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...
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.
> 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.
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.
Why? He's a blogger.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.