
The death of the private citizen? - apsec112
https://spectator.us/new-york-times-private-slate-star-codex-blog/
======
swayvil
I think that ideological groups "naturally" seek to quell all differing
groups. Like dueling beehives.

In decades past they could exist peacefully, insulated by a natural inability
to communicate. An inability to rub against each other.

But now we are in the age of communication. We have the internet. The
sensitivity and power of the hive has grown vastly. It touches much that it
never touched before. Various ideological groups are now crowding each other.
Grinding cheek and jowl. A thousand new "threats" become apparent. A thousand
new demands for quelling.

So now we see more of that inter-ideological friction happening.

This is not a conscious act. It's more like gravity. Gallivanting glaciers. Or
weather.

Charles Fort examined this phenomenon a bit. Check out his "Book of the
Damned" for more on that.

~~~
MR4D
If you’re correct, then democracy will devolve into mob rule, which means
anarchy. That’s not a pretty thought.

~~~
dragonwriter
Mob rule is not anarchy.

Arguably, it's one of the risks of democracy that motivates anarchists. (Now,
there's a case to be made that anarchy also risks devolving into mob rule by a
different path than non-anarchic democracy does, but they still aren’t the
same thing.)

~~~
coldtea
Mob rule is not anarchism (the ideology).

It is however anarchy (the term), which is much older, and used to convey
precisely lack of order and mob rule.

~~~
dragonwriter
> It is however anarchy

No, it's ochlocracy; there's a reason the same people who named anarchy made a
separate word for it.

~~~
coldtea
Ochlocracy is mob rule.

Anarchy is lack of rule - not the same as anarchism (the ideology and ideal
for self-government), as several oppressors can and are still at play in a
state of anarchy, or everybody might be fighting each other and there can be
constant power shifts...

Ancient Greeks used the term with this meaning, not to describe some anarchist
utopia.

So ochlocracy is like the people turning into a mob carrying pitchforks. They
are the law...

Anarchy - in the ancient Greek sense - is like there's no state and no all-
encompassing rule of law to turn to. It's the "law of the jungle".

------
zozbot234
So, the SSC outing/doxxing story is now hitting the Spectator, National
Review, Washington Examiner and Free Beacon websites, at least. It will
probably spread to other parts of the mainstream media soon enough. How the
NYT will react to this whole ruckus is anyone's guess, but sticking to their
previous policy of publishing the article without removing sensitive info
would be pretty hard at this point. Quite amazing, regardless.

~~~
0xy
This is par for the course for mainstream media outlets. In 2017, CNN
threatened to dox an anonymous Twitter user making political memes.

I don't know why people continue to speak to these outlets while their
records, actions and ethics are appalling.

The slide into clickbait and yellow journalism over the last few years has
been devastating to the industry. There isn't a major outlet left that hasn't
been behind some whopping journalistic errors (usually repeatedly). Not even
self-described neutral outlets like AP are immune.

At this juncture, I'd sooner trust an independent journalist with 50k
followers and a handheld camera on YouTube than a major news outlet.

~~~
mc32
Sadly NPR, and I don’t mean the local programming, are also prone to lapses in
journalism—even though I give props to Greene and Shapiro. They’re usually
pretty even keeled, unlike Bob Mondello who seems a bit narcissistic.

~~~
0xy
Less than 3 days ago NPR deleted a tweet (with no retraction) that heavily
implied a person who was violently attacked in his vehicle and then sped away
to avoid the violence was a "right-wing extremist" involved in a "vehicle-
ramming incident" [1] -- with zero reference to the violent attack initiated
on the vehicle.

[1]
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbEIlsUUcAACYht?format=jpg&name=...](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbEIlsUUcAACYht?format=jpg&name=large)

Additionally, the protesters who attacked the vehicle were arrested, including
one who brandished a gun at the vehicle and another who assaulted the driver.
[2]

[2] [https://www.wave3.com/2020/06/18/protesters-arrested-
followi...](https://www.wave3.com/2020/06/18/protesters-arrested-following-
altercation-with-driver-downtown-louisville/)

NPR's tweet came after the arrest and live video footage of the incident. They
chose to run the story anyway.

------
jdashg
There's a great guideline: Always be at least two of: kind, necessary, or
true. Publishing Scott's legal name is truthful, but neither necessary nor
kind.

------
Spooky23
This isn’t really new.

Based on the few encounters I’ve had with journalists, I cannot imagine a
reason I would voluntarily interact with one unless I was reaching out for a
reason.

5/7 interactions, the reporters were a lazy turds who strung together some
drivel to meet deadline, missing key facts and mangling the story.

------
mmm_grayons
Very interesting article. I'd hypothesize that this comes out of the fact that
this is rooted in the idea that "the personal is political". This has led to
the growing idea that not taking a stand on an issue is supporting the status
quo and therefore just as political. Therefore, everyone must "pick a side".
This is reflected in the attacks on people who don't condemn political
movements, but refuse to support them.

While this isn't directly related to the situation with Scott Alexander, it
sets the precedent that everyone is now "fair game".

~~~
diffrinse
>I'd hypothesize that this comes out of the fact that this is rooted in the
idea that "the personal is political".

A lot of these concepts are derived from the French historian Michel Foucault
(he was not a philosopher or a "critical theorist", he was the chair of
history at a major French university) and bear out the interpretations that
won out in American humanities departments and trickled down to street level
as a generation of grad students hit the streets after 2008 as humanities
depts shuttered left and right.

Occupy Wall Street wouldn't happen today because it was the last vestige of
'68 style old school European Left politics. In 2008, good ol' class
consciousness was the last thing critical theory and Humanities depts were
discussing. 'Identity politics', itself the evolution of 80/90s Critical Race
Theory, had already started to dominate academic circles in the late 90s/early
00s, to the point that the popular, heralded Slovenian Marxist Slavoj Zizek
dedicated a whole book to the topic, arguing on behalf of good ol'
universality as pivot point for politics against popular writers like Judith
Butler (gender/sexuality) and Wendy Brown (race).

Coming to software as I did from continental European philosophy study it's
been quite fascinating watch a species of Foucault interpretation become the
mainstream Left ideology in America (and one that differs in my reading by
quite a bit).

------
mrkurt
"The death of the private citizen who publishes publicly with their own
personal information attached".

First name + middle name + occupation + city isn't "private".

~~~
0x8BADF00D
The article states numerous examples of media outlets outing anonymous and
pseudo anonymous identities.

------
topkai22
Good article. I find the reaction of the “private citizen” symptomatic of a
larger rejection of the idea that people can be multi-faceted, and that
different facets can be valued while others not.

------
Simulacra
Just like the Gawker case.. To decide to pursue a story that may not be all
that newsworthy, or to unmask someone and say it's just presenting the facts,
must have some emotion driving that. Because if there is no emotion driving
those decisions, then it's a really rotten way to run a newspaper.

------
hawaiian
I am in no way a fan of the Failing New York Times (if I may quote a prominent
contemporary statesman), but am I missing something by thinking that this is
overblown? They haven't printed his name, only asked if they may do so. I also
don't see where they threatened him with exposure, but the article claims they
have.

~~~
zepto
They didn’t ask. He asked them not to, and they refused and said they were
going to publish the article about him even without his cooperation.

------
ycombonator
So NYTIMES policy is to Dox their sources ? I don’t see them dox the opinion
column of the famous “anonymous” government official or other tyrants.

~~~
vimax
I was always under the impression that journalistic integrity was staked on
providing anonymity to anonymous sources. In the past it was something the
most respected journalist would have gone to prison over, but in today's world
I guess it's whatever keeps those click rates high.

~~~
evamvid
Well, yeah, for anonymous sources. A random blogger they're writing an article
about usually isn't an anonymous source.

The ethics publishing name etc. are absolutely debatable, but the anonymous
sources you are talking about are something completely different. Those are
people who only agree to be sources for the story on the condition that their
anonymity will be protected.

------
julianeon
I saw a comment on Twitter that what you're really seeing here is dueling
philosophies, and I agree.

Ever heard the expression, Sunshine is the best disinfectant? I think you're
seeing it's logical endpoint with the SSC story. And while it seems to have
fallen out of fashion, for the most part, I agree.

It seems to me that no matter where you turn, when it comes to 'the truth and
nothing but the truth' about someone or something, you face bad choices.

The problem with allowing some people to be pseudonymous sometimes is that
immediately all kinds of bad actors will rush in and try to claim that in
their defense. Polluters claiming anonymity because they don't want to be
targeted by eco-terrorists, for example. Rather than parsing ever-smaller
hair-thin rules about - legitimate - illegitimate - legitimate - and getting
docked on every one on charges of political bias - there's an easier solution.
Give no one pseudonymity. Problem solved.

The only exception - national security - doesn't require your agreement to
accept; it just takes a willingness to not go to jail. It's an appeal to
power, really. So you don't have to debate it on moral grounds, it's the law.

Incidentally, for all those stories where the NYT allowed pseudonyms, I agree
there was an inconsistency, but my conclusion was: resolve it by publishing
them all. Publish Bansky's name, publish Ferrante's name, publish the name of
whoever wrote that tell-all book. Make that the norm, instead of half-applied
psuedonyms.

Now if you arranged an interview with them about something other than their
identity, and they agreed to talk to you on condition of you not revealing it
- that's different. That news outlet can't break the story. But another one
can. No exceptions. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

I do believe this in principle, believed it long before this story broke, and
could be brought around to disallowing most anyone's pseudonymity, before this
news became news. It doesn't matter to me at all what the content or leaning
of the blog is. Whether they're left or right or 'good' or 'bad' \- I believe
in the secular version of 'you shall know the truth & the truth shall set you
free.'

There is a cost, a real human one. But, rather like capitalism and democracy,
it happens to be less than every other alternative. It's not great that people
can't be pseudonymous - but it prevents worse problems.

~~~
MattGaiser
>but it prevents worse problems.

Like you, I also comment on the internet under my real name, so pulling back
the curtain on everything else is an exciting prospect.

But for that not to ever bite us, that requires that we never offend too many
people, even for a brief second.

I naturally stay within bounds, so that is fine for me, but I suspect many
opinions would need to remain hidden if a war were waged on anonymity.

Why can't ideas be allowed to exist on their own, detached from any known
person?

~~~
evgen
> Why can't ideas be allowed to exist on their own, detached from any known
> person?

Perhaps because their formation was coloured by someone else's experiences and
prejudices. Why is it wrong to want those who propose these ideas to take
credit and responsibility so that we can examine the idea and the nature of
the person who conceived the idea. These ideas exist to persuade; they should
be examined as the rhetorical sophistry that they truly are and not in some
pretend world of spherical cows and platonic ideals.

If you temper the ideas you propose to the public it could be because you are
afraid of offending someone, or it could be that you are simply someone who is
capable of feeling empathy. Given the similar result does it matter which
reason is the source of such self-regulation, and are we worse off for it?

~~~
ethanwillis
You're making an oversimplification of generating offense. You can be afraid
of offending someone, but the idea that generates the offense can still be
correct.

------
noncoml
Maybe it’s not a bad thing.

Look up the etymology of idiot.

~~~
noncoml
I think it got misunderstood

------
throwaway4666
I still have no idea why people are making this whole thing about a political
point or 'controversial opinions'. The facts are:

-The NYT wanted to write about SSC notably because SA warned about covid ahead of time, wrote a nice piece about the effectiveness of masks, etc.

-The NYT did not care enough about Scott's pseudonymity to keep it intact

-Scott, fearing that his relationship with his patients might be jeopardized if they got linked to his personal blog, deleted it.

Where do 'the mob' or 'controversial opinions' or 'ideological differences'
factor in this _at all_? It is not 'the mob' that triggered this, in fact
Scott upset a lot of people over the years with some of his articles and that
hasn't deterred him from keeping them up blogging further. The NYT isn't
reporting on the SSC commentariat's curious obsession with the IQ of black
people either. So why do 90% of posts on here are making it about politics? If
I were not charitable beyond reason I would start to believe HN's love of
neutral, level-headed and impassionate discussion might be an act.

~~~
BraveSnoo1028
Scott didn't take down his blog just because of his relationship with his
patients. It's one of his core arguments, yes, but it's tied with modern
cancel culture, where speaking your mind if it deviates from accepted norms
and ideas can result in significant personal and professional consequences,
even if your intent isn't to oppress, spread hate speech, promote racism, etc.
and even if the ideas you express are valuable in some way. It's dangerous
nowadays to toe the line of what's "acceptable", where what's acceptable is
decided by what people happen to feel on any particular day and how something
can be spun into something it's not. Any number of character assassinations
we've seen (such as the attempt on Stallmann) show that there are risks to
being visible if some people suddenly decide they don't like you. Which
connects with his other concern, that he may become too much of a liability
for the place he works if some group or other finds something he's said
controversial and tries to punish him or his employers for it.

~~~
throwaway4666
At no point did he mention cancel culture or 'the norm'. In fact, his argument
entirely revolved around his relationship with his patients and that has
little bearing on what he believes about the IQ of black people, since, as he
says, his patients run the full gamut of the political spectrum (so _any_
opinion would be controversial to some of them). It's more about the fact that
psychiatrists are apparently supposed to act as blank slates to their patients
and his blog contains a lot of deeply personal stuff. Even without the
politics stuff it'd be a problem.

~~~
BraveSnoo1028
Are you sure you read his blog entry?

> The second reason is more prosaic: some people want to kill me or ruin my
> life, and I would prefer not to make it too easy. I’ve received various
> death threats. I had someone on an anti-psychiatry subreddit put out a
> bounty for any information that could take me down (the mods deleted the
> post quickly, which I am grateful for). I’ve had dissatisfied blog readers
> call my work pretending to be dissatisfied patients in order to get me
> fired. And I recently learned that someone on SSC got SWATted in a way that
> they link to using their real name on the blog. I live with ten housemates
> including a three-year-old and an infant, and I would prefer this not happen
> to me or to them. Although I realize I accept some risk of this just by
> writing a blog with imperfect anonymity, getting doxxed on national news
> would take it to another level.

He doesn't name cancel culture, but it's obvious it's a part of what he's
worried about.

~~~
throwaway4666
There's no evidence all of this comes from cancel culture. As I said in a
previous thread, the main doxxing comes from an alt-right dude who angrily
posted Scott's personal info and clinic because he believed to be
shadowbanned.

Seriously, look at Scott's post where he quotes disparaging opinions about
him. You'd be surprised at how much of the vitriol comes from the alt-right,
calling him limp-wristed, a beta cuck, as well as any number of Jewish slurs.
And the alt-right _does_ have a far more prominent record in actually killing
people than blue-haired people on twitter.

------
sandworm101
All of the examples in the article are people who spoke up about various
things online that are clearly in the public interest. If you want to maintain
a blog about a subject, if you want to speak out publicly and gain some sort
of online rep, then you risk your identity being released. That's freedom of
speech. If you are the author of a meme that becomes nationally significant
(ie the president adopts it) then CNN will be on your lawn.

If you want to be actually anonymous, I suggest not using facebook or any
other online identity tied to your real name. Get a VPN. Learn to use tor. It
isn't very hard, just inconvenient. Don't post on facebook.

~~~
dvtrn
_That 's freedom of speech._

To avoid making an incorrect assumption, and reading this in context with the
rest of your post: are you saying it's "Freedom of speech" if someone has a
blog or "Freedom of speech" is having your identity revealed as the _owner_ of
said hypothetical blog?

Just trying to make sure if I've read and interpreted your comment the way
you're wanting it to be consumed and understood by people reading it.

~~~
dragonwriter
Both publishing on your own blog and publishing true, not-legally-protected
facts about someone who owns a blog are exercises of free speech.

It's not either/or.

~~~
dvtrn
I assumed that was the meaning, but I'm also trying to defer to authorial
intent-a bit risk averse to assume with how hot this topic has been lately and
all.

