[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.