3 ms·
My policy regarding unsubstantiated rumor is to ignore it not go trying figure out if it's true or not. The burden is on the person spreading the rumor to back
by zaphar 6y ago
My policy regarding unsubstantiated rumor is to ignore it not go trying figure out if it's true or not. The burden is on the person spreading the rumor to back it up not on me to do it for them. If you had linked the above in your original comment it would have been of marginally more value than than the unsubstantiated statement.
That said your link does not in fact substantiate your statement that I can see. It is speculation on twitter also with no substantiation. Rumors frequently have a long chain where links in the chain use previous links as substantiation. It's why rumor is so unproductive in the first place. It poses as fact but if you chase it far enough frequently ends up being false or misleading.
- fao_ 6y ago> It is speculation on twitter No, all of the statements are there, they're first-hand accounts. The rest can easily be derived from given evidence. They state first that they talked to the reporter, who had a positive bent. They state that the reporter became increasing interested in a second perspective on SSC. Third, it is a fact that Scott Alexander knew that the reporter was doing the article, and did not request anonymity (Otherwise the reporter would not have disclosed his name at any stage). So it can be seen that anonymity was not of interest to Scott when the reporter started out on the article. Four, Scott Alexander deleted the site immediately after the reporter started seeking out opposing views. He did not do this at any time beforehand, when it would have been more prudent to do so.
- zaphar 6y agoYour first statement is verifiable as is your second. The third however is not. It is speculation as is the fourth. Since your rumor hinges on the third and the fourth it must still be considered unsubstantiated.