4 ms·

That's plainly false. Those who tried to find Scott Alexander's real name could find it. But those who tried to find information about their doctor or colleag

That's plainly false. Those who tried to find Scott Alexander's real name could find it. But those who tried to find information about their doctor or colleague Scott Siskind most likely wouldn't find out that he writes a popular blog.

tptacek 6y ago
Yes, you could only obtain Scott Alexander's real name if you were a little bit interested in knowing what it was.
- lliamander 6y ago
  But if you did a google search for his real name, his blog was not on the first page of results. Which was the main objective.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    That seems like it's more between Alexander and Google than between Alexander and the New York Times.
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    Links to his blog were. People in the rationalist community used his real name when talking about his pseudonymous writing.
- jdminhbg 6y ago
  The energy spent trying to miss the point here is kind of breathtaking. There existed a trivial mapping of A -> B. There did not exist a trivial mapping of B -> A. Scott was trying to prevent his patients, who had information B, from being bombarded with the link to A. It is not a hard concept to grasp.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    Yes, we have all heard this before, many, many times. The connection not being made here is why it is that a newspaper is obliged to care about this.
    - jdminhbg 6y ago
      I cannot understand the point of you switching back and forth between "he was already doxxed" and "well ok but actually the NYT should doxx him" in 25 separate threads on the topic.
      - tptacek 6y ago
        I don't know what this word "doxxing" even means in this context. Does it mean calling unwanted attention to public information?
    - lliamander 6y ago
      And you have yet to explain why there was a public interest in giving his real name that level of exposure.
monocasa 6y ago
He published under his real name early on.
- Aapje58 6y ago
  Which he regretted, so he removed his original blog and started blogging under a pen name.

tptacek 6y ago

Yes, you could only obtain Scott Alexander's real name if you were a little bit interested in knowing what it was.

lliamander 6y ago
But if you did a google search for his real name, his blog was not on the first page of results. Which was the main objective.
- tptacek 6y ago
  That seems like it's more between Alexander and Google than between Alexander and the New York Times.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  Links to his blog were. People in the rationalist community used his real name when talking about his pseudonymous writing.
jdminhbg 6y ago
The energy spent trying to miss the point here is kind of breathtaking. There existed a trivial mapping of A -> B. There did not exist a trivial mapping of B -> A. Scott was trying to prevent his patients, who had information B, from being bombarded with the link to A. It is not a hard concept to grasp.
- tptacek 6y ago
  Yes, we have all heard this before, many, many times. The connection not being made here is why it is that a newspaper is obliged to care about this.
  - jdminhbg 6y ago
    I cannot understand the point of you switching back and forth between "he was already doxxed" and "well ok but actually the NYT should doxx him" in 25 separate threads on the topic.
    - tptacek 6y ago
      I don't know what this word "doxxing" even means in this context. Does it mean calling unwanted attention to public information?
  - lliamander 6y ago
    And you have yet to explain why there was a public interest in giving his real name that level of exposure.

monocasa 6y ago

He published under his real name early on.

Aapje58 6y ago
Which he regretted, so he removed his original blog and started blogging under a pen name.