3 ms·

> Because they want him to stop writing. Scott Alexander believes in open debate on any issue and to any participant. The NYT believes that "open" debate should

by ardy42 6y ago

> Because they want him to stop writing. Scott Alexander believes in open debate on any issue and to any participant. The NYT believes that "open" debate should only occur within limits, and that they are entitled to set these limits. That is basically a conspiracy theory. It's far more likely that the journalists in question don't care one way or another if Scott Alexander continues writing or not, they just wanted to do their work according to their usual standards (e.g. use people's real names, not write a with the goal of making the subject and his fans happy).

thu2111 6y ago
I thought so too. But it's hard not to notice that this article was supposedly in the work for many months, yet reads as if it took a day's worth of work (being generous). Why did it disappear for months and then come out shortly after Scott Alexander poked his head above the parapet again? That timing is awfully suspicious. As for the NYT believing they should control the parameters of debate, that's not a conspiracy theory. That's exactly what they seem to believe. There have been many incidents showing that in recent years, most recently, the Silicon Valley reporter whose daring investigation of Clubhouse boiled down to trying to cancel Marc Andresseen for dumb reasons. The Tom Cotton op ed, the firings of editors and staff who believed in non-woke speech and so on.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > I thought so too. But it's hard not to notice that this article was supposedly in the work for many months, yet reads as if it took a day's worth of work (being generous). Why did it disappear for months and then come out shortly after Scott Alexander poked his head above the parapet again? That timing is awfully suspicious. Not really, he made himself relevant again by relaunching his blog. And it's weird to assume they were continuously slaving away on this story since this kerfuffle started, polishing it to perfection. They probably just shelved it in a draft state and moved on to new things. When it because relevant again, spent a little time dusting it off and updating it, then shipped. My understanding is this story isn't even that long for this kind of thing, and it ran on a Saturday (which IIRC is the least read edition of the week). This story is BIG NEWS in the Rationalist subculture and adjacent communities, and a small blip pretty much everywhere else.
uxp100 6y ago
They have in the past used pseudonyms for Internet personalities. The example often used is Virgil Texas, (former?) Chapo Trap House host, whose real name was available online but was not included in his profile. But it might have been easier to find Scott’s real name. The lesson might just be don’t make it too easy to find your real name.

by ardy42 6y ago

thu2111 6y ago

I thought so too. But it's hard not to notice that this article was supposedly in the work for many months, yet reads as if it took a day's worth of work (being generous). Why did it disappear for months and then come out shortly after Scott Alexander poked his head above the parapet again? That timing is awfully suspicious. As for the NYT believing they should control the parameters of debate, that's not a conspiracy theory. That's exactly what they seem to believe. There have been many incidents showing that in recent years, most recently, the Silicon Valley reporter whose daring investigation of Clubhouse boiled down to trying to cancel Marc Andresseen for dumb reasons. The Tom Cotton op ed, the firings of editors and staff who believed in non-woke speech and so on.

ardy42 6y ago
> I thought so too. But it's hard not to notice that this article was supposedly in the work for many months, yet reads as if it took a day's worth of work (being generous). Why did it disappear for months and then come out shortly after Scott Alexander poked his head above the parapet again? That timing is awfully suspicious. Not really, he made himself relevant again by relaunching his blog. And it's weird to assume they were continuously slaving away on this story since this kerfuffle started, polishing it to perfection. They probably just shelved it in a draft state and moved on to new things. When it because relevant again, spent a little time dusting it off and updating it, then shipped. My understanding is this story isn't even that long for this kind of thing, and it ran on a Saturday (which IIRC is the least read edition of the week). This story is BIG NEWS in the Rationalist subculture and adjacent communities, and a small blip pretty much everywhere else.

uxp100 6y ago

They have in the past used pseudonyms for Internet personalities. The example often used is Virgil Texas, (former?) Chapo Trap House host, whose real name was available online but was not included in his profile. But it might have been easier to find Scott’s real name. The lesson might just be don’t make it too easy to find your real name.