4 ms·

> Why does he need to "deserve" anonymity? If you have something already and someone wants to take it away, don't you need to justify why you're taking that thi

> Why does he need to "deserve" anonymity? If you have something already and someone wants to take it away, don't you need to justify why you're taking that thing away? That still doesn't answer my question. Sounds very abstract like you are trying to evade answering the question. He didn't have anonymity. He already published his name. Someone that publishes their name doesn't deserve anonymity, correct? > and that enabling his present and previous patients (he's a psychiatrist, so they're not always the most stable people) to discover his online persona would jeopardise his career. He already admitted he was overreacting on this point.

beaconstudios 6y ago
> That still doesn't answer my question. Sounds very abstract like you are trying to evade answering the question. I don't think your question merits answering, because framing anonymity as something one has to "deserve" makes no sense to me. Saying it needs to be "deserved" suggests it's a privilege granted to people for some merit, rather than the default on the internet until someone either surrenders it willingly, or in this case, has it stripped by another party - so it's akin to privacy in that way. Does anyone "deserve" privacy? Silly question really. > He didn't have anonymity. He already published his name. Someone that publishes their name doesn't deserve anonymity, correct? As far as I'm aware, he only published his full name after he knew the article was going up. > He already admitted he was overreacting on this point. I can still see how he would initially be worried. Shining a light on someone known for looking into controversial topics and then following it up with "by the way this is his name and he lives in such-and-such town" is vaguely threatening, and inviting people who read the article and decide he's a Nazi or something to mess with his real life.
scythe 6y ago
>Someone that publishes their name doesn't deserve anonymity, correct? Incorrect. Someone making a mistake does not give you the right to exploit that mistake. That's what Eric Harris thought but it's not how civilized society works. The fact that Scott gave some information away (indirectly) at some point (which you call "publishing") doesn't actually change the significance of the actions.
- ketamine__ 6y ago
  So if Sam Altman decides it was a mistake to reveal his name no publication should publish his name anymore?
  - scythe 6y ago
    Sam Altman clearly intended to be a public figure. Scott did not. This is not in question.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  Searching for Eric Harris just finds the murderer. Is that who you meant?
  - scythe 6y ago
    Yes — once I read the FBI profile of Harris which noted an incident where he stole from an unlocked van and argued furiously that the victim deserved it for being foolish. It stuck in my head as a canonical example of that kind of thinking.
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      It's a superficial and incendiary analogy.

beaconstudios 6y ago

> That still doesn't answer my question. Sounds very abstract like you are trying to evade answering the question. I don't think your question merits answering, because framing anonymity as something one has to "deserve" makes no sense to me. Saying it needs to be "deserved" suggests it's a privilege granted to people for some merit, rather than the default on the internet until someone either surrenders it willingly, or in this case, has it stripped by another party - so it's akin to privacy in that way. Does anyone "deserve" privacy? Silly question really. > He didn't have anonymity. He already published his name. Someone that publishes their name doesn't deserve anonymity, correct? As far as I'm aware, he only published his full name after he knew the article was going up. > He already admitted he was overreacting on this point. I can still see how he would initially be worried. Shining a light on someone known for looking into controversial topics and then following it up with "by the way this is his name and he lives in such-and-such town" is vaguely threatening, and inviting people who read the article and decide he's a Nazi or something to mess with his real life.

scythe 6y ago

>Someone that publishes their name doesn't deserve anonymity, correct? Incorrect. Someone making a mistake does not give you the right to exploit that mistake. That's what Eric Harris thought but it's not how civilized society works. The fact that Scott gave some information away (indirectly) at some point (which you call "publishing") doesn't actually change the significance of the actions.

ketamine__ 6y ago
So if Sam Altman decides it was a mistake to reveal his name no publication should publish his name anymore?
- scythe 6y ago
  Sam Altman clearly intended to be a public figure. Scott did not. This is not in question.
pseudalopex 6y ago
Searching for Eric Harris just finds the murderer. Is that who you meant?
- scythe 6y ago
  Yes — once I read the FBI profile of Harris which noted an incident where he stole from an unlocked van and argued furiously that the victim deserved it for being foolish. It stuck in my head as a canonical example of that kind of thinking.
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    It's a superficial and incendiary analogy.