3 ms·

> The Times, although its policy permits exceptions for a variety of reasons, errs on the side of the transparency and accountability that accompany the use of

> The Times, although its policy permits exceptions for a variety of reasons, errs on the side of the transparency and accountability that accompany the use of real names. S.S.C. supporters on Twitter were quick to identify some of the Times’ recent concessions to pseudonymous quotation—Virgil Texas, a co-host of the podcast “Chapo Trap House,” was mentioned, as were Banksy and a member of isis—as if these supposed inconsistencies were dispositive proof of the paper’s secret agenda, rather than an ad-hoc and perhaps clumsy application of a flexible policy. Had the issue been with Facebook and its contentious moderation policies, which are applied in a similarly ad-hoc and sometimes clumsy way, the reaction in Silicon Valley would likely have been more magnanimous. This is a weak defense. What is the actual rationale for doxxing a blogger over their vigorous objection? How do you actually justify this decision on the merits?

nkurz 6y ago
My disagreement with this paragraph was with the implication that "these supposed inconsistencies were [intended as] dispositive proof of the paper’s secret agenda", as opposed to the more obvious accusation that there simply was no hard and fast real name policy: perhaps the reporter was mistaken that there were no exceptions allowed, or was not willing to make the case to his editor that anonymity was justified, or had already made the case and had explicitly been denied. Only the last two of these might fall under "secret agenda", and even then it's still more likely to be the opinion of one editor or one reporter than the agenda of the paper as a whole.