4 ms·

Yeah, his name wasn't private. That is partly because of a decision to publish under his real name when he was much younger, and partly because people have been

Yeah, his name wasn't private. That is partly because of a decision to publish under his real name when he was much younger, and partly because people have been working to keep his name public despite his attempts to scrub his name. But, as Scott has said numerous times, he simply wanted to make it hard for his patients to google his name and find his blog, so that he could continue practicing psychiatry. That's a perfectly reasonable request to ask of anyone, including journalists.

tptacek 6y ago
Alexander can certainly want his identity to be obscure, and has legitimate reasons to want that. That preference doesn't bind on strangers. He can't force the world to un-know things it already knows, and so no, that is not a reasonable request, especially not to a journalist. These arguments about why we're all obligated to cooperate with Alexander's attempt to walk his identity back always seem to be inventing new norms, like the norm of "if a doctor slips up and writes political essays under their real name, then, for the sake of the doctor's career, every other person in the world should pretend that real name was never disclosed". It's a reasonable thing to want, but not to expect.
- lliamander 6y ago
  > These arguments about why we're all obligated to cooperate with Alexander's attempt to walk his identity back always seem to be inventing new norms Not really. The NYT was perfectly willing to protect the anonymity of a different psychiatrist blogger. Yes, this person did a better job of keeping their identity a secret, but the justification was largely the same. And let's not pretend that journalism is only about sharing information. There's a great deal that journalists don't share (or even try to actively suppress) for many different reasons. Partly because there are a lot of ethical considerations when publicizing information. Worth noting that part of the issue is that, with psychiatry and counseling in particular, it really doesn't matter what he was writing about or what his politics are. Any such publicity compromises the blank slate that counselors are supposed to present to their clients. While this does mean that mental health professionals have an obligation to take care with their public image, it's not unreasonable to ask others (including journalists) to respect the particular cost they face with any kind of exposure.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    I've lost track of the rationale you're trying to give me for why the NYT is obligated to pretend Alexander's identity wasn't public, or why the NYT is somehow a party to Alexander's professional practice.
    - Anderkent 6y ago
      It's not _obligated_ to, no one says it's illegal. NYT can decide to be an asshole and reveal it despite the request not to. Which it has. Is there a real argument for why the NYT _should_ publish Scott's name? Other than "it doesn't care whether that hurts the subject, and it expects to get more clicks this way".
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- NovaJehovah 6y ago
  Journalists routinely protect people's identities when they think outing them could threaten their safety in some way. They do this regardless of whether a dedicated investigator might be able to piece together someone's identity from existing public information. It's not a requirement to offer this protection, but declining when it's asked for by the subject of a story is certainly a weighty ethical decision that respectable journalists don't take lightly. Outing someone in a vulnerable position simply because the journalist disagrees with their ideas and wants to harm them (vs. deciding it's in the public interest) would be a very clear breach of ethics.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    If the NYT went digging and found a friend of Alexander's who revealed his name, this would have maybe some weight (but probably not: journalists write stories about people who would prefer, for economic reasons, not to be identified all of the time; that is often the point), but in this case, all they did was Google. I'm sorry, I still can't see the real-world rule that requires the New York Times to pretend that you can't just Google a pseudonym to unmask it.
    - NovaJehovah 6y ago
      They don't have to pretend that. But they also don't have to include someone's name when it's not pertinent to the story and could conceivably cause the person harm. It doesn't matter if someone could just Google it. The NYT shouldn't make it easier unless there's journalistic value in doing so. Spite doesn't count. Would you feel the same if this was a story about a sexual assault victim instead of a blogger?
      - tptacek 6y ago
        Scott Alexander is not a victim of sexual assault; he's the author of a blog that he would rather not have connected to his name. The norms about sexual assault victims in journalism are specific (and they're contentious! Google CJR for examples) and you can't generalize from them.
- dataduck 6y ago
  You're ignoring the main issue here: Metz has no legitimate reason for publishing Scott's name. It's a purely spiteful move that provides no benefit to his readers. Based on his behaviour in this and other[1] situations, I have no doubt that if Metz thought he could get away with something more unsavoury, he would have tried to. [1] https://medium.com/@garyweiss_86200/cade-metz-pulls-a-deep-capture-on-slate-star-codex-da649e8efe7 https://medium.com/@garyweiss_86200/cade-metz-pulls-a-deep-c...
  - pvg 6y ago
    You're ignoring the main issue here: Metz has no legitimate reason for publishing Scott's name. This would be reminiscent of the South Park planet Marklar where all people, places and things are named Marklar. It's fun for a bit but likely impractical. It's also not clear how using someone's name is 'spiteful' given the vast majority of readers would have never heard of Scott Alexander, pseudonymous or otherwise.
heavyset_go 6y ago
Much younger? He published a blog post of his under his real name in 2017[1]. [1] https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Technological_Singularity/wtQkDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=scott+siskind&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Technological_Singu...

tptacek 6y ago

Alexander can certainly want his identity to be obscure, and has legitimate reasons to want that. That preference doesn't bind on strangers. He can't force the world to un-know things it already knows, and so no, that is not a reasonable request, especially not to a journalist. These arguments about why we're all obligated to cooperate with Alexander's attempt to walk his identity back always seem to be inventing new norms, like the norm of "if a doctor slips up and writes political essays under their real name, then, for the sake of the doctor's career, every other person in the world should pretend that real name was never disclosed". It's a reasonable thing to want, but not to expect.

lliamander 6y ago
> These arguments about why we're all obligated to cooperate with Alexander's attempt to walk his identity back always seem to be inventing new norms Not really. The NYT was perfectly willing to protect the anonymity of a different psychiatrist blogger. Yes, this person did a better job of keeping their identity a secret, but the justification was largely the same. And let's not pretend that journalism is only about sharing information. There's a great deal that journalists don't share (or even try to actively suppress) for many different reasons. Partly because there are a lot of ethical considerations when publicizing information. Worth noting that part of the issue is that, with psychiatry and counseling in particular, it really doesn't matter what he was writing about or what his politics are. Any such publicity compromises the blank slate that counselors are supposed to present to their clients. While this does mean that mental health professionals have an obligation to take care with their public image, it's not unreasonable to ask others (including journalists) to respect the particular cost they face with any kind of exposure.
- tptacek 6y ago
  I've lost track of the rationale you're trying to give me for why the NYT is obligated to pretend Alexander's identity wasn't public, or why the NYT is somehow a party to Alexander's professional practice.
  - Anderkent 6y ago
    It's not _obligated_ to, no one says it's illegal. NYT can decide to be an asshole and reveal it despite the request not to. Which it has. Is there a real argument for why the NYT _should_ publish Scott's name? Other than "it doesn't care whether that hurts the subject, and it expects to get more clicks this way".
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
NovaJehovah 6y ago
Journalists routinely protect people's identities when they think outing them could threaten their safety in some way. They do this regardless of whether a dedicated investigator might be able to piece together someone's identity from existing public information. It's not a requirement to offer this protection, but declining when it's asked for by the subject of a story is certainly a weighty ethical decision that respectable journalists don't take lightly. Outing someone in a vulnerable position simply because the journalist disagrees with their ideas and wants to harm them (vs. deciding it's in the public interest) would be a very clear breach of ethics.
- tptacek 6y ago
  If the NYT went digging and found a friend of Alexander's who revealed his name, this would have maybe some weight (but probably not: journalists write stories about people who would prefer, for economic reasons, not to be identified all of the time; that is often the point), but in this case, all they did was Google. I'm sorry, I still can't see the real-world rule that requires the New York Times to pretend that you can't just Google a pseudonym to unmask it.
  - NovaJehovah 6y ago
    They don't have to pretend that. But they also don't have to include someone's name when it's not pertinent to the story and could conceivably cause the person harm. It doesn't matter if someone could just Google it. The NYT shouldn't make it easier unless there's journalistic value in doing so. Spite doesn't count. Would you feel the same if this was a story about a sexual assault victim instead of a blogger?
    - tptacek 6y ago
      Scott Alexander is not a victim of sexual assault; he's the author of a blog that he would rather not have connected to his name. The norms about sexual assault victims in journalism are specific (and they're contentious! Google CJR for examples) and you can't generalize from them.
dataduck 6y ago
You're ignoring the main issue here: Metz has no legitimate reason for publishing Scott's name. It's a purely spiteful move that provides no benefit to his readers. Based on his behaviour in this and other[1] situations, I have no doubt that if Metz thought he could get away with something more unsavoury, he would have tried to. [1] https://medium.com/@garyweiss_86200/cade-metz-pulls-a-deep-capture-on-slate-star-codex-da649e8efe7 https://medium.com/@garyweiss_86200/cade-metz-pulls-a-deep-c...
- pvg 6y ago
  You're ignoring the main issue here: Metz has no legitimate reason for publishing Scott's name. This would be reminiscent of the South Park planet Marklar where all people, places and things are named Marklar. It's fun for a bit but likely impractical. It's also not clear how using someone's name is 'spiteful' given the vast majority of readers would have never heard of Scott Alexander, pseudonymous or otherwise.

heavyset_go 6y ago

Much younger? He published a blog post of his under his real name in 2017[1]. [1] https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Technological_Singularity/wtQkDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=scott+siskind&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Technological_Singu...