[Aqua]

The whole story background story is extremely alarming. NYT unilaterally decided to reveal someone's real identity against that person's wishes. It should honestly be made illegal but given the current political climate it's doubtful such course of action will ever be considered. This whole situation gives even more credence to the idea that decentralisation is the only way forward for mankind if we intend to preserve the liberties our ancestors enjoyed for the past 300 years.

[edanm]

> NYT unilaterally decided to reveal someone's real identity against that person's wishes. It should honestly be made illegal but given the current political climate it's doubtful such course of action will ever be considered.

I completely disagree. That goes against the very free speech principles that readers of Scott's blog advocate so strongly. I think it was the wrong decision to publish his name, but it shouldn't be illegal. Like it or not, Scott has become a fairly important intellectual given who his readers are (and may I say, completely deservedly so).

[kodah]

> That goes against the very free speech principles that readers of Scott's blog advocate so strongly

Not really. Doxxing someone mostly leads to harm. Anyone that was on the internet in the early days knows this, these days it's worse because the mobs that attack you aren't just doing mindless trolling, they're seeking something more intrinsic.

I look at it as in defense of free speech. That said, I don't generally believe in total anonymity. I believe in PGP style pseudo anonymity. With someone's real name you can attack their friends, family, and the place they live. With an online identity you can attack their ideas and if you're one of these people that enjoys grey areas you can attack their platform. That, to me, seems more fair.

[dohnuts1919]

While I don't think the NYT had a strong reason to reveal Scott's real name, it's absurd to say that newspapers shouldn't "reveal someone's real identity against that person's wishes" in the general case.

As the saying goes, journalism means printing things that certain people don't want published, and everything else is PR. Journalists are supposed to reveal things against the subject's wishes.

As the

[CPLX]

Can you articulate a coherent framework for how and why an American news publication should be prohibited from revealing legally obtained true information about the leader of a large, popular, or otherwise noteworthy community?

[bnj]

I haven’t thought up a framework, but one thing I’m wondering is why the identity of the person alone is newsworthy.

I’m probably missing part of the background here, I’m new to the controversy. Did some kind of mystery arise around the true identity of the author? Your comment implies that NYT obtained the true identity of the author through legal means — how exactly did they do that?

I don’t think finding out the identity of someone who wishes to remain anonymous is, in itself, sufficiently newsworthy to overcome the privacy interests of the individual. I also wonder if this story has a more interesting angle buried in it about the complexities of identity in the internet age: the author of the blog achieved notoriety, but in some ways that character is distinct from the physical person living their life and doing their job. The NYT wanted to publish a link between those two personas over their objection. Why should they be able to if the story can be written in a way that doesn’t?

Consider someone like... Satoshi, of bitcoin. The character has achieved this powerful notoriety and managed to remain anonymous. Do people want to know which person on the planet created that persona? Sure; do they need to know, is the identity alone newsworthy without some reason to need to publish it?

Honestly I tend to say no. That’s just... gossip, isn’t it? How is knowing a different name to associate with the character going to enrich and inform me in any way?

Examples where I think revealing the identity might be of substance: - suppose someone committed crimes to keep their identity secret - suppose government officials intervened to help them remain anonymous - suppose the person turns out to BE a powerful government official

[edit: to add last example]

[edanm]

> I’m probably missing part of the background here, I’m new to the controversy. Did some kind of mystery arise around the true identity of the author?

Not really.

Originally, the blog was pseudonymous. It was the first and middle name of the author, which he did because he's a psychiatrist who didn't want someone Googling his real name and finding his blog (for various professional and personal reasons).

But it wasn't exactly hidden super well - I found out his full name kind of by accident while googling for some random info about him, it would take most people a few minutes to find his name I imagine. This was ok by him because he mostly wanted to protect the reverse direction - someone googling his full name and finding his blog, not the other direction of someone finding his blog and discovering his full name (mostly - not exclusively).

In any case, after a year of "arranging his life" to allow him to do so, as he puts it, he is now publishing under his full name.

[bnj]

This is really helpful context, thanks!

I don't really get why the NYT wanted to publish his name against his wishes. At first I thought it was sensationalism but I read elsewhere that the regular readership of the blog was estimated at around 8.5 thousand. No idea if that's right but if it's within an order of magnitude then I rather think the NYT should have more pressing stories to develop.

[edanm]

I mean, on the one hand the readership is higher than that but probably not crazy high. On the other hand, his readers really are fairly influential, so I think he really is worthy of an article in the NYT. (I mean I'm a huge fan of his as well and think he's one of today's leading intellectuals, so I might be biased)

The NYT initially said they wanted to publish his name because of editorial policy. The reported said it was kind of being forced on him because "them's the rules" or something like that.

[CPLX]

> Consider someone like... Satoshi, of bitcoin. The character has achieved this powerful notoriety and managed to remain anonymous. Do people want to know which person on the planet created that persona? Sure; do they need to know, is the identity alone newsworthy without some reason to need to publish it?

If a journalist were to learn the identity of Satoshi of course that would be newsworthy. Is this a serious question?

[woofie11]

Prohibited? They shouldn't be, any more than they should be prohibited from replacing their logo to a swastika. We have freedom of speech, and that's important. If the government tried to go after NYT for a swastika logo, I'd be 100% on the side of the NYT; free speech should be legal even if I disagree with it.

On the other hand, I'd never visit NYT again, and I think most of the population would do likewise.

This isn't as extreme, but events like this should cause the general public to adjust their views of NYT. This shouldn't be a cancel-culture style slander, but simply starting to treat NYT as a random tabloid which makes stuff up for clicks.

NYT ran a hit piece on Larry Lessig too.

[Aqua]

I won't because I'm neither American nor a lawyer, but I will answer your question.

The person in question wanted to remain anonymous for good reasons, they didn't consent to have their true identity revealed and yet a powerful news corp decided to do that anyway, clearly in bad faith and for their own gain, violating that person's and their relatives' privacy. It's obvious the aim was to incite verbal violence against and "cancel" that man because he committed the heinous crime of wrongthink.

[DixieDev]

They should absolutely be allowed to reveal legally obtained true information about people's identities, but the vital 'legally' part of the process should encompass said people's consent.

If I start a blog that sees some success, and avoid using my full name in order to protect my privacy, then I obviously don't want my full name linked to my blog and I don't see why random businesses should be allowed to doxx me for the sake of some ad revenue.

[rootsudo]

Just imagine the zoom conversations the NYT had to have had with each other to publish this article, and it was approved.

[wilsocr88]

Couldn't agree more. If there's one thing the last 5 or so years should teach us is that newspeak isn't a language, it's the entire technological communications apparatus of the West.