Comment by walrus01 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by walrus01 | Hacker News Reader

> I think the New York Times wanted to write a fairly boring article about me, but some guideline said they had to reveal subjects' real identities, if they knew them, unless the subject was in one of a few predefined sympathetic categories (eg sex workers).

I have a theory that whatever policies exist within the NYTimes now, are quite possibly a consequence of this guy's actions as a "reporter":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair

on another topic:

> Sure, I might get SWATted, but realistically that's a really scary fifteen seconds before the cops apologize and go away.

Sure, that sounds great, unless you a person of color, or you happen to own a small collection of one hundred percent legal firearms, or god forbid you're simultaneously a person of color AND you own firearms. That whole sentence reeks of such class privilege I can't even begin to convey the depth of my disgust. You would think that a professional psychiatrist, of all people, would be slightly familiar with the statistics for the number of people mistakenly shot dead by police in the USA every year.

I think you attribute overly much to his sentence.

He isn't arguing for class privilege. Or that SWATting isn't dangerous.

I read it as a statement that realistically - in the world as it is here and now for that one individual person - such a situation is likely to be the case.

While that situation doesn't apply to many people, they weren't the topic of this post.

As an aside, mere acknowledgement of your privilege does not equal support for the system that enables it. But you do have to be aware of it, before you can consciously think to change it.

re: SWAT: His point was a) that he is privileged and b) that was what the NYT was thinking about why it's ok for them to dox him, not what he thinks...

> b) that was what the NYT was thinking about why it's ok for them to dox him

It's not really doxing if you posted your own personal info publicly. At least once, in 2017 when he was less careful, Alexander publicly outed himself under his real name as the author of his blog. IIRC, it's a pretty core journalistic principle that subjects don't get to make decisions about how their story is presented.

Maybe journalists think that, but lots of people (including Scott and me) don't. I believe people have a right to privacy.

> when he was less careful... publicly outed himself

Is the NYT journalists, or hostiles? Usually needing opsec is reserved for activists and criminals hiding from oppressive governments, not bloggers who reasonably want a private life.

I think if you're writing a widely read, critically acclaimed, publicly available blog and feel that anonymity is crucial for your safety then yes, it would be appropriate to practice opsec.

Journalists should be hostile, in the sense that they should not collude with subjects on how to present a story to the public. The crisis in journalism we see today is that there is too much collusion between subjects and journalists.

There's a clear public interest in knowing the identity of a subject. Ideally there would be no journalistic discretion at all. Reveal the information, unless there's a clear, concise, and open policy rationalizing not doing so.

> There's a clear public interest in knowing the identity of a subject.

Why? He's a blogger.

>> IIRC, it's a pretty core journalistic principle that subjects don't get to make decisions about how their story is presented.

> Maybe journalists think that, but lots of people (including Scott and me) don't. I believe people have a right to privacy.

They have think that, because otherwise they'd be in the PR industry, not journalism.

People do have some rights to privacy, but that doesn't extend to having a right to retroactively "take back" information they've released or editorial control over true things others may want to write about you.

"Scott Alexander" is who's famous, not whatever his vastly less-known real name is. His real name adds nothing to the story.

The fact that he slipped up at least once in the past doesn't mean the NYT should go and print it against his wishes, for zero journalistic value. They can of course, it's a free country, but it's a dick move.

The identity of a subject is perhaps the single most important piece of information possible to contain in a news article. It certainly shouldn't be left out when known, merely because the subject prefers it not be stated.

If there's a clear, consistent, and disclosed reason for not revealing the subject's identity, that's one thing. But you're suggesting journalists, or worse subjects themselves, should decide whether their identity has journalistic value?

Furthermore, I disagree with characterizing the use of one's real name as a "slip up". It seems like pretty clear evidence that the author did not seriously care about their anonymity.

Why is Scott Alexander's real name important in this specific case?

I'm not interested in sloppily applied generalities for the common case where people aren't a pseudonymously semi-famous writer. Give me some reasoning on this case.

"Identity" is a loaded term. On the Internet, what he's notable for and what NYTimes was reporting on, his identity is Scott Alexander. Talk about Scott Alexander I'll know who you mean. If you had dropped a reference to "Scott Siskind" any time before today, I wouldn't have.

Taken to the extreme, "identity" in your comment might as well apply to his driver's license number. The NYT could print that, causing him additional hassle for just as much of an addition to the story.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com