6 ms·

The NYTimes infamously doxxed Slate Star Codex[1], despite him basically begging them not to because it would upend his psychiatry practice, back in 2020 for no

by johnfn 6mo ago

The NYTimes infamously doxxed Slate Star Codex[1], despite him basically begging them not to because it would upend his psychiatry practice, back in 2020 for no reason other than because they could. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23610416 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23610416

creatonez 6mo ago
[flagged]
- testdelacc1 6mo ago
  Could you share a link to where he promotes race science?
  - whatshisface 6mo ago
    This one is more direct than most, but comments about the subject are not uncommon on the older blog. I think reading this material is why the journalist turned against him but never stated why. "Psychiatrist has dozens of charts on their secret personal blog comparing the achievements of different sub-ethnicities in Israel" is a headline you might try to hide out of politeness to the uninvolved. https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/29/four-nobel-truths/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/29/four-nobel-truths/ (How can anyone who has read slatestarcodex not know?)
    - arowthway 6mo ago
      What's wrong with comparing the achievements of different sub-ethnicities in Israel? What's wrong with talking about any real phenomena? Is the assumption that he must have a hidden bad-faith agenda?
      - account42 6mo ago
        It's against the current ruling dogma to question that human beings are interchangeable cogs that are all ready to be placed into the machine wherever needed.
        deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
        guzfip 6mo ago
        > It's against the current ruling dogma to question that human beings are interchangeable cogs that are all ready to be placed into the machine wherever needed. It’s because the machine is their god. Service to the machine provides your value, and by extension your right to exist. If someone is no longer capable of the serving the machine, they are discard. What that looks like exactly is not pretty Some people are inherently incapable of proving more value to the machine than they consume. What is to be done with these “extra” people?
        arowthway 6mo ago
        Who's they? The subset of politically correct types who reject the idea of universal human dignity and instead tie your moral worth to material output, but still keep insisting that everyone's equal? Honestly I don't think it's a large group.
- jibal 6mo ago
  I think you have that backwards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_Star_Codex#Anti-reactionary_FAQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_Star_Codex#Anti-reaction...
  - creatonez 6mo ago
    Yes, he had to distance himself from it because his audience turned out to be significantly more horrible than him and it was getting on his nerves. But he still holds significant sympathy towards race science views.
  - miyoji 6mo ago
    No, unfortunately they don't. Scott Alexander Siskind is definitely sympathetic to race science and neoreaction, that's WHY he wrote the "anti"-reactionary FAQ. It's probably the most popular document about "neoreaction" on the internet and made many many people more aware of neoreactionary ideas. He did this intentionally because he likes neoreactionaries and thinks they are correct about race science and that they're useful allies. There is simply no other way to explain this email [0] that he wrote. One critical point, he discusses "criticizing" the neoreactionaries, and says he disagrees with them on several points. > I want to improve their thinking so that they become stronger and keep what is correct while throwing out the garbage. A reactionary movement that kept the high intellectual standard (which you seem to admit they have), the correct criticisms of class and of social justice, and few other things while dropping the monarchy-talk and the cathedral-talk and the traditional gender-talk and the feudalism-talk - would be really useful people to have around. So I criticize the monarchy-talk etc, and this seems to be working - as far as I can tell a lot of Reactionaries have quietly started talking about monarchy and feudalism a lot less (still haven't gotten many results about the Cathedral or traditional gender). There are a "few other things" he thinks they're right about, but he specifically lists all four things that he thinks are problematic. None of them are race science, which implies that race science is one of the "few other things" he thinks they're correct about. You can put this together with enough of his public writing to see where he stands on the issue. He's clearly aligned with "race realism". This entire email is also accompanied by a threat never to reveal these thoughts of Scott's. Why? Because he knows that being outed for his real views would do serious damage to his reputation. That's also why he got mad at the NYT, because they had his number and he didn't want anyone to find out about his real politics. If you're the kind of person who is naive enough to think "He wrote an anti-reactionary FAQ, how could he be a reactionary?", I am sorry, but you're dealing with a lying snake. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/lm36nk/comment/gntraiv/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/lm36nk/comment/g...
Barrin92 6mo ago
I always found that case a bit odd. For one he was blogging under his real name and had made his medical practice known, so you could just google him. It was upending his psychiatry practice because he blogged, albeit in anonymized fashion, about his patients without disclosing it to them which I'd say is unethical but at the very least in the interest of his patients to be made known to them. I would be pretty pissed if I recognized something I told my psychiatrist on an internet blog. Frankly given how strongly one has to consent to even legally process clinical data I've never been sure if that was at all legal. When someone's identity is in the public interest an investigative journalist isn't doxxing anyone, they're doing their job. Both true for Nakamoto and arguably Scott
- throwawayk7h 6mo ago
  He was not blogging under his real name. Scott Alexander is not his real name.
  - fsh 6mo ago
    It is his real name, and he also used his real surname in early blog posts.
    - johnfn 6mo ago
      It is not his real name. Once he upended his life, he revealed his real name here[1]. It is not Scott Alexander. [1]: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/still-alive https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/still-alive
      - Xenoamorphous 6mo ago
        Scott Alexander are his first and middle names, and Siskind his last name, or that's what I've understood.
  - vanviegen 6mo ago
    It's his first and middle name. At least that's what he said in the post about shutting down the blog.
gamblor956 6mo ago
You can't doxx someone who already publicly identified themselves.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
nekitamo 6mo ago
One of their journalists also doxxed Naomi Wu, intruding on her personal life, making her lose her income, and possibly getting her in trouble with Chinese authorities: https://x.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/1209815150376574976 https://x.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/1209815150376574976 The journalist themselves is a real piece of work: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/463503-sarah-jeong-out-at-new-york-times-editorial-board/ https://thehill.com/homenews/media/463503-sarah-jeong-out-at... Kinda goes to show you the kind of people who write these stories. Ethics haven't been on their mind for a long time, and them preaching to anyone about ethics is rank hypocrisy.
- shevy-java 6mo ago
  > Kinda goes to show you the kind of people who write these stories. People can opt to not read and pay such people.
  - bilekas 6mo ago
    Funny enough in her own words, they don't much care.. > You’re wrong. NYT does pay attention to subscriber cancellations. It’s one of the metrics for “outrage” that they take to distinguish between “real” outrage and superficial outrage. What subscribers say can back up dissenting views inside the paper about what it should do and be.
- mptest 6mo ago
  for a good counterbalance to those just finding out the nyt is a state dept mouthpiece at best, read about real journalists and why there seem to be so few of them, read Pegasus by laurent richard. Spoiler alert, real journalists who expose powerful peoples' wrongdoings simply get killed.
  - omnimus 6mo ago
    One of the journalists was Jason Koebler who later cofounded 404media. That is imho pretty legit outlet which uncovered many pretty damning stories about tech.
indigo945 6mo ago
Funnily enough, in the blog post you linked Scott Alexander also ruminates about how he never previously questioned journalistic attempts to dox Satoshi Nakamoto.
Lio 6mo ago
It's the use of the word "quest" here that really bothers me. It seems ignoble. Much like the "unmasking" of Banksy or Belle de Jour. Why do it other than nosiness? Is the person committing a crime? No? Then leave them in peace. This is just a journalist using the resources of NYTimes to show off that they can exert control over someone else.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- zamadatix 6mo ago
  I had a good chuckle going from Banksy on one line to whether the person is committing a crime on the other - that it's a crime was key to how the article claimed to find Banksy's identity and mentioned as one of the likely factors in why Banksy chose to be anonymous early on :D. I get you mean whether they are causing any actual harm though (and agree for many such unmaskings), it was just an amusing juxtaposition of literal statements.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
RemainsOfTheDay 6mo ago
[dead]
seanhunter 6mo ago
Although people repeatedly say this, NYT did not in fact dox Slate Star Codex. He revealed his own information because he said they were going to reveal his name based on a draft of the article he says he saw. The verge apparently reported that no draft had been written and the NYT was still in news gathering stage. Who knows what the truth of that is, but factually he released the information. > The New York Times published an article about the blog in February 2021, three weeks after Alexander had publicly revealed his name. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_Star_Codex#The_New_York_Times_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_Star_Codex#The_New_York_...
paxcoder 6mo ago
[dead]

by johnfn 6mo ago

creatonez 6mo ago

[flagged]

testdelacc1 6mo ago
Could you share a link to where he promotes race science?
- whatshisface 6mo ago
  This one is more direct than most, but comments about the subject are not uncommon on the older blog. I think reading this material is why the journalist turned against him but never stated why. "Psychiatrist has dozens of charts on their secret personal blog comparing the achievements of different sub-ethnicities in Israel" is a headline you might try to hide out of politeness to the uninvolved. https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/29/four-nobel-truths/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/29/four-nobel-truths/ (How can anyone who has read slatestarcodex not know?)
  - arowthway 6mo ago
    What's wrong with comparing the achievements of different sub-ethnicities in Israel? What's wrong with talking about any real phenomena? Is the assumption that he must have a hidden bad-faith agenda?
    - account42 6mo ago
      It's against the current ruling dogma to question that human beings are interchangeable cogs that are all ready to be placed into the machine wherever needed.
      - deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
      - guzfip 6mo ago
        > It's against the current ruling dogma to question that human beings are interchangeable cogs that are all ready to be placed into the machine wherever needed. It’s because the machine is their god. Service to the machine provides your value, and by extension your right to exist. If someone is no longer capable of the serving the machine, they are discard. What that looks like exactly is not pretty Some people are inherently incapable of proving more value to the machine than they consume. What is to be done with these “extra” people?
        arowthway 6mo ago
        Who's they? The subset of politically correct types who reject the idea of universal human dignity and instead tie your moral worth to material output, but still keep insisting that everyone's equal? Honestly I don't think it's a large group.
jibal 6mo ago
I think you have that backwards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_Star_Codex#Anti-reactionary_FAQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_Star_Codex#Anti-reaction...
- creatonez 6mo ago
  Yes, he had to distance himself from it because his audience turned out to be significantly more horrible than him and it was getting on his nerves. But he still holds significant sympathy towards race science views.
- miyoji 6mo ago
  No, unfortunately they don't. Scott Alexander Siskind is definitely sympathetic to race science and neoreaction, that's WHY he wrote the "anti"-reactionary FAQ. It's probably the most popular document about "neoreaction" on the internet and made many many people more aware of neoreactionary ideas. He did this intentionally because he likes neoreactionaries and thinks they are correct about race science and that they're useful allies. There is simply no other way to explain this email [0] that he wrote. One critical point, he discusses "criticizing" the neoreactionaries, and says he disagrees with them on several points. > I want to improve their thinking so that they become stronger and keep what is correct while throwing out the garbage. A reactionary movement that kept the high intellectual standard (which you seem to admit they have), the correct criticisms of class and of social justice, and few other things while dropping the monarchy-talk and the cathedral-talk and the traditional gender-talk and the feudalism-talk - would be really useful people to have around. So I criticize the monarchy-talk etc, and this seems to be working - as far as I can tell a lot of Reactionaries have quietly started talking about monarchy and feudalism a lot less (still haven't gotten many results about the Cathedral or traditional gender). There are a "few other things" he thinks they're right about, but he specifically lists all four things that he thinks are problematic. None of them are race science, which implies that race science is one of the "few other things" he thinks they're correct about. You can put this together with enough of his public writing to see where he stands on the issue. He's clearly aligned with "race realism". This entire email is also accompanied by a threat never to reveal these thoughts of Scott's. Why? Because he knows that being outed for his real views would do serious damage to his reputation. That's also why he got mad at the NYT, because they had his number and he didn't want anyone to find out about his real politics. If you're the kind of person who is naive enough to think "He wrote an anti-reactionary FAQ, how could he be a reactionary?", I am sorry, but you're dealing with a lying snake. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/lm36nk/comment/gntraiv/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/lm36nk/comment/g...

Barrin92 6mo ago

I always found that case a bit odd. For one he was blogging under his real name and had made his medical practice known, so you could just google him. It was upending his psychiatry practice because he blogged, albeit in anonymized fashion, about his patients without disclosing it to them which I'd say is unethical but at the very least in the interest of his patients to be made known to them. I would be pretty pissed if I recognized something I told my psychiatrist on an internet blog. Frankly given how strongly one has to consent to even legally process clinical data I've never been sure if that was at all legal. When someone's identity is in the public interest an investigative journalist isn't doxxing anyone, they're doing their job. Both true for Nakamoto and arguably Scott

throwawayk7h 6mo ago
He was not blogging under his real name. Scott Alexander is not his real name.
- fsh 6mo ago
  It is his real name, and he also used his real surname in early blog posts.
  - johnfn 6mo ago
    It is not his real name. Once he upended his life, he revealed his real name here[1]. It is not Scott Alexander. [1]: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/still-alive https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/still-alive
    - Xenoamorphous 6mo ago
      Scott Alexander are his first and middle names, and Siskind his last name, or that's what I've understood.
- vanviegen 6mo ago
  It's his first and middle name. At least that's what he said in the post about shutting down the blog.

gamblor956 6mo ago

You can't doxx someone who already publicly identified themselves.

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]

nekitamo 6mo ago

One of their journalists also doxxed Naomi Wu, intruding on her personal life, making her lose her income, and possibly getting her in trouble with Chinese authorities: https://x.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/1209815150376574976 https://x.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/1209815150376574976 The journalist themselves is a real piece of work: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/463503-sarah-jeong-out-at-new-york-times-editorial-board/ https://thehill.com/homenews/media/463503-sarah-jeong-out-at... Kinda goes to show you the kind of people who write these stories. Ethics haven't been on their mind for a long time, and them preaching to anyone about ethics is rank hypocrisy.

shevy-java 6mo ago
> Kinda goes to show you the kind of people who write these stories. People can opt to not read and pay such people.
- bilekas 6mo ago
  Funny enough in her own words, they don't much care.. > You’re wrong. NYT does pay attention to subscriber cancellations. It’s one of the metrics for “outrage” that they take to distinguish between “real” outrage and superficial outrage. What subscribers say can back up dissenting views inside the paper about what it should do and be.
mptest 6mo ago
for a good counterbalance to those just finding out the nyt is a state dept mouthpiece at best, read about real journalists and why there seem to be so few of them, read Pegasus by laurent richard. Spoiler alert, real journalists who expose powerful peoples' wrongdoings simply get killed.
- omnimus 6mo ago
  One of the journalists was Jason Koebler who later cofounded 404media. That is imho pretty legit outlet which uncovered many pretty damning stories about tech.

indigo945 6mo ago

Funnily enough, in the blog post you linked Scott Alexander also ruminates about how he never previously questioned journalistic attempts to dox Satoshi Nakamoto.

Lio 6mo ago

It's the use of the word "quest" here that really bothers me. It seems ignoble. Much like the "unmasking" of Banksy or Belle de Jour. Why do it other than nosiness? Is the person committing a crime? No? Then leave them in peace. This is just a journalist using the resources of NYTimes to show off that they can exert control over someone else.

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
zamadatix 6mo ago
I had a good chuckle going from Banksy on one line to whether the person is committing a crime on the other - that it's a crime was key to how the article claimed to find Banksy's identity and mentioned as one of the likely factors in why Banksy chose to be anonymous early on :D. I get you mean whether they are causing any actual harm though (and agree for many such unmaskings), it was just an amusing juxtaposition of literal statements.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]

RemainsOfTheDay 6mo ago

[dead]

seanhunter 6mo ago

Although people repeatedly say this, NYT did not in fact dox Slate Star Codex. He revealed his own information because he said they were going to reveal his name based on a draft of the article he says he saw. The verge apparently reported that no draft had been written and the NYT was still in news gathering stage. Who knows what the truth of that is, but factually he released the information. > The New York Times published an article about the blog in February 2021, three weeks after Alexander had publicly revealed his name. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_Star_Codex#The_New_York_Times_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_Star_Codex#The_New_York_...

paxcoder 6mo ago

[dead]