3 ms·
So he shouldn't have written a highly publicized psuedo anonymous blog. He chose this avenue, as a rationalist he must have estimated the risk, and took it. N
by mola 6y ago
So he shouldn't have written a highly publicized psuedo anonymous blog.
He chose this avenue, as a rationalist he must have estimated the risk, and took it.
NYT didnt doxx him, because he is the one who chose to publicized himself. You can't eat the cake and have it too.
They protect sources exposing things that won't be exposed without anonimity, how does Scott Siskind fit this description?
- throwaway894345 6y agoIt’s pretty easy to say in hindsight that Scott should have predicted from the earliest days that journalism in general and NYT in particular would have shifted sharply toward capriciousness and sensationalism and that his blog would have been so successful as to piss off the newspaper of record. Whatever, you can have that point if you want it—Scott should have been more careful. > NYT didnt doxx him, because he is the one who chose to publicized himself. You can't eat the cake and have it too. To be clear, you are arguing that “blogging under a pseudonym” is exactly the same thing as one of the most popular papers in the world publishing your real name in a hit piece? > They protect sources exposing things that won't be exposed without anonimity, how does Scott Siskind fit this description? I’m having a hard time parsing this. Can you rephrase?
- pseudalopex 6y agoHe knew his real name was an open secret. He published at least 1 piece under both names. He thought about starting over with a new pseudonym but decided not to.