4 ms·

tbh I generally like SSC but I'm not sure I agree with him on the name part. He writes a blog and agreed to an interview. His name was elsewhere. I don't see wh

tbh I generally like SSC but I'm not sure I agree with him on the name part. He writes a blog and agreed to an interview. His name was elsewhere. I don't see why he gets to set the rules - it isn't like he's an anonymous person in the midst of a sexual assault case or something. He said over and over again that he thought it would hurt his psychiatric (I think) practice. I don't really see how that's the NYTimes issue. If I wrote a blog about computer science but also had a day job as a stand-up (or visa-versa) it isn't every single news outlet's job to only write positively about me or to never mention that I have the other job. If the interview was gotten under false pretense as he said then that is shitty - but I think it is standard practice (and a good standard practice) that a newspaper publishes the identity of impactful people they are writing about.

smnrchrds 6y ago
In my view, leaving people who want privacy to have privacy is what separates journalists from paparazzi. If NYT starts to act like paparazzi, I would no longer give their words any more weight than I do TMZ. In my opinion, NYT broke an ethical rule by damaging someone's privacy. You may say Scott's name was not fully secret before the NYT entered the picture either, so it's OK. But that's like saying it's OK to throw a stone and break someone's window because there already was a small crack on the glass. Privacy is not binary. NYT was taking his privacy from perhaps 85% to 2% and that's gotta count for something. I, for one, have been a reader of his blog for at least 5 years and I had no idea what his real name was until this fiasco happened. I am not going to write a lengthy comment about this. Scott himself has written on the subject with more depth and eloquence that I could. I just want to add my own anecdote that I am done with NYT. After my Gell-Mann amnesia broke about NYT, I do not see myself ever becoming Gell-Mann amnesiac towards them again.
- handmodel 6y ago
  The only news articles I've seen that profiled a subject where they didn't reveal the identity were cases of victims of crimes or whistleblowers. If I ran an influential comedy YouTube channel under a pseudonym, but I was a pre-school teacher on the side, the NYT absolutely should publish my name along with my pseudonym if they are doing a profile on me. Perhaps I could claim that I would unjustly lose clients if this got published...but if you are at the point of having hundreds-of-thousands of followers and accepting any press then I don't see how this is anyone's doing but your own.
  - smnrchrds 6y ago
    I believe it is unethical to upend people's lives, except if they have committed a serious crime or done something truly heinous; and being a journalist and doing it in the course of writing an article is not a valid exception. You do not believe this. We have a disagreement in values, so I don't believe we can come to an agreement.
  - drdeca 6y ago
    > the NYT absolutely should publish my name along with my pseudonym if they are doing a profile on me. This is a bad norm. The opposite norm should be in place.
jariel 6y ago
? The entire media industry relies on anonymous sourcing. There are literally laws about it. The news may not exist without it. So given that context, that they will respect the privacy of probably most of their sources, and won't reveal names while they use the cover of 'privilege' in this regard, I think it's fair to say that individuals who's names are not part of the public discourse should have the option to remain anonymous.
- handmodel 6y ago
  huh? SSC wasn't the source here. He is the subject here. If I was a politician/content creator/writer etc and the NY Times wanted to write an article about me....what do you mean I should get the option to remain anonymous. I am a public figure. Just because I say "I'm not public" doesn't mean I'm not a public figure. If I have 100k followers then I am a public figure. It is perfectly acceptable to write about a subject without their consent. The majority of important journalism is writing about people without their consent. That is what separates news from PR statements. This is great. It is great for society that people are reported on whether they like it or not. I think you can argue that this article was not very interesting - but I think the NYT was perfectly justified in assigning someone to cover a blogger with a considerable following.
  - jariel 6y ago
    You are a public figure if you are a public figure. Star Codex guy is not a public figure. The press does not write about certain groups (informants) for specific reasons, they shouldn't write about others. If Star Codex guy had lawfully committed a crime, then fine. If he was some overwhelmingly influential guy, then fine. But he's just some blogger that the NYT is bullying for ideological reasons.

smnrchrds 6y ago

In my view, leaving people who want privacy to have privacy is what separates journalists from paparazzi. If NYT starts to act like paparazzi, I would no longer give their words any more weight than I do TMZ. In my opinion, NYT broke an ethical rule by damaging someone's privacy. You may say Scott's name was not fully secret before the NYT entered the picture either, so it's OK. But that's like saying it's OK to throw a stone and break someone's window because there already was a small crack on the glass. Privacy is not binary. NYT was taking his privacy from perhaps 85% to 2% and that's gotta count for something. I, for one, have been a reader of his blog for at least 5 years and I had no idea what his real name was until this fiasco happened. I am not going to write a lengthy comment about this. Scott himself has written on the subject with more depth and eloquence that I could. I just want to add my own anecdote that I am done with NYT. After my Gell-Mann amnesia broke about NYT, I do not see myself ever becoming Gell-Mann amnesiac towards them again.

handmodel 6y ago
The only news articles I've seen that profiled a subject where they didn't reveal the identity were cases of victims of crimes or whistleblowers. If I ran an influential comedy YouTube channel under a pseudonym, but I was a pre-school teacher on the side, the NYT absolutely should publish my name along with my pseudonym if they are doing a profile on me. Perhaps I could claim that I would unjustly lose clients if this got published...but if you are at the point of having hundreds-of-thousands of followers and accepting any press then I don't see how this is anyone's doing but your own.
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  I believe it is unethical to upend people's lives, except if they have committed a serious crime or done something truly heinous; and being a journalist and doing it in the course of writing an article is not a valid exception. You do not believe this. We have a disagreement in values, so I don't believe we can come to an agreement.
- drdeca 6y ago
  > the NYT absolutely should publish my name along with my pseudonym if they are doing a profile on me. This is a bad norm. The opposite norm should be in place.

jariel 6y ago

? The entire media industry relies on anonymous sourcing. There are literally laws about it. The news may not exist without it. So given that context, that they will respect the privacy of probably most of their sources, and won't reveal names while they use the cover of 'privilege' in this regard, I think it's fair to say that individuals who's names are not part of the public discourse should have the option to remain anonymous.

handmodel 6y ago
huh? SSC wasn't the source here. He is the subject here. If I was a politician/content creator/writer etc and the NY Times wanted to write an article about me....what do you mean I should get the option to remain anonymous. I am a public figure. Just because I say "I'm not public" doesn't mean I'm not a public figure. If I have 100k followers then I am a public figure. It is perfectly acceptable to write about a subject without their consent. The majority of important journalism is writing about people without their consent. That is what separates news from PR statements. This is great. It is great for society that people are reported on whether they like it or not. I think you can argue that this article was not very interesting - but I think the NYT was perfectly justified in assigning someone to cover a blogger with a considerable following.
- jariel 6y ago
  You are a public figure if you are a public figure. Star Codex guy is not a public figure. The press does not write about certain groups (informants) for specific reasons, they shouldn't write about others. If Star Codex guy had lawfully committed a crime, then fine. If he was some overwhelmingly influential guy, then fine. But he's just some blogger that the NYT is bullying for ideological reasons.