2 ms·
But what public good, in this instance, was served by depriving the writer of their anonymity? It was a puerile attempt at harming someone they disagreed with.
by mrkstu 6y ago
But what public good, in this instance, was served by depriving the writer of their anonymity? It was a puerile attempt at harming someone they disagreed with.
If it had been someone who was already a public figure or someone who was leveraging their writing into something beyond the ideas presented, it would have been newsworthy.
The infantilization of the NYT from its glory years continues apace.
- acdha 6y agoScott lost his anonymity when he chose to publish under his real name, not to mention blogging under his real first and middle names with a fair amount of biographical information. The NYT highlighting this doesn’t mean that it wasn’t public for years prior.