[johan_larson]

I'm sorry Scott has decided to shut down his blog. He posted many interesting things over the years, and the community of commenters that clustered in the blog's open threads was usually a joy to deal with. I was part of that for years. I'm sorry to see it go.

That said, this decision to shut down the blog looks like an overreaction to me. Scott seems to think that he should be able to be both a prominent online pundit, on the one hand, and completely anonymous, on the other. That just isn't realistic. If you're someone who matters, people are going to want to know who you are. And there are people who make it their business to uncover such information.

A part of being famous is a certain level of unwelcome attention. It's not just the good and kind that pay attention to you. It's the weird and threatening too. This should not be news to anybody. It seems to me Scott got his first brush with real fame (in the form of an article by a top newspaper), and discovered that even a modest helping of it was was more than he was willing to deal with.

Goodbye SSC. It was good while it lasted.

[himinlomax]

> That said, this decision to shut down the blog looks like an overreaction to me

On the contrary, it's the perfect move. It forces the hand of the journalist, who will then have to mention that inconvenient fact. "BTW the thing this article is about does not exist any more because of this article."

[mijoharas]

I think that's a very good point. If that reporter takes the story to their editor, what's it going to sound like?

R: So, this article is about a blog and the person that writes it...

E: Ok, cool, why can't I find the blog?

R: Err... it doesn't exist anymore

E: Why not?

R: Because I doxx the author in this article.

If you were an editor, would you publish that? The subject of the story no longer exists, so the story is less interesting, _and_ you come off looking like an asshole.

I think any reasonable editor, would either not publish the story, or not publish the name. Seems like a great move to me.

[mijoharas]

I just reread my point and think it only makes sense in the context of a positive article. If it's a hit piece, it probably works against him.

[tomjakubowski]

There is a third possibility, a negative and factual article.

[mijoharas]

Granted and noted, I could have been more neutral than referring to a negative article as a hit piece, which as you point out implies that it misrepresents facts.

[EamonnMR]

I'm not surprised that someone who has given tons of thought to prisoner's dilemma type problems can make good moves in this type of game.

[dgellow]

As Scott wrote in his post, there is a difference between being somewhat-anonymous (people who want to uncover his name will effectively do it) and having his full name shared publicly in one of the biggest newspapers.

[syshum]

One of the biggest problems in modern society is the lack of respect for privacy and anonymous speech. anonymous speech has been a cornerstone of the advancement of civilization many times through out history including playing a critical role in the formation of the United States as well as the US Constitution

Your belief that a person should be disallowed anonymity simply because they created a popular blog is crazy to me. Further there are a few celebrities today that operate under pseudonyms in their public life and every few people know them by their true legal name so it is factually inaccurate to say it is not "realistic" to have a public life and remain somewhat anonymous.

[johan_larson]

Anonymity is not some sort of natural right. For most of our existence as a species, we lived in small groups where you quite naturally knew everyone you dealt with. True strangers were rare, and quite rightly regarded with a certain suspicion. Anonymity only became possible when we started living in groups large enough that you might have to deal with people you hadn't met before, because there were just too many people around for you to know all of them. And even in such circumstances, if you were going to enter into some sort of serious agreement, like buying on credit or renting property, you would absolutely have been required to identify yourself. Historically, anonymity of any sort has only sometimes been possible, and anonymity in serious matters has generally not been possible at all. It is therefore not reasonable to speak of a natural right to anonymity.

My position, strictly speaking, is that anonymity is generally permissible. If you want to try to remain anonymous, that is in many cases fine. But it is also quite difficult, particularly in the face of determined investigation, and is therefore rather unrealistic. Unless you really know what you are doing, your attempts will fail as soon as someone really cares about finding out. This makes combining anonymity with any sort of public prominence or celebrity status a particularly bad fit, because plenty of people care about knowing all sorts of details about celebrities, so there is plenty of reason for both amateur snoops and professional investigators to go looking.

I don't find your example of celebrity pseudonyms particularly convincing. These are simply terms of convenience, part of crafting a public image. They are not true attempts to hide anyone's identity. Pull up the wiki page of most any celebrity that goes by a stage name, and you'll find their real or original name.

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

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

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

[hackissimo123]

The examples you give at the end aren't remotely comparable to Scott's situation. Success in the film or music industries is synonymous with fame; it would be absurd to pursue a career in either while expecting to preserve your anonymity. You can't compare these career paths to "blogger who already has a successful career elsewhere, writing pseudonymously in his spare time to a niche, nerdy audience."

If you want to use Wikipedia as the gold standard, check out Wikipedia's own policies regarding privacy of article subjects. E.g.: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_livin...

[syshum]

>>Anonymity is not some sort of natural right. For most of our existence as a species

Good thing I scoped my comment to "modern society" not "our existence as a species" what follows is just a clever straw-man you build to refute an argument I did not make

>>But it is also quite difficult, particularly in the face of determined investigation, and is therefore rather unrealistic.

No argument there, anonymity is difficult, the question at hand is should society have respect for anonymity, and should respectable institution in that society also have respect for a person desire for anonymity

I say yes, you clearly either say no, or do not care if they do.

>>I don't find your example of celebrity pseudonyms particularly convincing.

In this context is very applicable. The NYT routinely uses these celebrities stage names in place of their real identities when writing about them. Why are they afforded this level of anonymity but Scott is not? Why is it OK to use those stage names but it is not OK to refer to Scott Alexander by his chosen "stage name"

[DanBC]

> Why are they afforded this level of anonymity but Scott is not?

Elton John can't deprive me of my liberty, hold me against my will, force me to take medication against my will (and sometimes without my knowledge), give me electroconvulsive therapy against my will, etc etc.

[doubleunplussed]

It might not be a natural right, but it sure is a good protection against the potentially very destructive consequences of groupthink.

Is democracy a natural right? Either way, notice how the voting is secret. That's a feature, not a bug.

[eeereerews]

Writing, as opposed to speaking, by its nature conveys a degree of anonymity. Historically, anonymous writers are very common.

[ImaCake]

It doesn't seem like an overreaction when he states that he fears for his life and the welfare of his patients. He seems to say that when faced with being doxxed, his choice is to keep the blog and threaten things he cares deeply about, or hide the blog and thus protect those things. Clearly he has decided there are things more important to him than the blog.

[Lewton]

How is it an overreaction if the NYC was trying to make him famous and he didn't want to be (real-name) famous? Isn't shutting down his blog the only appropriate action then?

[zrkrlc]

It wasn’t an overreaction given that it’s happened to him before. And people absolutely called his clinic to try and get him fired.

[mijoharas]

To be fair, I think it's somewhat different being a psychotherapist.

A lot of therapy relies on the patient not knowing much about the therapist, which would be very difficult if he was professionally linked to his blog.

[carapace]

(FWIW, psychotherapists and psychiatrists are not the same thing.)

[ragazzina]

>I was part of that for years. >If you're someone who matters, people are going to want to know who you are.

Have you ever felt the need of knowing his full name?

[johan_larson]

I have occasionally been curious about that, but never curious enough to try to make an effort to find out. Call it a mix of laziness and respect for the preferences of others.