I remember! He was happy about it -- until he found out that the NYT was going to doxx him and publish his name, which would've likely had highly negative effects for himself and his psychiatric patients. The NYT didn't care, of course -- and they attempted to cover him a lot more negatively, as a result of the backlash they received.
That's an interesting take. An alternative take is he desperately sought to become a public intellectual for personal reasons- while simultaneously believing this would hurt his patients, and declared this the New York Times's problem.
I thought he regularly preaches the presumption of good faith, even when discussing some of the most radical people in the world, interesting how that's not extended to the NY Times for the sin of... using a real name policy?
