What is really being objected to here? Being noticed by a wider audience? Does the SSC community not believe that it can stand up to wider scrutiny?
His twitter bio:
Scott Alexander
@slatestarcodex
54.5K Followers
I have a place where I say complicated things about philosophy and science. That place is my blog. This is where I make terrible puns.
The Times could address this directly, or not. In either case, the Times's outing of SA is made a major focus of the story. And to that degree, SA's action strikes me as exceptionally well considered, as it turns the Times's own strength and public status and reputation against itself. Far more so than any possible argument or appeal might.
And in terms of strategy and tactics, I have to admire the move regardless of the merits or insensitivity of the Times or its identification policy.
I think the questions surrounding identity really need deeper exploration, and that there isn't a simple pat answer.
There are cases where pseudonymity or anonymity is valid and justified, cases in which they are not. Cases in which at least some self-labelling is reasonable, others in which it's clearly not. Names and labels are powerful tools. As with all tools, it's how they're used and to what ends which ultimately determines morality.
I also agree that protecting his patients and his business is something he should have seen to, but it is a problem he should have addressed six years ago, not after building a minor media ecosystem around himself, including books, published articles, and con appearances.
"strongly linked" is doing a lot of work. They're linked in that if you're a tech professional, you can figure out his last name with five minutes of dedicated digging. A casual searcher would not make the connection without knowing it beforehand.
> I also agree that protecting his patients and his business is something he should have seen to, but it is a problem he should have addressed six years ago, not after building a minor media ecosystem around himself, including books, published articles, and con appearances.
Kind of victim-blaming, but yeah, he should have used better opsec six years ago. That boat has sailed. But what's the public benefit of the NYT outing his real name? The public costs are clear: primarily hurting a provider of healthcare services and secondarily making it more dangerous to entertain even slightly heterodox ideas in public.
By those lights, the only thing he's a victim of is his own success. I suspect we'd be getting the same reaction from SA regardless of any so-called "doxing," the trail of breadcrumbs leafing back to his identity would still have been present. And at least the article was planned to be positive
As far a the goofle-fu needed to find that specific information, well, I think you're overestimating the difficulty of that particular feat.
It's not.
I've been following the development of the drama for a while. And even though I know a thing or two about OSINT, I still don't know Scott Alexander's real full name.
The NY Times was willing to use pseudonyms for the subjects of articles in the past. I didn't see Banksy exposed for instance.
So if the article was in fact sympathetic why use the real name, when it has no relevancy to the subject?
Unless, the article was actually not sympathetic, but meant as a zesty piece to "expose" Scott Alexander as a reactionary/eugenist/sexist in the current hot climate of "cancel-culture".
Which surely would generate lots of clicks for the NY Times, but would also destroy the subject of their story at the hands of SJW/twitter mob, then allowing for more stories about the drama and generate more clicks.
Exposing SA's real name is a win only for the NY Times.