6 ms·

No one has been "taken down", Scott removed his blog himself. The community response to what was likely to be an enthusiastic article has been absolutely patho

No one has been "taken down", Scott removed his blog himself. The community response to what was likely to be an enthusiastic article has been absolutely pathological. What is really being objected to here? Being noticed by a wider audience? Does the SSC community not believe that it can stand up to wider scrutiny?

scarmig 6y ago
Scott and the community were fine with an article, even a critical one. What's being objected to is the NYT outing Scott's name in a way that makes it easy for patients to see his online presence, which would more or less make him unemployable.
- a-nikolaev 6y ago
  But can you explain the rationale for removing the blog though? I don't see his actions to be well thought-out here, unless it was a publicity stunt to infuriate his followers with NYT.
  - iamkroot 6y ago
    He wrote a very thoughtful explanation of it on his website.
    - a-nikolaev 6y ago
      Did it convince you? It certainly did not convince me.
      - leephillips 6y ago
        It convinced me that he had a rational reason for his decision, and that the Times should not be pushing to dox him. That doesn’t mean that I would have taken the same decisions, but I respect his reasoning and his reasons. And he had an excellent website, so I hope he prevails.
  - scarmig 6y ago
    It doesn't have a particularly obscure rationale: it's a game of chicken with the NYT to pressure them not to publish his real name. He's decreased the benefit to them by making the article an irrelevancy if they do publish it, and made it costly as an action by making lots of people upset at the NYT if they do publish it.
    - a-nikolaev 6y ago
      I think, if anything, deleting the blog only raised the stakes. It definitely increased the publicity of the blog and the interest of the general audience to read his writing, which is still readily available through Internet Archive, and NYT can link it in their article. Far from becoming an irrelevancy. Also the more drama, the more interest NYT will have to publish a piece on it. So, his explanation that no blog = no story does not convince me. This is why I think that his action had a different goal, if he was rational in it. (Well, I think, his real goal was to make it maximally public, and make his followers and bystanders to go mobbing against NYT, or something like that.)
      - scarmig 6y ago
        It's unclear to me what the best course of action for him actually was, given the Streisand effect. I tend toward thinking that taking down the blog was an emotional outburst at the NYT not respecting his request, and that he could have probably gotten a good outcome, both for his community and real career, if he accepted the press and maybe tried to negotiate the use of his real name down to a single instance, e.g. Scott Alexander, born Scott Alexander Scott. But I see it more as a fit of pique than anything else, not an intentioned effort to cause an internet freakout.
        a-nikolaev 6y ago
        Yeah, I agree with you, I think.
      - ShorsHammer 6y ago
        I was originally quite supportive of the choice made but it really has a smell after some reflection. He seems quite open on twitter in front of 50k followers about his real name. His twitter bio: Scott Alexander @slatestarcodex 54.5K Followers I have a place where I say complicated things about philosophy and science. That place is my blog. This is where I make terrible puns. https://twitter.com/slatestarcodex https://twitter.com/slatestarcodex
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    By deleting the blog, SA created a scenario in which if the NYT run their story about a significant blog, they're also left with how to address the readers' curiosity as the why the blog no longer exists. The Times could address this directly, or not. In either case, the Times's outing of SA is made a major focus of the story. And to that degree, SA's action strikes me as exceptionally well considered, as it turns the Times's own strength and public status and reputation against itself. Far more so than any possible argument or appeal might. And in terms of strategy and tactics, I have to admire the move regardless of the merits or insensitivity of the Times or its identification policy. I think the questions surrounding identity really need deeper exploration, and that there isn't a simple pat answer. There are cases where pseudonymity or anonymity is valid and justified, cases in which they are not. Cases in which at least some self-labelling is reasonable, others in which it's clearly not. Names and labels are powerful tools. As with all tools, it's how they're used and to what ends which ultimately determines morality.
- throwaw4y-plate 6y ago
  It's hard to take that objection seriously, though. His pen name and his real name are already strongly linked in search engine space. The only thing that will change as a result of the NYT article is that there will be additional scrutiny of his ideas. I also agree that protecting his patients and his business is something he should have seen to, but it is a problem he should have addressed six years ago, not after building a minor media ecosystem around himself, including books, published articles, and con appearances.
  - eschaton 6y ago
    Having his real name linked to the gathering place and intellectual support he provided for eugenicists is beneficial to his patients, since it lets them see just who it is they’re really going to for treatment.
    - bloody-crow 6y ago
      How's that even remotely relevant? Your doctor is not your wife and treatment does not involve enthusiastic agreement on every controversial topic of the day.
      - eschaton 6y ago
        Would you be comfortable being treated by a doctor who is on great terms with a bunch of people who think you’re literally subhuman?
        mst 6y ago
        If this is a reference to discussions around IQ, I'd suggest that equating "person X scores lower on IQ tests than person Y" and "person X is subhuman compared to person Y" is a frankly horrifying position and if that isn't the equivalence you're trying to draw then you might do better being less combative and more descriptive around your actual objections.
        deleted 6y ago
famouslastwords 6y ago
>what was likely to be an enthusiastic article has been absolutely pathological The NY Times was willing to use pseudonyms for the subjects of articles in the past. I didn't see Banksy exposed for instance. So if the article was in fact sympathetic why use the real name, when it has no relevancy to the subject? Unless, the article was actually not sympathetic, but meant as a zesty piece to "expose" Scott Alexander as a reactionary/eugenist/sexist in the current hot climate of "cancel-culture". Which surely would generate lots of clicks for the NY Times, but would also destroy the subject of their story at the hands of SJW/twitter mob, then allowing for more stories about the drama and generate more clicks. Exposing SA's real name is a win only for the NY Times.

scarmig 6y ago

Scott and the community were fine with an article, even a critical one. What's being objected to is the NYT outing Scott's name in a way that makes it easy for patients to see his online presence, which would more or less make him unemployable.

a-nikolaev 6y ago
But can you explain the rationale for removing the blog though? I don't see his actions to be well thought-out here, unless it was a publicity stunt to infuriate his followers with NYT.
- iamkroot 6y ago
  He wrote a very thoughtful explanation of it on his website.
  - a-nikolaev 6y ago
    Did it convince you? It certainly did not convince me.
    - leephillips 6y ago
      It convinced me that he had a rational reason for his decision, and that the Times should not be pushing to dox him. That doesn’t mean that I would have taken the same decisions, but I respect his reasoning and his reasons. And he had an excellent website, so I hope he prevails.
- scarmig 6y ago
  It doesn't have a particularly obscure rationale: it's a game of chicken with the NYT to pressure them not to publish his real name. He's decreased the benefit to them by making the article an irrelevancy if they do publish it, and made it costly as an action by making lots of people upset at the NYT if they do publish it.
  - a-nikolaev 6y ago
    I think, if anything, deleting the blog only raised the stakes. It definitely increased the publicity of the blog and the interest of the general audience to read his writing, which is still readily available through Internet Archive, and NYT can link it in their article. Far from becoming an irrelevancy. Also the more drama, the more interest NYT will have to publish a piece on it. So, his explanation that no blog = no story does not convince me. This is why I think that his action had a different goal, if he was rational in it. (Well, I think, his real goal was to make it maximally public, and make his followers and bystanders to go mobbing against NYT, or something like that.)
    - scarmig 6y ago
      It's unclear to me what the best course of action for him actually was, given the Streisand effect. I tend toward thinking that taking down the blog was an emotional outburst at the NYT not respecting his request, and that he could have probably gotten a good outcome, both for his community and real career, if he accepted the press and maybe tried to negotiate the use of his real name down to a single instance, e.g. Scott Alexander, born Scott Alexander Scott. But I see it more as a fit of pique than anything else, not an intentioned effort to cause an internet freakout.
      - a-nikolaev 6y ago
        Yeah, I agree with you, I think.
    - ShorsHammer 6y ago
      I was originally quite supportive of the choice made but it really has a smell after some reflection. He seems quite open on twitter in front of 50k followers about his real name. His twitter bio: Scott Alexander @slatestarcodex 54.5K Followers I have a place where I say complicated things about philosophy and science. That place is my blog. This is where I make terrible puns. https://twitter.com/slatestarcodex https://twitter.com/slatestarcodex
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  By deleting the blog, SA created a scenario in which if the NYT run their story about a significant blog, they're also left with how to address the readers' curiosity as the why the blog no longer exists. The Times could address this directly, or not. In either case, the Times's outing of SA is made a major focus of the story. And to that degree, SA's action strikes me as exceptionally well considered, as it turns the Times's own strength and public status and reputation against itself. Far more so than any possible argument or appeal might. And in terms of strategy and tactics, I have to admire the move regardless of the merits or insensitivity of the Times or its identification policy. I think the questions surrounding identity really need deeper exploration, and that there isn't a simple pat answer. There are cases where pseudonymity or anonymity is valid and justified, cases in which they are not. Cases in which at least some self-labelling is reasonable, others in which it's clearly not. Names and labels are powerful tools. As with all tools, it's how they're used and to what ends which ultimately determines morality.
throwaw4y-plate 6y ago
It's hard to take that objection seriously, though. His pen name and his real name are already strongly linked in search engine space. The only thing that will change as a result of the NYT article is that there will be additional scrutiny of his ideas. I also agree that protecting his patients and his business is something he should have seen to, but it is a problem he should have addressed six years ago, not after building a minor media ecosystem around himself, including books, published articles, and con appearances.
- eschaton 6y ago
  Having his real name linked to the gathering place and intellectual support he provided for eugenicists is beneficial to his patients, since it lets them see just who it is they’re really going to for treatment.
  - bloody-crow 6y ago
    How's that even remotely relevant? Your doctor is not your wife and treatment does not involve enthusiastic agreement on every controversial topic of the day.
    - eschaton 6y ago
      Would you be comfortable being treated by a doctor who is on great terms with a bunch of people who think you’re literally subhuman?
      - mst 6y ago
        If this is a reference to discussions around IQ, I'd suggest that equating "person X scores lower on IQ tests than person Y" and "person X is subhuman compared to person Y" is a frankly horrifying position and if that isn't the equivalence you're trying to draw then you might do better being less combative and more descriptive around your actual objections.
        deleted 6y ago

famouslastwords 6y ago

>what was likely to be an enthusiastic article has been absolutely pathological The NY Times was willing to use pseudonyms for the subjects of articles in the past. I didn't see Banksy exposed for instance. So if the article was in fact sympathetic why use the real name, when it has no relevancy to the subject? Unless, the article was actually not sympathetic, but meant as a zesty piece to "expose" Scott Alexander as a reactionary/eugenist/sexist in the current hot climate of "cancel-culture". Which surely would generate lots of clicks for the NY Times, but would also destroy the subject of their story at the hands of SJW/twitter mob, then allowing for more stories about the drama and generate more clicks. Exposing SA's real name is a win only for the NY Times.