3 ms·

Scott published his own identity. That was his choice. Do you disagree with that? Is there some unwritten rule on the internet that you are anonymous as long as

Scott published his own identity. That was his choice. Do you disagree with that? Is there some unwritten rule on the internet that you are anonymous as long as it's kinda a little bit difficult to figure it out? He quit his job and started another business by using his notoriety. If his life truly was in danger he would have retired. Instead he's trying to make money from his followers with a new business!

kortilla 6y ago
> Scott published his own identity. That was his choice. Do you disagree with that? No, he quite clearly was trying to keep the association between the psychiatry real identity and Scott Alexander. There would be no fucking discussion here if Scott intentionally meant to reveal his identity. >Is there some unwritten rule on the internet that you are anonymous as long as it's kinda a little bit difficult to figure it out? Yes, there is a reason it’s gotten its own term. And this is why many sites (like Reddit) have very explicit anti-doxxing rules.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  > No, he quite clearly was trying to keep the association between the psychiatry real identity and Scott Alexander. There would be no fucking discussion here if Scott intentionally meant to reveal his identity. Then why did he publish his own recognizable blog post with his full name here[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...
  - TeaDrunk 6y ago
    Isn't there a difference between having your name in a book that likely doesn't get much circulation and therefore probably wouldn't damage your career from attention, and the literal New York Times outing your name? Shouldn't we at least suggest these are significantly distinct events with very different ramifications for the author?
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      Don't argue that Scott didn't intentionally mean to reveal his identity if he himself intentionally chose to reveal his own identity.
      - neonate 6y ago
        That's not what TeaDrunk was arguing.
      - TeaDrunk 6y ago
        I think it is fair to say that the author under the pseudonym of Scott Alexander didn't mean to provide an avenue for which his identity could be in a major, nationwide, widely-read source of news, when he republished an article under his real name in a relatively niche audience book that would unlikely have the same amount of circulation as the New York Times.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    You’re right, he’s probably working for NYTimes and this is a geurrilla marketing campaign. He didn’t want to stay anonymous and was using the name Scott Alexander for a decade for the build-up to this climax of made up events.

kortilla 6y ago

> Scott published his own identity. That was his choice. Do you disagree with that? No, he quite clearly was trying to keep the association between the psychiatry real identity and Scott Alexander. There would be no fucking discussion here if Scott intentionally meant to reveal his identity. >Is there some unwritten rule on the internet that you are anonymous as long as it's kinda a little bit difficult to figure it out? Yes, there is a reason it’s gotten its own term. And this is why many sites (like Reddit) have very explicit anti-doxxing rules.

heavyset_go 6y ago
> No, he quite clearly was trying to keep the association between the psychiatry real identity and Scott Alexander. There would be no fucking discussion here if Scott intentionally meant to reveal his identity. Then why did he publish his own recognizable blog post with his full name here[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...
- TeaDrunk 6y ago
  Isn't there a difference between having your name in a book that likely doesn't get much circulation and therefore probably wouldn't damage your career from attention, and the literal New York Times outing your name? Shouldn't we at least suggest these are significantly distinct events with very different ramifications for the author?
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    Don't argue that Scott didn't intentionally mean to reveal his identity if he himself intentionally chose to reveal his own identity.
    - neonate 6y ago
      That's not what TeaDrunk was arguing.
    - TeaDrunk 6y ago
      I think it is fair to say that the author under the pseudonym of Scott Alexander didn't mean to provide an avenue for which his identity could be in a major, nationwide, widely-read source of news, when he republished an article under his real name in a relatively niche audience book that would unlikely have the same amount of circulation as the New York Times.
- kortilla 6y ago
  You’re right, he’s probably working for NYTimes and this is a geurrilla marketing campaign. He didn’t want to stay anonymous and was using the name Scott Alexander for a decade for the build-up to this climax of made up events.