6 ms·

What I find noteworthy about this story is how contentious and weaponized have gender and race become. Out of the four negative claims, one accused Scott of rac

What I find noteworthy about this story is how contentious and weaponized have gender and race become. Out of the four negative claims, one accused Scott of racism and two accused him of of some variant of misogyny. The fourth associated him with some other form of non-pure thinking. I am afraid things will get worse before they get better. I expect the trumpism/fascism wave will provoke unhealthy reaction and further chain-reaction. My personal lacmus paper is the use of "white male" label as an argument, which is not totally uncommon even here on HN.

Aqua 6y ago
The whole story background story is extremely alarming. NYT unilaterally decided to reveal someone's real identity against that person's wishes. It should honestly be made illegal but given the current political climate it's doubtful such course of action will ever be considered. This whole situation gives even more credence to the idea that decentralisation is the only way forward for mankind if we intend to preserve the liberties our ancestors enjoyed for the past 300 years.
- CPLX 6y ago
  Can you articulate a coherent framework for how and why an American news publication should be prohibited from revealing legally obtained true information about the leader of a large, popular, or otherwise noteworthy community?
  - bnj 6y ago
    I haven’t thought up a framework, but one thing I’m wondering is why the identity of the person alone is newsworthy. I’m probably missing part of the background here, I’m new to the controversy. Did some kind of mystery arise around the true identity of the author? Your comment implies that NYT obtained the true identity of the author through legal means — how exactly did they do that? I don’t think finding out the identity of someone who wishes to remain anonymous is, in itself, sufficiently newsworthy to overcome the privacy interests of the individual. I also wonder if this story has a more interesting angle buried in it about the complexities of identity in the internet age: the author of the blog achieved notoriety, but in some ways that character is distinct from the physical person living their life and doing their job. The NYT wanted to publish a link between those two personas over their objection. Why should they be able to if the story can be written in a way that doesn’t? Consider someone like... Satoshi, of bitcoin. The character has achieved this powerful notoriety and managed to remain anonymous. Do people want to know which person on the planet created that persona? Sure; do they need to know, is the identity alone newsworthy without some reason to need to publish it? Honestly I tend to say no. That’s just... gossip, isn’t it? How is knowing a different name to associate with the character going to enrich and inform me in any way? Examples where I think revealing the identity might be of substance: - suppose someone committed crimes to keep their identity secret - suppose government officials intervened to help them remain anonymous - suppose the person turns out to BE a powerful government official [edit: to add last example]
    - edanm 6y ago
      > I’m probably missing part of the background here, I’m new to the controversy. Did some kind of mystery arise around the true identity of the author? Not really. Originally, the blog was pseudonymous. It was the first and middle name of the author, which he did because he's a psychiatrist who didn't want someone Googling his real name and finding his blog (for various professional and personal reasons). But it wasn't exactly hidden super well - I found out his full name kind of by accident while googling for some random info about him, it would take most people a few minutes to find his name I imagine. This was ok by him because he mostly wanted to protect the reverse direction - someone googling his full name and finding his blog, not the other direction of someone finding his blog and discovering his full name (mostly - not exclusively). In any case, after a year of "arranging his life" to allow him to do so, as he puts it, he is now publishing under his full name.
      - bnj 6y ago
        This is really helpful context, thanks! I don't really get why the NYT wanted to publish his name against his wishes. At first I thought it was sensationalism but I read elsewhere that the regular readership of the blog was estimated at around 8.5 thousand. No idea if that's right but if it's within an order of magnitude then I rather think the NYT should have more pressing stories to develop.
        edanm 6y ago
        I mean, on the one hand the readership is higher than that but probably not crazy high. On the other hand, his readers really are fairly influential, so I think he really is worthy of an article in the NYT. (I mean I'm a huge fan of his as well and think he's one of today's leading intellectuals, so I might be biased) The NYT initially said they wanted to publish his name because of editorial policy. The reported said it was kind of being forced on him because "them's the rules" or something like that.
    - CPLX 6y ago
      > Consider someone like... Satoshi, of bitcoin. The character has achieved this powerful notoriety and managed to remain anonymous. Do people want to know which person on the planet created that persona? Sure; do they need to know, is the identity alone newsworthy without some reason to need to publish it? If a journalist were to learn the identity of Satoshi of course that would be newsworthy. Is this a serious question?
  - DixieDev 6y ago
    They should absolutely be allowed to reveal legally obtained true information about people's identities, but the vital 'legally' part of the process should encompass said people's consent. If I start a blog that sees some success, and avoid using my full name in order to protect my privacy, then I obviously don't want my full name linked to my blog and I don't see why random businesses should be allowed to doxx me for the sake of some ad revenue.
  - Aqua 6y ago
    I won't because I'm neither American nor a lawyer, but I will answer your question. The person in question wanted to remain anonymous for good reasons, they didn't consent to have their true identity revealed and yet a powerful news corp decided to do that anyway, clearly in bad faith and for their own gain, violating that person's and their relatives' privacy. It's obvious the aim was to incite verbal violence against and "cancel" that man because he committed the heinous crime of wrongthink.
  - woofie11 6y ago
    Prohibited? They shouldn't be, any more than they should be prohibited from replacing their logo to a swastika. We have freedom of speech, and that's important. If the government tried to go after NYT for a swastika logo, I'd be 100% on the side of the NYT; free speech should be legal even if I disagree with it. On the other hand, I'd never visit NYT again, and I think most of the population would do likewise. This isn't as extreme, but events like this should cause the general public to adjust their views of NYT. This shouldn't be a cancel-culture style slander, but simply starting to treat NYT as a random tabloid which makes stuff up for clicks. NYT ran a hit piece on Larry Lessig too.
- dohnuts1919 6y ago
  While I don't think the NYT had a strong reason to reveal Scott's real name, it's absurd to say that newspapers shouldn't "reveal someone's real identity against that person's wishes" in the general case. As the saying goes, journalism means printing things that certain people don't want published, and everything else is PR. Journalists are supposed to reveal things against the subject's wishes. As the
- edanm 6y ago
  > NYT unilaterally decided to reveal someone's real identity against that person's wishes. It should honestly be made illegal but given the current political climate it's doubtful such course of action will ever be considered. I completely disagree. That goes against the very free speech principles that readers of Scott's blog advocate so strongly. I think it was the wrong decision to publish his name, but it shouldn't be illegal. Like it or not, Scott has become a fairly important intellectual given who his readers are (and may I say, completely deservedly so).
  - kodah 6y ago
    > That goes against the very free speech principles that readers of Scott's blog advocate so strongly Not really. Doxxing someone mostly leads to harm. Anyone that was on the internet in the early days knows this, these days it's worse because the mobs that attack you aren't just doing mindless trolling, they're seeking something more intrinsic. I look at it as in defense of free speech. That said, I don't generally believe in total anonymity. I believe in PGP style pseudo anonymity. With someone's real name you can attack their friends, family, and the place they live. With an online identity you can attack their ideas and if you're one of these people that enjoys grey areas you can attack their platform. That, to me, seems more fair.
- wilsocr88 6y ago
  Couldn't agree more. If there's one thing the last 5 or so years should teach us is that newspeak isn't a language, it's the entire technological communications apparatus of the West.
- rootsudo 6y ago
  Just imagine the zoom conversations the NYT had to have had with each other to publish this article, and it was approved.
Dma54rhs 6y ago
It sure will happen in Europe because people here are not really ashamed to admit they are sick and tired of that American 'justice' bullying. The only hope for America is when slightly more intelligent character than Trump suppress their political gains to put end to this madness.
- dandare 6y ago
  As a white person from a poor post communist country with no colonial history (99.999% white) I cringe when some local SJW parrots the "white privilege" agenda. It just makes no sense in large parts of the world other than US.
higerordermap 6y ago
As an Indian, I'd say this kind of "SJW" rhetoric serves no purpose other than causing a reactionary change -- of more normal people favoring extreme right wing instead, and leaving a bad impression about the total social justice thing.
- javajosh 6y ago
  The other alternative is to be independent. No tribe. Or you can be in a tribe, but as a critic and reformer. (Well, some tribes allow you to criticize them. Not the modern GOP.)
  - Clewza313 6y ago
    Not an option anymore: you're either with us or against us. This article is actually an excellent example of this in action: by any objective standard SSC was a pretty liberal blog, but the NYT cherrypicked 4 quotes from 1700+ articles where he dared to deviate from dogma and used them to paint him a Nazi.
  - zarkov99 6y ago
    How about joining the American tribe? Wouldn't that be something?
  - adolph 6y ago
    Do you think the NYT tribe allows criticism or non-orthodoxy to exist? They encourage certain “criticism” exist to be sure, but only so far as it reënforces their prestige, to be reflexively believed and turned to as authoritative.
    - dandare 6y ago
      A recent example: > The New York Times Guild Once Again Demands Censorship of Colleagues https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24763382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24763382
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cedilla 6y ago
The NYT abusing these kinds of allegations in a hit piece doesn't say anything about whether such claims can are "contentious and weaponized". Hit pieces latch on current topics. In the 1950s, the NYT would have had invented ties to communists. Or, if possible, hit pieces often imply corruption or paedophilia. That doesn't necessarily mean that corruption or paedophilia are topics that are "contentious" or related to "pure thinking".
- woofie11 6y ago
  I feel like the NYT used to be more credible and run fewer hit pieces. I'm not trying to argue zero, by any means, but I feel like in a very short time -- basically the past 4-8 years -- they've gone from one of the most credible source of media to where I trust them as much as I do Fox News (and I read both, as well as a number of international news sources, to have a complete picture). This sort of stuff seems to be their modus operandi now.
  - yardie 6y ago
    The NYT lost credibility for me when they endorsed the Iraq War in 2003. I have been very vocal about their credibility ever since, even though I agree with some of their journalism. Your heroes will disappoint you. Even the NYT have traded their credibility for clicks, I mean “engagement.”
    - woofie11 6y ago
      For me, credibility isn't binary, but a spectrum. I saw problems before (NYT was never one of my heroes, per se, but just a high-quality, thoughtful, high-integrity newspaper). It always had its flaws, but for the most part, it seemed okay pre-Trump. Especially during the Trump years, but a little before as well, it seemed like the ends (on both sides of the increasingly polarized political spectrum) became more important than the means, and a lot of formerly credible institutions moved into a post-truth era. Sadly, the NYT was one of the victims. So was a big segment of academia. The American civic discourse feels disingenuous and hollow in a way it's never felt before in my life.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
snowwrestler 6y ago
To be fair, in the U.S., gender and race have been weaponized against women and minorities for a long time.
- cema 6y ago
  True more or less everywhere in the world, and does not make attempts to apply it in a different direction any better.
wilsocr88 6y ago
Weaponized is the correct word. The word "racist" is morphing into a racial slur. It's now just a bludgeon to shut up someone with the wrong views. I believe this comes from the idea that the only possible way to be moral is to wield power by any means necessary because you're right and "they" are evil.
- fortran77 6y ago
  This has been used for years, but only recently became weaponized. I can recall in the early 80s, going to ACT UP meetings in NYC, we'd have random people come in and raise crazy issues about "racism" like "the word 'gay' is racist! You need to say 'queer'!" Often these people who came to throw a monkey-wrench into meetings weren't gay men; they were just old-school Greenwich Village agitators. Their tactics work and have been mainstreamed.
  - wilsocr88 6y ago
    And, additionally, the same tactics were called "mostly peaceful" by the news media (until the other side followed suit, of course).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

Aqua 6y ago

The whole story background story is extremely alarming. NYT unilaterally decided to reveal someone's real identity against that person's wishes. It should honestly be made illegal but given the current political climate it's doubtful such course of action will ever be considered. This whole situation gives even more credence to the idea that decentralisation is the only way forward for mankind if we intend to preserve the liberties our ancestors enjoyed for the past 300 years.

CPLX 6y ago
Can you articulate a coherent framework for how and why an American news publication should be prohibited from revealing legally obtained true information about the leader of a large, popular, or otherwise noteworthy community?
- bnj 6y ago
  I haven’t thought up a framework, but one thing I’m wondering is why the identity of the person alone is newsworthy. I’m probably missing part of the background here, I’m new to the controversy. Did some kind of mystery arise around the true identity of the author? Your comment implies that NYT obtained the true identity of the author through legal means — how exactly did they do that? I don’t think finding out the identity of someone who wishes to remain anonymous is, in itself, sufficiently newsworthy to overcome the privacy interests of the individual. I also wonder if this story has a more interesting angle buried in it about the complexities of identity in the internet age: the author of the blog achieved notoriety, but in some ways that character is distinct from the physical person living their life and doing their job. The NYT wanted to publish a link between those two personas over their objection. Why should they be able to if the story can be written in a way that doesn’t? Consider someone like... Satoshi, of bitcoin. The character has achieved this powerful notoriety and managed to remain anonymous. Do people want to know which person on the planet created that persona? Sure; do they need to know, is the identity alone newsworthy without some reason to need to publish it? Honestly I tend to say no. That’s just... gossip, isn’t it? How is knowing a different name to associate with the character going to enrich and inform me in any way? Examples where I think revealing the identity might be of substance: - suppose someone committed crimes to keep their identity secret - suppose government officials intervened to help them remain anonymous - suppose the person turns out to BE a powerful government official [edit: to add last example]
  - edanm 6y ago
    > I’m probably missing part of the background here, I’m new to the controversy. Did some kind of mystery arise around the true identity of the author? Not really. Originally, the blog was pseudonymous. It was the first and middle name of the author, which he did because he's a psychiatrist who didn't want someone Googling his real name and finding his blog (for various professional and personal reasons). But it wasn't exactly hidden super well - I found out his full name kind of by accident while googling for some random info about him, it would take most people a few minutes to find his name I imagine. This was ok by him because he mostly wanted to protect the reverse direction - someone googling his full name and finding his blog, not the other direction of someone finding his blog and discovering his full name (mostly - not exclusively). In any case, after a year of "arranging his life" to allow him to do so, as he puts it, he is now publishing under his full name.
    - bnj 6y ago
      This is really helpful context, thanks! I don't really get why the NYT wanted to publish his name against his wishes. At first I thought it was sensationalism but I read elsewhere that the regular readership of the blog was estimated at around 8.5 thousand. No idea if that's right but if it's within an order of magnitude then I rather think the NYT should have more pressing stories to develop.
      - edanm 6y ago
        I mean, on the one hand the readership is higher than that but probably not crazy high. On the other hand, his readers really are fairly influential, so I think he really is worthy of an article in the NYT. (I mean I'm a huge fan of his as well and think he's one of today's leading intellectuals, so I might be biased) The NYT initially said they wanted to publish his name because of editorial policy. The reported said it was kind of being forced on him because "them's the rules" or something like that.
  - CPLX 6y ago
    > Consider someone like... Satoshi, of bitcoin. The character has achieved this powerful notoriety and managed to remain anonymous. Do people want to know which person on the planet created that persona? Sure; do they need to know, is the identity alone newsworthy without some reason to need to publish it? If a journalist were to learn the identity of Satoshi of course that would be newsworthy. Is this a serious question?
- DixieDev 6y ago
  They should absolutely be allowed to reveal legally obtained true information about people's identities, but the vital 'legally' part of the process should encompass said people's consent. If I start a blog that sees some success, and avoid using my full name in order to protect my privacy, then I obviously don't want my full name linked to my blog and I don't see why random businesses should be allowed to doxx me for the sake of some ad revenue.
- Aqua 6y ago
  I won't because I'm neither American nor a lawyer, but I will answer your question. The person in question wanted to remain anonymous for good reasons, they didn't consent to have their true identity revealed and yet a powerful news corp decided to do that anyway, clearly in bad faith and for their own gain, violating that person's and their relatives' privacy. It's obvious the aim was to incite verbal violence against and "cancel" that man because he committed the heinous crime of wrongthink.
- woofie11 6y ago
  Prohibited? They shouldn't be, any more than they should be prohibited from replacing their logo to a swastika. We have freedom of speech, and that's important. If the government tried to go after NYT for a swastika logo, I'd be 100% on the side of the NYT; free speech should be legal even if I disagree with it. On the other hand, I'd never visit NYT again, and I think most of the population would do likewise. This isn't as extreme, but events like this should cause the general public to adjust their views of NYT. This shouldn't be a cancel-culture style slander, but simply starting to treat NYT as a random tabloid which makes stuff up for clicks. NYT ran a hit piece on Larry Lessig too.
dohnuts1919 6y ago
While I don't think the NYT had a strong reason to reveal Scott's real name, it's absurd to say that newspapers shouldn't "reveal someone's real identity against that person's wishes" in the general case. As the saying goes, journalism means printing things that certain people don't want published, and everything else is PR. Journalists are supposed to reveal things against the subject's wishes. As the
edanm 6y ago
> NYT unilaterally decided to reveal someone's real identity against that person's wishes. It should honestly be made illegal but given the current political climate it's doubtful such course of action will ever be considered. I completely disagree. That goes against the very free speech principles that readers of Scott's blog advocate so strongly. I think it was the wrong decision to publish his name, but it shouldn't be illegal. Like it or not, Scott has become a fairly important intellectual given who his readers are (and may I say, completely deservedly so).
- kodah 6y ago
  > That goes against the very free speech principles that readers of Scott's blog advocate so strongly Not really. Doxxing someone mostly leads to harm. Anyone that was on the internet in the early days knows this, these days it's worse because the mobs that attack you aren't just doing mindless trolling, they're seeking something more intrinsic. I look at it as in defense of free speech. That said, I don't generally believe in total anonymity. I believe in PGP style pseudo anonymity. With someone's real name you can attack their friends, family, and the place they live. With an online identity you can attack their ideas and if you're one of these people that enjoys grey areas you can attack their platform. That, to me, seems more fair.
wilsocr88 6y ago
Couldn't agree more. If there's one thing the last 5 or so years should teach us is that newspeak isn't a language, it's the entire technological communications apparatus of the West.
rootsudo 6y ago
Just imagine the zoom conversations the NYT had to have had with each other to publish this article, and it was approved.

Dma54rhs 6y ago

It sure will happen in Europe because people here are not really ashamed to admit they are sick and tired of that American 'justice' bullying. The only hope for America is when slightly more intelligent character than Trump suppress their political gains to put end to this madness.

dandare 6y ago
As a white person from a poor post communist country with no colonial history (99.999% white) I cringe when some local SJW parrots the "white privilege" agenda. It just makes no sense in large parts of the world other than US.

higerordermap 6y ago

As an Indian, I'd say this kind of "SJW" rhetoric serves no purpose other than causing a reactionary change -- of more normal people favoring extreme right wing instead, and leaving a bad impression about the total social justice thing.

javajosh 6y ago
The other alternative is to be independent. No tribe. Or you can be in a tribe, but as a critic and reformer. (Well, some tribes allow you to criticize them. Not the modern GOP.)
- Clewza313 6y ago
  Not an option anymore: you're either with us or against us. This article is actually an excellent example of this in action: by any objective standard SSC was a pretty liberal blog, but the NYT cherrypicked 4 quotes from 1700+ articles where he dared to deviate from dogma and used them to paint him a Nazi.
- zarkov99 6y ago
  How about joining the American tribe? Wouldn't that be something?
- adolph 6y ago
  Do you think the NYT tribe allows criticism or non-orthodoxy to exist? They encourage certain “criticism” exist to be sure, but only so far as it reënforces their prestige, to be reflexively believed and turned to as authoritative.
  - dandare 6y ago
    A recent example: > The New York Times Guild Once Again Demands Censorship of Colleagues https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24763382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24763382

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

cedilla 6y ago

The NYT abusing these kinds of allegations in a hit piece doesn't say anything about whether such claims can are "contentious and weaponized". Hit pieces latch on current topics. In the 1950s, the NYT would have had invented ties to communists. Or, if possible, hit pieces often imply corruption or paedophilia. That doesn't necessarily mean that corruption or paedophilia are topics that are "contentious" or related to "pure thinking".

woofie11 6y ago
I feel like the NYT used to be more credible and run fewer hit pieces. I'm not trying to argue zero, by any means, but I feel like in a very short time -- basically the past 4-8 years -- they've gone from one of the most credible source of media to where I trust them as much as I do Fox News (and I read both, as well as a number of international news sources, to have a complete picture). This sort of stuff seems to be their modus operandi now.
- yardie 6y ago
  The NYT lost credibility for me when they endorsed the Iraq War in 2003. I have been very vocal about their credibility ever since, even though I agree with some of their journalism. Your heroes will disappoint you. Even the NYT have traded their credibility for clicks, I mean “engagement.”
  - woofie11 6y ago
    For me, credibility isn't binary, but a spectrum. I saw problems before (NYT was never one of my heroes, per se, but just a high-quality, thoughtful, high-integrity newspaper). It always had its flaws, but for the most part, it seemed okay pre-Trump. Especially during the Trump years, but a little before as well, it seemed like the ends (on both sides of the increasingly polarized political spectrum) became more important than the means, and a lot of formerly credible institutions moved into a post-truth era. Sadly, the NYT was one of the victims. So was a big segment of academia. The American civic discourse feels disingenuous and hollow in a way it's never felt before in my life.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

snowwrestler 6y ago

To be fair, in the U.S., gender and race have been weaponized against women and minorities for a long time.

cema 6y ago
True more or less everywhere in the world, and does not make attempts to apply it in a different direction any better.

wilsocr88 6y ago

Weaponized is the correct word. The word "racist" is morphing into a racial slur. It's now just a bludgeon to shut up someone with the wrong views. I believe this comes from the idea that the only possible way to be moral is to wield power by any means necessary because you're right and "they" are evil.

fortran77 6y ago
This has been used for years, but only recently became weaponized. I can recall in the early 80s, going to ACT UP meetings in NYC, we'd have random people come in and raise crazy issues about "racism" like "the word 'gay' is racist! You need to say 'queer'!" Often these people who came to throw a monkey-wrench into meetings weren't gay men; they were just old-school Greenwich Village agitators. Their tactics work and have been mainstreamed.
- wilsocr88 6y ago
  And, additionally, the same tactics were called "mostly peaceful" by the news media (until the other side followed suit, of course).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]