> 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 stat

> 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.