-capitalist economic professors about redistribution. I probably spent about an hour a day reading comments there, and felt that it was time fairly well spent. Although I'm mostly a reader rather than poster, for a few years now it's been my primary contact with the outside world. I'll miss it, and don't know if there will be anywhere that can replace it.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    You're making an impassioned case for something I'm not arguing about. I hold SSC itself somewhat in contempt, but I don't feel that way about everyone who gets value from it, and I'm not here to debate you about whether SSC is good or bad. You can think it's good while I think it's very bad. What I don't understand is why it is that Scott Alexander feels like he's in danger from having his affiliation with the blog exposed, while at the same time it's so clear to everyone who peruses the site that it's open-minded and productive and wholesome. If that's the case, what's so alarming about the attribution? What form does this supposed cancellation take? You've just claimed that white nationalism is off the table --- I disagree, but will happily stipulate. So what is it then? You've got a better imagination for what could happen than I do, since I think there's virtually no risk for Scott Alexander at all. Can you share more about what you foresee happening? Is it some citation to some horrible TheMotte commenter? What is that commenter saying? I mean, let's be clear right up in front: one thing we can't really debate at this point is whether Scott Alexander is "out". He's out. It's over. The NYT could shitcan the article (I kind of hope it does) and nothing will change; Scott Alexander has seen to that. So what do you think might happen next?
    - nkurz 6y ago
      > why it is that Scott Alexander feels like he's in danger I think Scott's fear (rightly or wrongly) isn't that his own opinions will be his downfall, but that those politically on his own side will attack him for providing a platform to the enemy. I think he sees himself in the same position as Steve Hsu, who was just forced out of his position at Michigan State despite Scott's attempt at public support. The were various criticisms of Hsu, but the main ones seemed to be that he provided a platform for people with unacceptable opinions (Stefan Molyneaux, Ron Unz). I don't think these two are active on SSC, but given anonymous handles, they might turn out to be. Others with bad reputations (Steve Sailer comes to mind) post there civilly, and are treated with respect. I think indisputably there exist some people who consider this to be grounds for "cancellation". > What form does this supposed cancellation take? The same as pushed out Steve Hsu: public pressure by a small number of people against his employer for his promotion/tolerance/association with someone who holds less socially acceptable opinions than he does. Scott's view (and mine) is that it's better to have open discussion of unpopular opinions so that they can either be refuted or become accepted. Others think that the ideas are too dangerous to be discussed, and discussion needs to be prevented lest they become more widespread. Some of those who hold this second belief have shown themselves to be effective at pressuring employers to fire those who they choose as their targets. > one thing we can't really debate at this point is whether Scott Alexander is "out" I think you are viewing things with more of a binary computer security point-of-view than is appropriate: in normal life obscurity does make a difference. Making up numbers, at this point, 99.99% of the world has never heard of Scott by either his real name or his pen name. Of the remaining .01%, 1 out of 100 know him only by his real name as a local psychiatrist, 98 out of 100 know him by only by his pen name as a blogger, and 1 knows and associates both identities. A prominent NYT article might double the number of people who associate his identities, and he thinks this might double his risk of having professional problems. Is he wrong? Maybe, but I can see why he has the fear even if he thinks his beliefs and approach are overall good for the world. > You can think it's good while I think it's very bad. I think this thread has run its course, but perhaps in some future one (if it comes up) you could explain what you think made SSC "very bad". Like HN, I feel it had problems as a community, but was overall a good thing: it enabled better direct communication between people who otherwise communicate only through garbled media proxies. Is this the problem itself, or do you agree that this is a a positive but think it is outweighed by something larger?
KirinDave 6y ago
On your ps: "Reactionary" is originally a definition of a political and social stance essentially characterized as opposed to some or all of the idea of social and economic reforms put forth during the French Revolution. It has subsequently evolved into a sort of a catch term for a position somewhere near authoritarianism and a specific type of social conservatism. It's often applied to counter-revolutionary types as well, depending on context. This is a label Scott has earned through his work.
- nkurz 6y ago
  Now that the crowds have left, I'll offer an addendum. The odd part about calling it a "reactionary blog" is that part of Scott's early notoriety was for being an anti-reactionary on Less Wrong, a blog that had a lot of neo-reactionary support. In particular, he's the author of the "The Anti-Reactionary FAQ (or, Against Moldbug)": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6585715 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6585715. Unfortunately, it's hard to link to right now, as it disappeared along with the blog. Archive.org has a download in an odd format, but no preview: https://archive.org/details/perma_cc_49D9-R67Y https://archive.org/details/perma_cc_49D9-R67Y. I haven't read it recently, and thus can't summarize, so perhaps it reinforces your belief. From one of your other comments, I don't think I agree that "No one can really dispute that there is at least one frighteningly racist piece of work and at least one frighteningly sexist piece of work we can all point to from SSC." Or rather, I'd agree if we are to include all the comments written by others on the site, but I probably do not if we are to consider only things Scott wrote himself. This may be because I probably tend to different definitions of "racism" and "sexism" than you. I'm guessing you might feel it applies to almost all claims that one race or sex is statistically different than another, whereas I tend to reserve it for personal discrimination against individuals for belonging to a particular class. Thus, I don't feel that Charles Murray is racist, or that Larry Summers is sexist, at least not for the reasons that they are generally accused. As a result, I don't agree that defending Scott implies 'that writers who write racist material have a "right" to not be called to task if that's financially damaging', unless we're using a definition of racism that assumes "everyone is a little bit racist". Rather, I think honest discussion of race and sex include discussion of the possibility that there are genetic differences in intelligence --- as well as discussing the alternatives that the tests are flawed, that maybe there aren't actually any measured differences, or that the differences may be purely cultural or environmental. While there are risks and downsides to this discussion, I think the societal effects of prohibiting the discussion are even worse. I do appreciate your responses so far, though.