
Slate Star Codex must remain anonymous - emiliobumachar
https://unherd.com/2020/06/slate-star-codex-must-remain-anonymous/
======
simplertms
Collectively the web has become a cacophony of voices, yelling loudly over
each other. Discourse, let’s agree to disagree, I can respect your view and
your right to that view - none of these sentiments can exist in the current
mentality of you are either with us or against us. Who this “us” are remains a
mystery. SSC will be deeply missed but as a last bastion of rational heaven
Scott deserves his anonymity.

~~~
jerf
I miss the blogosphere. Making it so you had to put a bit of elbow grease into
seeking out someone vigorously disagreeing with someone else, instead of
putting it literally one inch down, kept the conversations a lot cooler. Two
bloggers could wall-of-text-quote each other for weeks at a time, but _either
one_ could unilaterally break it off essentially by simply stopping; the other
could keep going but only people who sought it out would keep getting it. If
you didn't obsess about your referrer logs you could just keep going as if it
was no big deal. Even if you did obsess, it's still easier not to engage with
them than when the text of the article is right in your face.

A lot of the apparent flaws are really virtues in disguise... but then, it's
the same flaws that got them stomped because the hot communities are just so
much more engaging than the cool communities, even if I'd submit the cool
communities are ahead on almost every other metric other than "engagement".

------
davidgerard
[https://twitter.com/melissamcewen/status/1275493977672777733](https://twitter.com/melissamcewen/status/1275493977672777733)

it seems Scott Alexander deleted SSC just as the reporter was going to get in
touch with critics, and not just cheerleaders.

~~~
zozbot234
Along the same lines: [https://www.stationarywaves.com/2020/06/slate-star-
codoxxed....](https://www.stationarywaves.com/2020/06/slate-star-
codoxxed.html)

I have to admit, it makes a great what-if story. (Albeit the author does get
some things wrong, e.g. Scott was _not_ sloppy about preserving his privacy.
He was just going about it in a different way than what OP assumes.)

~~~
novok
That blog article doesn't make much sense although, because the NYT could post
an article with his pseudonym only, which is pretty minor in the scheme of
things, and still have all the purported negative fallout that Scott could
theoretically be worried about.

Why would Scott delete everything and put a lynch pin on something that is
really minor for the NYT to do in the scheme of things if he is really worried
about thing Y?

~~~
davidgerard
I'm not even involved with this SSC takedown thing, and I got a call from the
NYT on Friday asking about it, as an expert on the rationalists and on
neoreaction.

Scott and his fans have absolutely turned it into a story now and attracted
100% of the NYT's attention. Doxing the journalist will do that.

~~~
zozbot234
Scott did _not_ doxx the journalist. He encouraged people to send polite and
appropriate feedback to NYT editors-- so it makes sense that this is getting
their attention.

~~~
davidgerard
His fans absolutely did, this is a thing that happened.

(I also submit that this was absolutely predictable, unless you assume there
are zero overenthusiastic fans of a popular site. Putting a call to action was
going to lead to this result, even with a "please be polite" disclaimer.)

There's been one person doxed in the course of all this, and it's the
journalist, not Scott.

~~~
kortilla
Doxxer gets doxxed, news at 10.

------
kgwxd
Holy cow, Streisand in full effect. This story has drawn more attention to the
site than it's ever had. I'm sure anyone that cares to know who runs it has
figured it out by now. Also, TFA includes their general location, is that not
an insane level of hypocrisy?

------
happytoexplain
>The New York Times wants to out the author of a blog that is one of the few
sites for reasoned argument

I haven't finished the article, and I probably agree that whoever this is
shouldn't be "outed", but no person making a good-faith defense of another
person would use such a petty, elitist, gate-keeping line. This reeks of
social-political side-taking.

~~~
greenGolem
You have to read the blog to get it. Reasoned argument is its foundation, if
your and in good faith people will engage you. The author would say he's
dogmatic about 2 things and one is niceness.

It's not elitist. It's as undetailed, straightforward, nonpolitical
description of the blog that you will get.

------
sneak
For the record: your “real name” is whatever you say it is. You and only you
are the authority on what constitutes your own name.

Anyone who tells you differently, or publishes differently, is an asshole.
This includes, in this instance, the New York Times.

They don’t still call the Wikileaks leaker by her old name or pronoun, despite
what her government ID says or does not say. Why should they be any different
here?

This sort of assholery makes me angry.

~~~
alexpetralia
Especially from the New York Times! They of all organizations should respect
the individual's right to define one's own identity.

------
s9w
That thing is Streisand effect to the max. No one cares about his name and it
wasn't secret _at all_ before, like he said himself. It's literally a google
autocomplete. And even without that it's very easy to find. If anonymity is
that important maybe don't put your first and middle name out there?

------
mhb
_But Dr. Scott Alexander So-and-So also says that Scott Alexander is his real-
life first and last name. That sure is an odd choice of pseudonyms for someone
who wishes to remain anonymous. The legendary whistleblower "Deep Throat"
wasn't a guy named Deep Throat McInnis, and if he was, going by "Deep Throat"
wouldn't exactly be a cloak of anonymity._

Slate Star CoDoxxed:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23627301](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23627301)

~~~
throwaway287391
> But Dr. Scott Alexander So-and-So also says that Scott Alexander is his
> real-life first and last name.

No he doesn't, he says it's his real-life first and middle name. It would be
pretty hard to identify someone from a common first and middle name alone with
no other identifying information. Read his post again:
[https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/22/nyt-is-threatening-
my-...](https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/22/nyt-is-threatening-my-safety-by-
revealing-my-real-name-so-i-am-deleting-the-blog/)

~~~
mhb
You're right - that was a mistake in the quoted essay. Nonetheless, the
essay's main points are that Scott Alexander's actions are not consistent with
those of someone who values anonymity.

~~~
NateEag
They may not be consistent with someone who prioritizes anonymity above all
else, but they are perfectly consistent with someone who moderately values
pseudonymity.

Which is all Scott claims in his new landing page, if I read it right.

~~~
throwaway287391
Agreed -- the counter-theory for his motivations in the linked essay doesn't
hold up to Occam's razor compared to this explanation. (Without knowing
anything about the author of the linked essay, it felt like there was a bit of
projection going on there...)

Yes, he didn't go to great lengths to cryptographically protect his identity.
He's not Edward Snowden, he's just some guy who started writing some essays on
a blog, and used a somewhat half-hearted pseudonym probably never imagining it
would get popular enough for anyone to look into it further than possibly
googling his pseudonym.

