Comment by reducesuffering | Hacker News Reader

Comment by reducesuffering | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

reducesuffering

If you read any of those "huge threads on HN" you would easily know the crux of why Scott wanted to remain pseudonymous.

"Scott Alexander was demanding everyone else's assistance in maintaining his pseudonym and pretending the real identity behind it was unknowable."

Absolutely false. Scott admits many times that it's trivial for his real identity to be known if you search around for Scott Alexander.

Scott Alexander -> Scott Sisnick (trivial)

What Scott was concerned about what his searching his real name being resoundingly brought to Scott Alexander, a major issue for his psychiatrist-patient relationships, as he demonstrates that psychiatrists need to maintain a blank slate for their patients to project onto, so that the patients don't hide or alter the behavior knowing something about their psychiatrist. That's very mainstream psychiatry. And there were concerns about current psychiatric patients he was seeing possibly being affected by this.

Before: Scott Sisnick -> "psychiatrist, bay area, studied at X, etc."

After: Scott Sisnick -> "Scott Alexander, rationalist, providing a platform for white nationalists, racism, etc."

FYI tptacek has gone dozens of comments deep on this topic every time it has come up. I don't know why he picked this hill (although I believe he has said he dislikes Scott) but I do know he ain't budging.

People keep explaining to me why Alexander wants his identity not to appear in a newspaper. I understand that. I just don't understand why his preferences bind on anyone else.

By way of example, a friend just told me on Twitter that it's super important that patients not be able to look up their therapists on the Internet and learn more about their personal lives. But that's definitely not a norm! I checked with several therapists I know personally.

I feel like people are scrambling to invent Internet rules that allow Alexander to coerce journalists, and I don't find that effort especially persuasive.

I guess it's just a matter of decency. You certainly don't need to abide by that but don't be surprised when others don't agree with or want to be around you.

> . I just don't understand why his preferences bind on anyone else.

I mean, they don't bind like a physical law or something. Ignoring people's requests for anonymity and getting them harassed or fired is certainly physically possible, it just makes you an asshole and there are ethical considerations about the effect on speech and discourse.

It's sort of similar to not wearing a mask out, it's certainly not illegal or impossible to go out without a mask and cough on people who would prefer you didn't, but it still makes you an asshole and there are ethical considerations about you putting others' lives at risk.

It's not a reporter's job to protect people from their own conflicting interests. They can choose to withhold parts of a story after processing the ethical considerations, but "associating my name with the thousands of pages of opinion I've published on controversial subjects would damage my reputation" isn't a clear cut issue. It's a judgement call, he could have done it either way, but that Metz went ahead and attributed the works to their actual author doesn't make him an asshole.

It's especially egregious here in a hit piece that deliberately makes the things he said horrible.

But even if it was an accurate representation, the media has to ask "is it our job as a powerful outlet to literally punish this much less powerful person because they have opinions we disagree with".

If it wasn't "opinions we disagree with" but like "has killed 3 people" sure appoint yourself judge, jury, and executioner. But in other cases yes it makes you an asshole to think that you should enforce your will by punishing someone who disagrees with you.

It sounds like the big issue for you and others is that this was a hit piece. Okay -- but it's not in general wrong to report the name of someone who has written a large body of influential work, especially when it wasn't unknown in the first place. You're exaggerating grossly.

Scott Alexander on the one hand is a practicing clinician, and on the other writes prolifically about culture war topics. This is majorly out of balance, and it's on Scott to fit these areas of his life and income together. Why would the responsibility be on the NYT to help him?

It's not on the NYT to help him, he's already managing fine on his own, it's on the NYT to not try to punish him by breaking the anonymity that's allowed him to both continue his job and practice his free speech without affecting that.

Why should anyone care about how their actions impact anyone else? Is "don't be a dick" not good enough for you?

> I just don't understand why his preferences bind on anyone else.

His preferences bind on the NYT in that as Scott can take actions which are adverse to the NYT in order to maintain his preferences. Such as deleting the blog and having his fans sign a petition and cancel their subscriptions. None of those actions are unreasonable: he is free to delete his blog for any reason or no reason, and anyone can make in a petition. What is the problem here?

People in the rationalist community used his real name when discussing his pseudonymous writing. Searching for his real name identified him as Scott Alexander before too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com