3 ms·

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 infuriat

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
    - Ghjklov 6y ago
      That's not his full name. IIRC Scott Alexander is just his first and middle name or something, and the journalist was going to lay out his full name for everyone to know.
    - Smaug123 6y ago
      Even if he did broadcast his full name regularly on @slatestarcodex (which he doesn't), the main problem is in the other direction, as he and others have repeatedly noted. The worry is that people (i.e. patients) can go from Scott LastName to SlateStarCodex, not the other way round.
    - fredoliveira 6y ago
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.

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
  - Ghjklov 6y ago
    That's not his full name. IIRC Scott Alexander is just his first and middle name or something, and the journalist was going to lay out his full name for everyone to know.
  - Smaug123 6y ago
    Even if he did broadcast his full name regularly on @slatestarcodex (which he doesn't), the main problem is in the other direction, as he and others have repeatedly noted. The worry is that people (i.e. patients) can go from Scott LastName to SlateStarCodex, not the other way round.
  - fredoliveira 6y ago

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.