After all, if it's important to an individual's therapy, it's even more important for government policy (foreign or domestic) affecting the lives and futures of millions of people.
Boy, is that a false equivalency. You do realize that anonymizing a source is part of a bargain for the journalist to get access to information they wouldn't otherwise have had access to, often information the source isn't authorized to disclose (and thus could face punishment for disclosing it)?
It's also worth nothing that, in the real world, revealing someone's real name isn't the high crime of "doxxing," rather it's normal and expected. Journalists aren't typically creatures of pseudonymous web forums, and it's a category error to expect them to abide by the peculiar norms of them.
When i go to a foreign land, or even someone else's home, i try to abide by the rules and norms of the locals there, regardless of whether they are norms in my land or not. Its a basic part of being a guest.
I don't care if journalists typically use pseudonyms or not, its just basic human decency to respect the norms of a space you're a guest in. I don't see much reason why journalists should get a free pass on doxxing in a forum where pseudonomity/anonymity has been the norm for decades.
Even more so, the journo explicitly asked for consent to publish his name, didn't get it, and published it anyways. Like just doing whatever you like without the subjects consent is understandable only in a few rare cases of serious crime, definitely not for the modern "crime" of wrongthink on the internet.
"I was also warned by people “in the know” that as soon as they got an excuse they would publish something as negative as possible about me, in order to punish me for embarrassing them." https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/statement-on-new-york-...