3 ms·
I didn't claim they were obligated like it's a law to do this, but I do think it's a little strange you wouldn't expect a powerful media org like NYT to care ab
by remarkEon 6y ago
I didn't claim they were obligated like it's a law to do this, but I do think it's a little strange you wouldn't expect a powerful media org like NYT to care about the second order effects of their reporting at all. To reduce this to it's simplest form: I am claiming that the NYT shouldn't have been an asshole about it. What is so puzzling to me is that you are a) intentionally not getting this, or saying "meh don't care" and b) are giving enormous deference to a very powerful organization that can negatively (or positively!) impact someone's livelihood.
>...using an identity so trivially connectable to those patients.
As others have pointed out, the connection was mapped as A to B and not B to A.
>...it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Times.
And the Times is what would've changed how his identities were mapped. How The Times' operates in this new tech-enabled media environment is absolutely relevant.
- pseudalopex 6y agoThe connection was trivial to find both ways. People in the rationalist community used his real name when talking about his pseudonymous writing.
- remarkEon 6y agoSure, and there's an argument to be made that Alexander was taking some professional risk in that it was always possible one of his patients would wide up in the SSC subreddit and see his real surname.
- pseudalopex 6y agoJust searching the web for his real name would find those discussions. Someone can argue the NYT shouldn't make the connection more prominent. But it was mapped both ways already.