18 ms·
SlateStarCodex Is Back Up
- snowmaker 6y agoAfter this whole NYT showdown, I'll definitely appreciate SSC more. I always liked it, but it was just one blog among many. The realization that it could disappear at any time somehow makes it seem more precious.
- blueboo 6y agoI'll appreciate it quite a bit less, as this tantrum suggests that he fears being liable for just how much of is patients' experience he shared. The fear-of-doxxing charade never held water, borne out by how comfortable he felt siccing his community on the NYT reporter. Tucker Carlson recently perfomed the same kind of cynical rhetorical judo. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/21/tucker-carlson-new-york-times/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/21/tucker-carl...) Influential platforms do, once in a while, see a drop of accountability. The reaction to it is telling
- Kinrany 6y agoAFAIK sharing anonymized patient stories is pretty standard.
- teachrdan 6y agoIt may be the case that he did not do his due diligence to sufficiently anonymize them. This is from the APA: 4.07 Use of Confidential Information for Didactic or Other Purposes Psychologists do not disclose in their writings, lectures, or other public media, confidential, personally identifiable information concerning their clients/patients, students, research participants, organizational clients, or other recipients of their services that they obtained during the course of their work, unless (1) they take reasonable steps to disguise the person or organization, (2) the person or organization has consented in writing, or (3) there is legal authorization for doing so. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code https://www.apa.org/ethics/code
- pmiller2 6y agoWell, if he did disclose PII, then surely there's enough to identify one of them, right?
- meagher 6y agoFor those that don’t know, when the posts were republished hundreds of email notifications went out. One for each post. Quite the splash for coming back online.
- andromaton 6y ago383 emails, it seems. I am glad when I search my inbox some of those posts will surface.
- krtkush 6y agoDelightfully, My RSS feed has no such problem.
- matsemann 6y agoReminds me of when Libgdx migrated their issues to Github[0], and all watchers got an email. So 300k emails or so were sent. It would have been a couple of millions if he didn't catch it happening. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6387140 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6387140
- IAmEveryone 6y agoLast I checked, SSC was the first hit on google when searching for his real name. That would seem to make it rather pointless to believe in the ability of keeping that content hidden from his patients. I’m also not entirely certain it isn’t in the public’s interest to allow patients to read their therapist’s writing. Yes, they shouldn’t be privy to the details of their love life and favorite spot to go skinny dipping. But Scott never disclosed much personal information anyway. I think rather fondly of his writing. But it should be uncontroversial that some of it is, well, controversial. Even if I don’t agree with his critics, I wouldn’t consider it entirely unreasonable to disagree with him on some points. And because so much of it touches on hot-button issues, some of them might very well decide not to share their most private thoughts with him, and could feel betrayed when learning about it only after the fact. It’s also somewhat strange to see a community (his, and here as well in previous posts) complain about unnamed sources any time the news media is discussed, but getting outraged when one publication actually makes it policy to use real names more often. There is a case for anonymity on the internet, and even for others to respect that wish. But at some point, when you start having the sort of cultural influence that Scott has, and your efforts of hiding your name were rather half-hearted to begin with, it’s nobody’s job to play pretend on your behalf.
- bpodgursky 6y agoIt costs the NYC nothing to respect his efforts at pseudo-anonymity, as halfhearted as they were. The cause of journalism is not advanced in the slightest by publishing the real name. The problem with "unnamed sources" is there's no fixed point to compare against -- the unnamed source loses nothing by lying or making things up. Scott has a huge amount of reputation to lose if he lies, even if it doesn't directly tie back to his real-life persona. It would be a REALLY long con to blog for a decade to build a reputation, just to be a disreputable unnamed source in an article.
- BLKNSLVR 6y agoDo you already know his real name in order to search it on Google? If you search for "Scott Alexander" then, yes, Slate Star Codex comes up. But that's not the dots he's trying to avoid being connected. He doesn't share his last name on SSC, and his patients probably don't know his middle name.
- bpodgursky 6y agoFor the quality of blogging, psychiatry, and writing, I am willing to forgive his sysadmin capabilities... my inbox might not be so forgiving though.
- jumelles 6y agoDid the Times ever publish the story? Has it been officially scrapped? Do we even know?
- tomcatfish 6y agoThe story has not been published yet, though a review of the whole situation was published in the New Yorker [1] that has been met with mixed reviews, but largely positive from what I have seen (mostly from followers of the blog, strangely). You can check the subreddit for more info on how things have been going down, I peeked in a few days ago and got caught up on all this. [1] : https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/slate-star-codex-and-silicon-valleys-war-against-the-media https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/slate-st...
- User23 6y agoI think that their recent experience with Tucker Carlson has gotten the NYT staff to reconsider the relative merits of doxxing the subjects of their articles. It's a most double-edged sword, and they will cut themselves if they keep swinging it around.
- baryphonic 6y agoI have to imagine the NYT staff, as biased and (IMO) as poor as they are at news-writing, must take no pleasure in being asked to doxx subjects of their stories on the arbitrary and capricious whims of management. Most journalists I know are good people, even when they perpetuate a bad system. They tend to be quite left and sometimes (many times) blindly biased, yet pursuit of the truth is the main goal for the bulk of journalists. Most editors, by contrast, seem genuinely terrible. They thwart honest journalists at every opportunity to sell something fake but salacious. (Something similar can be observed about academia and the faculty vis-a-vis the deans and university administration.) I imagine many in the NYT are looking at Carlson or Scott Alexander and are saying, "hmm, would I want my own personal details published?"
- 6y ago
- kthxbye123 6y agoOh great, we were down to like only ten thousand other intellectual provocateurs willing to discuss why black people have bad IQ genes.
- jmeister 6y agoPlease leave this kind of noise to Twitter and Reddit.
- 0xy 6y agoConsider refining your writing style to be less antagonistic and sarcastic, you'll find it will open more doors for you, broaden your horizons and you'll feel better physically.
- esperent 6y agoI feel like this should become a copypasta reply to every unpleasant person and troll on the internet.
- catalogia 6y agoThat's a grossly unfair characterization of SSC.
- scott_sisikind 6y agoEveryone knows the name. It's [redacted] And searching for it doesn't reveal the secret SSC blog.
- john_moscow 6y agoI'm not sure if that's intentional, but his name currently appears on the admin profile of the blog [0]. Maybe someone with technical skills and enough time can help him sort it out? [0] https://slatestarcodex.com/author/admin/ https://slatestarcodex.com/author/admin/
- jabiko 6y agoAre you sure? It's no secret that "Scott Alexander" are the first and middle name. The author wants to keep his last name secret.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- charliea0 6y agoSeems to still be down for me.
- adwn 6y agoScroll down, the old content is visible again.
- gadders 6y agoAre we allowed to mention the NYT wanting to do similar to Tucker Carlson? (I say similar, because obviously his name is known, but they wanted to identify his home location).
- rvz 6y agoNot sure why you are downvoted but this is perfectly valid given that his name is already known and public (given his news career) and now they demand his home address. What they're doing to Tucker Carlson, is what they will also do when they find SSC's true identity. If SSC gets their name doxed, the NYT won't stop. They'll find their home address, employer, etc to cancel SSC.
- gadders 6y agoSadly I think some people's view of whether doxing is good or bad depends on the political views of the victim.
- moultano 6y agohttps://twitter.com/NYTimesPR/status/1285422802569441282?s=19 https://twitter.com/NYTimesPR/status/1285422802569441282?s=1...
- gadders 6y agoDoes anyone believe the NYT at this point?
- tclancy 6y agoYes. The inversion of this makes no sense. I am supposed to believe Tucker Carlson instead?
- tempthrow4938 6y agoImagine if people were more skeptical towards NYT when they were knowingly publishing false war propaganda by Judith Miller. We might have avoided the war against Iraq.
- temptemptemp111 6y agoWhat a LARPer
- auganov 6y agoI'm pretty ambivalent about what many seem to call "doxxing". I get it when publishing phone numbers or addresses for no reason. But I don't get the notion that you have a moral obligation to protect other's pseudonymity in general. Especially when it's not patently obvious that they've taken steps to conceal it. I mean sure, I get that it can be done in harassing ways too. Randomly brining up someone's full name in a comment reply is probably not nice. But when writing a big piece on some fascinating persona it seems fine to me. Also purely strategically speaking when your identity is elaborated on to cry "doxxing" only makes you look like you've actually done something wrong, have something to hide. If you don't want to own things you have written, best not write them in the first place. It's almost as if people desire the ability to be a public figure without any of the downsides.
- Inufu 6y agoWhat value does adding the real name of the person to the article bring to you, the reader? Would you interpret it any differently if the name was different? Seems like a pretty clear cut case for not mentioning the name.
- thinkingemote 6y agoJournalists and writers in general aim to make a story appealing to their readers. One way they do this is bring to life their subjects, and some ways they can do that is to name the subject, tell readers what neighborhood the subject lives in, age, what kind of life they lead etc. People are interested in other people. It has value but it's a mechanism that isn't necessarily needed in all cases. One could do a thought experiment imagining a group of newspaper readers evaluating an edition where names of subjects were not given and one where they were. Which edition would be more interesting?
- luckylion 6y ago> some ways they can do that is to name the subject That is "to give the subject a name", not "to reveal the name of the subject". It's usually "Maria [name changed] is the youngest of three daughters, her parents ...". That gives the subject a name, but there's no need for it to be the full name, or even the actual first name, because the story tend to be about the circumstances or what happened to the subject, not their name.
- intended 6y agoReading the comments here, I’m surprised to realize that his name is already this well known. In that case, I’m a bit confused - if someone did an article on SSC, without reaching out to the chap - what would have happened then? Articles using publicly available information are beyond routine So his name would be exposed. I’m not sure what his options would be or what the consensus opinion is for that scenario. Would that have been an issue, but not as much since it would be a fait accompli? How would anyone be able to reverse such an article after it was published ?
- red_admiral 6y agoIronically, Scott himself has an old (2013) post on "the virtue of silence" that talks specifically about the NYT: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/06/14/the-virtue-of-silence/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/06/14/the-virtue-of-silence/ Scott's argument is basically, he is a psychiatrist and his patients will put his real name into google to find out info about him, check he's correctly licenced etc. But this shouldn't lead to them finding out too much as him as a person as that would get in the way of the therapeutic relationship. One thing he does to help with this is not run his public online identity under his full name. The problem is not people searching for "scott alexander real name", even if they find it. The problem is reverse searches for "scott $surname" by his patients, leading to an article on the politics of his online community, his views on polyamory and transhumanism and gender etc. If some random blogger made a post using his real name, and it didn't end up ranking highly in the google results for his real name, it probably wouldn't hurt too much - especially as most people don't look at more than the top 5 search results or so. The information being out there by itself is not the big problem. But if a NYT article gets enough of an impact that it's the number 1 search result for his real name, then we have a problem. And the NYT has a pretty big platform, as Scott pointed out in the linked article, so it's a real hazard.
- intended 6y agoThanks, that blog post was quite the intellectual indulgence to read and enjoy. Thank you for engaging. So if someone just .... wrote an article after doing a few google searches, what would the consensus be in that scenario? I can see a few options, two of which require having made steps to avoid this outcome intentionally - 1) always separate your personal from digital profiles and 2) have ways to modify your search rankings ? (He could reach out to The news paper and sue them After the fact I suppose, But Im not sure it would stand up in court if it’s public info) ————- Side note : I’m assuming people agree, that the creation of large platforms is a natural outcome of the way the world is set up. (Limited brain storage/attention, competition in media, network effects of leaks, Etc.- these conspire to give a few channels greater reach than others) ——-
- Wolfenstein98k 6y agoI see no public interest value in denying his request to remain pseudonymous. To publish his name and associate it with his pseudonym - especially in what would obviously become the top Google result - is egregious when he had pleaded for it not to happen. I'm glad they appear to have backed down but I'm still furious they ever intended to do it, and held the sword of Damocles over his head for so many weeks.
- adamsea 6y ago> I'm still furious they ever intended to do it, and held the sword of Damocles over his head for so many weeks. I think the actual “Sword of Damocles” story does not illustrate what you wish it to. From Wikipedia: “ According to the story, Damocles was pandering to his king, Dionysius, exclaiming that Dionysius was truly fortunate as a great man of power and authority, surrounded by magnificence. In response, Dionysius offered to switch places with Damocles for one day so that Damocles could taste that very fortune firsthand. Damocles quickly and eagerly accepted the king's proposal. Damocles sat on the king's throne, surrounded by every luxury, but Dionysius, who had made many enemies during his reign, arranged that a sword should hang above the throne, held at the pommel only by a single hair of a horse's tail to evoke the sense of what it is like to be king: Though having much fortune, always having to watch in fear and anxiety against dangers that might try to overtake him.” The NY Times is equivalent to the King?
- Wolfenstein98k 6y agoThinking too hard about it. The point was the dangling sword over his head, being the imminent publishing of the article. They told him they wouldn't hide his name, but they didn't tell him they wouldn't publish the article.
- adamsea 6y agoMy point was the irony. Damocles wanted to sit in the hot seat, until he found out just how hot it was. Scott Alexander has been a semi-public figure (popular blog, shares pieces of personal information and parts of his name, his location, online) for a while. Now Scott Alexander is in the hot seat (getting an NY Times article written about you). So he hung his own sword of Damocles over his head. Certainly, as a psychiatrist, if anonymity is so important then I do wonder, unless he didn't understand the importance of it years ago, why he wasn't fully anonymous then? IMHO there's a difference between Scott Alexander-level anonymity and Satoshi Nakamoto level anonymity. Which raises a good question - is it in the public interest enough to, say, know the name of who created bitcoin, that, if the NY Times found out, it'd be appropriate for them to publish it?
- ipunchghosts 6y agoI canceled my digital subscription to the times over this. I'm not a huge fan of cancel culture, but aside from writing a letter, what else can I do? (serious question)
- Verdex 6y agoI think canceling your digital subscription makes sense and doesn't really feel like cancel culture to me. I'm not a fan of cancel culture, but I am a fan of canceling. I've got similar feelings about boycotts. If you want to tell someone about how a company is bad, then do that. If you don't want to give money to someone who does things you disagree with, then don't give them money. There are a lot of other options for your time and money. Where I think it gets a little ridiculous is when you (uh, not you, but like the general person) tell other people that you canceled something because it's bad. You're trying to make yourself look like the good guy/hero when all you did was decide to spend your time and money elsewhere. And it gets really ridiculous when you go right back to what was canceled when they provide some other thing that you like OR when it turns out nobody else cares about your virtuous canceling and you want to fit back in with the group. "Hey, we're all going to go see Avengers 10! It will be a huge party and it's going to be great. Oh, hey Josh, I forgot that you swore a blood oath to never see another movie owned by Disney after Walt Disney's zombie ate your dog." "Uh, I guess it's okay. It was kind of a silly blood oath anyway. And fluffy had a good life I guess. I suppose I can come." Of course you might also write a letter explaining why you canceled your subscription and say that you'll come back on the condition that they don't continue to pull shenanigans like this and that they take responsibility and apologize. Who knows it might actually change their policy if they see enough of this sort of thing.
- kevingadd 6y agoBoycotting a company that did something awful (or threatened to do something awful) to an individual is the opposite of cancel culture. Boycotts are a well-established and effective method for individuals to take action against corporations. It's not as if dropping your Times subscription is somehow going to silence an individual
- afiori 6y ago
- AndrewStephens 6y agoI am not sure what the fuss is about. The NYT hasn't actually published anything yet, Alexander self-cancelled himself in a fit of _something_ and managed to drum up quite a bit of publicity for himself and his blog in the process. Clever. I must admit I am somewhat on the side of the NYT being able to use his real name. Alexander's blog is related to his work, by staying anonymous (but not really) he is trying to have it both ways: "Hear my words, for I am an experienced psychiatrist with insights and stuff. I'm just not going to tell you which one. I will bask in the glow of accolades but am anonymous to critical articles." I think it is in the public interest for the NYT to state that Alexander is who he says he is, especially since some of his comments have attracted controversy. It would be different if this was some underground blog about model trains or something, but Alexander is a licensed professional. He likes that his words carry weight based on that or else he would go by AnonMemberOfThePublic375.
- SilasX 6y ago> "Hear my words, for I am an experienced psychiatrist with insights and stuff. I'm just not going to tell you which one. I will bask in the glow of accolades but am anonymous to critical articles." Huh? I don’t think he has ever used his status as a psychiatrist to claim credibility, nor do I think his readers care about that beyond the occasional anecdote. People (including me) were drawn to his writings long before they were aware of that aspect about him. When he moved to SSC c. 2013 he even made a post about just staring his residency, which isn’t “experienced”.
- AndrewStephens 6y agoI can see why Alexander might desire anonymity but even his list of reasons why he is deleting his blog post contains several pieces of potentially identifying information - far more than the hypothetical NYTs article would have contained, including details of his housing situation. I find his response confusing. Full marks on managing to get of lot of publicity off the back of the NYT not writing are article though. He is really getting is very-slightly-obfuscated name out there.
- 6y ago
- bitwize 6y agoAaaand because it's 2020 and the Trump administration, the empathy-removal training camp is back up.
- say_it_as_it_is 6y agothis is how you increase readership exponentially
- CM30 6y agoI still can't figure out any legitimate reason why the Times thought it was a good idea to try and use his real name in an article about the site. I mean, if someone goes by a certain identity online when running a blog or working on something, what's wrong with just using that name in an article or video about them? Whenever I interview a game developer that uses a pseudonym, or a YouTuber/Twitch streamer/blogger in the same situation, that's the name I use in the article. I might ask them for a bit of background info at one point sure, but I won't push for it, nor will I go around trying to dox them to get said information. Is there any real reason that 'Scott Alexander [last name]' would be used rather than just 'Scott Alexander'? Still, it's nice to see the blog's back up, and I hope people learn from this debacle in some way or another.
- BitwiseFool 6y agoThis is pure speculation on my part, but it may just be due to organizational inflexibility and poor communication. I remember reading somewhere that internally The Times said it was having a credibility problem when it came to "unnamed sources" and there was an effort to confront this. So, the author of the article, knowing Scott's real and full name, would be obliged to use it in the article. I can imagine Scott's request to protect his identity going back and forth between layers of management. And each of those managers realized they had nothing to gain by granting Scott's request.
- Natsu 6y agoThere's a huge difference between pure "unnamed sources" that are highly partisan and publishing the pseudonym someone publishes under rather than their actual name. Also, most of the credibility loss has been because a lot of those anonymous sources flat-out lied to them, but that's another story and I have yet to see them write about it.
- nyolfen 6y agoscott wasn’t an unnamed source; from the sound of it this was in large part an article about him, eg the journo was going around and asking questions about him specifically. i guess we’ll see if those sources are named.
- juliend2 6y agoFor those who like me didn't know about the blog until today, and why it's a big deal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_Star_Codex#New_York_Times_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_Star_Codex#New_York_Time...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- viburnum 6y agoThe guy has so much contempt for his patients, disclosing his name is a public service.
- jimrandomh 6y agoIt doesn't sound like you've actually read the blog. It isn't about his patients, and it's pretty much never written in a contemptuous tone.