3 ms·
That blog article doesn't make much sense although, because the NYT could post an article with his pseudonym only, which is pretty minor in the scheme of things
by novok 6y ago
That blog article doesn't make much sense although, because the NYT could post an article with his pseudonym only, which is pretty minor in the scheme of things, and still have all the purported negative fallout that Scott could theoretically be worried about.
Why would Scott delete everything and put a lynch pin on something that is really minor for the NYT to do in the scheme of things if he is really worried about thing Y?
- davidgerard 6y agoI'm not even involved with this SSC takedown thing, and I got a call from the NYT on Friday asking about it, as an expert on the rationalists and on neoreaction. Scott and his fans have absolutely turned it into a story now and attracted 100% of the NYT's attention. Doxing the journalist will do that.
- zozbot234 6y agoScott did not doxx the journalist. He encouraged people to send polite and appropriate feedback to NYT editors-- so it makes sense that this is getting their attention.
- davidgerard 6y agoHis fans absolutely did, this is a thing that happened. (I also submit that this was absolutely predictable, unless you assume there are zero overenthusiastic fans of a popular site. Putting a call to action was going to lead to this result, even with a "please be polite" disclaimer.) There's been one person doxed in the course of all this, and it's the journalist, not Scott.
- kortilla 6y agoDoxxer gets doxxed, news at 10.