I Am Deleting the Blog(slatestarcodex.com)
slatestarcodex.com
I Am Deleting the Blog
https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/22/nyt-is-threatening-my-safety-by-revealing-my-real-name-so-i-am-deleting-the-blog/
1,573 comments
Interestingly in https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/style/women-gaming-stream... from today they seem to possibly withhold discoverable legal names:
> (The streamers did not provide their legal names to The New York Times. In years past, women gamers who have spoken out against the industry using their legal names have been subjected to further harassment, hacking and doxxing.)
> (The streamers did not provide their legal names to The New York Times. In years past, women gamers who have spoken out against the industry using their legal names have been subjected to further harassment, hacking and doxxing.)
One wonders what criteria the Times must be using to determine that it's worth putting Scott at credible risk for further harassment but not women gamers. Is the Times really more sympathetic to gamers than psychiatrists or bloggers? That seems like an unlikely policy, but what else could explain it? I'm stumped.
Women gamers compared to white male psychiatrist bloggers who occasionally criticise feminism? Yes.
There's no mystery here. Scott belongs to a class of people for whom sympathy is not culturally trendy at the moment.
There's no mystery here. Scott belongs to a class of people for whom sympathy is not culturally trendy at the moment.
Do the people who are downvoting this comment believe that sympathy for Scott's class of people IS trendy at the moment? What's the objection to the comment.
Contrary to popular belief, HN's demographic is not immune to knee-jerk hostility triggered by the notion of a concept merely existing, wherever one might come down when discussing it.
I feel I should provide an example:
White fragility.
White fragility.
"White fragility" is a kafkatrap: you can't object to "white fragility" as a concept without that being taken as a demonstration of "white fragility". There are sensible reasons to object to the "notion of (such) a concept merely existing" if you care about the standards of intellectual argument - as most people familiar with SSC would.
My point was not necessarily that white fragility exists, but that the mere suggestion of it existing provokes hostility. Thanks for proving said point.
The parent is clearly not being "hostile". At least I don't know of any definition of the word that includes calmly pointing out bad faith argumentation.
It is possible - in text, probable - to present a hostile front in a civil manner. What is objectionable about hostility is the bald-faced rejection of a premise. To accuse someone of not "caring about the standards of intellectual argument" based on the utterance of a single phrase is hostile.
This is not a matter of reasoned skepticism, it's knee-jerk ego defense; the above poster recognizes white fragility as a probable truth that traps him in a state of cognitive dissonance, and it makes him so uncomfortable that he has no choice but to respond. However, the response that truly rejects my initial premise would have been no response at all; the fact that he responded lends credence to that premise because its core holding was that it would elicit a response.
This is not a matter of reasoned skepticism, it's knee-jerk ego defense; the above poster recognizes white fragility as a probable truth that traps him in a state of cognitive dissonance, and it makes him so uncomfortable that he has no choice but to respond. However, the response that truly rejects my initial premise would have been no response at all; the fact that he responded lends credence to that premise because its core holding was that it would elicit a response.
> ... the fact that he responded lends credence to that premise because its core holding was that it would elicit a response.
My point is precisely that "the fact that X responds, i.e. objects to premise Y lends credence to that premise because its core holding was that it would elicit a response" is a pointless and, indeed, content-less rhetorical trick, not an intellectually honest argument; moreover, that there are good reasons to be aware of this trick being played on you. You can call that "reasoned skepticism" or "knee-jerk ego defense", but that's not so important; indeed, I am quite willing to admit my "hostility" and "bald-faced rejection" of any such pointless tricks, no matter what their surrounding context might be.
My point is precisely that "the fact that X responds, i.e. objects to premise Y lends credence to that premise because its core holding was that it would elicit a response" is a pointless and, indeed, content-less rhetorical trick, not an intellectually honest argument; moreover, that there are good reasons to be aware of this trick being played on you. You can call that "reasoned skepticism" or "knee-jerk ego defense", but that's not so important; indeed, I am quite willing to admit my "hostility" and "bald-faced rejection" of any such pointless tricks, no matter what their surrounding context might be.
> To accuse someone of not "caring about the standards of intellectual argument" based on the utterance of a single phrase is hostile.
"white fragility" is inherently bad faith (both because it's inherently racist but also because "fragility" is a kafka trap as previously discussed), and you immediately clarified that you were, in fact, using it in bad faith: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23634713.
"white fragility" is inherently bad faith (both because it's inherently racist but also because "fragility" is a kafka trap as previously discussed), and you immediately clarified that you were, in fact, using it in bad faith: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23634713.
Also there’s a minority who treat the downvote button as a disagree button.
Which is explicitly blessed by pg himself.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171
"I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171
"I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement."
Scale can reveal problems. Overall, discussion on HN seems to be higher in quality than when I made my first account in 2012, but there are a lot more people. The number of people who upvote good comments seems to have gone down though. It makes sense: there are a lot more good comments (in quantity and probably in proportion), so it's easy to get tired of reaching for the upvote button on all of them. Meanwhile, people who make snap downvotes for ideological reasons still reliably downvote. A nerve-touching comment can easily hit the -4 cap without an equal number of upvotes to balance it out.
If I'm right about my theory of the reduced propensity to upvote with a higher quantity of good comments, there could be a tipping point where quality of discussion does go down as good but controversial comments sink to the bottom. HN isn't there yet, but it's something to watch out for.
If I'm right about my theory of the reduced propensity to upvote with a higher quantity of good comments, there could be a tipping point where quality of discussion does go down as good but controversial comments sink to the bottom. HN isn't there yet, but it's something to watch out for.
[deleted]
Welcome to hacker news. I hope your first day is pleasant.
> Already, the response has been a far cry from Gamergate in 2014, when women faced threats of death and sexual assault for critiquing the industry’s male-dominated, sexist culture.
Also women (and men) faced threats of sexual assault and violence for critiquing the media. But NYT very deliberately choses to ignore one set of threats and doxxing.
Also women (and men) faced threats of sexual assault and violence for critiquing the media. But NYT very deliberately choses to ignore one set of threats and doxxing.
Gotta get them clicks, mang. Pushing the Cause Célèbre at the time is what does that.
> Is the Times really more sympathetic to gamers than psychiatrists or bloggers?
It's more sympathetic to women than men. They won't directly tell you: "We protect women but not men", but that's the implicit policy of many institutions, especially mainstream media.
It's more sympathetic to women than men. They won't directly tell you: "We protect women but not men", but that's the implicit policy of many institutions, especially mainstream media.
It pretty implicit culturally I mean how many women's shelters are there in your state vs how many men's shelters? which ones do you hear people complain about? In my town there it quiet the contingent that complain about all of the homeless men near the mens shelter but I also know several of those same people donate to the women's shelter on the other side of town.
Is there more need for mens shelters? Are there a lot of battered unemployable men with kids and only the prospect of earning 75% of any equally competent woman for the same job, which they aren't eligable for anyway because they have beem home raising kids the last 5 years instead of in school or a job...
Is that how the numbers work out in your state? Because I don't know of any state in the US where that is the breakdown.
You know come to think of it.. there are way more orphanages for kids than for adults. Man that is so unfair. Clear bias in the system there!
Is that how the numbers work out in your state? Because I don't know of any state in the US where that is the breakdown.
You know come to think of it.. there are way more orphanages for kids than for adults. Man that is so unfair. Clear bias in the system there!
[deleted]
> what else could explain it? I'm stumped.
That's irony, right? It's hard to tell these days.
That's irony, right? It's hard to tell these days.
The only alternative I can imagine is so uncharitable and goes against everything an institution as famously progressive as the Times stands for that I dare not utter its name.
Famously progressive. I guess so. It was the NYT that hired Sarah Jeong and put her on the editorial board:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534
Famous for saying things like, "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men" and "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins" and "white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants".
And when this was pointed out, the NYT stood by her, claiming that in fact it was all because she had been harassed and, "For a period of time she responded to that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers".
One rule for straight white men, another for women is classic NYT. It's not new.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534
Famous for saying things like, "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men" and "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins" and "white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants".
And when this was pointed out, the NYT stood by her, claiming that in fact it was all because she had been harassed and, "For a period of time she responded to that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers".
One rule for straight white men, another for women is classic NYT. It's not new.
The NYT is the most visited website from Stormfront users. What is happening is bigots feed off other bigots. It's a self licking icecream.
The evangelical Christian/Jewish/Political Liberal hybrid - who runs the NYT sees 99.9% of Americans as out-groups. It's what happens when contrarianism causes people to inhabit their caricature - Stormfront and the NYT have strange symmetry.
It's bigotry with access to better writing skills. You often need to be a member of the in-group to spot the submarines.
Scott Alexander is a real Liberal without the pathology and that is why they hate him. He is reminding them of what Liberal ideals used to be and that makes him register as a threat.
The evangelical Christian/Jewish/Political Liberal hybrid - who runs the NYT sees 99.9% of Americans as out-groups. It's what happens when contrarianism causes people to inhabit their caricature - Stormfront and the NYT have strange symmetry.
It's bigotry with access to better writing skills. You often need to be a member of the in-group to spot the submarines.
Scott Alexander is a real Liberal without the pathology and that is why they hate him. He is reminding them of what Liberal ideals used to be and that makes him register as a threat.
You're looking for the word "sexism".
Discrimination comes both as "negative" and "positive" (both of which are usually in fact negative). E.g. people saying people of a certain ethnic background are better at math - on the surface a "positive" thing to say, but in fact fostering certain stereotypes and stereotyping people usually hurt a lot of people.
Discrimination comes both as "negative" and "positive" (both of which are usually in fact negative). E.g. people saying people of a certain ethnic background are better at math - on the surface a "positive" thing to say, but in fact fostering certain stereotypes and stereotyping people usually hurt a lot of people.
Walter Duranty has entered the chat
I'm surprised no one brought up the possible explanation that those female gamers are anonymous while Slate Star Codex is pseudonymous, not anonymous. If you read his post carefully, he mentions that his identity is actually public knowledge. His main concern is with NYT drawing attention to this, making him a public figure and making it "too easy". His entire thing is protecting pseudonymity, not anonymity.
ITT: People who have selectively forgot that distinction. Probably because it serves their agenda.
Nothing like selective enforcement of the rules as your politics so moves you.
The implication being that the NYT wants to use real names to drive clicks and appease advertisers?
Hm, I don't know if I'd draw the cause/effect so directly.
To me, these are two separate problems: 1) NYT doxxes sources, 2) NYT serves advertisers rather than readers. There might be some relation between these two problems but I don't personally have enough information to conclude that.
I didn't make that clear in my previous post, my apologies. No implication was intended.
To me, these are two separate problems: 1) NYT doxxes sources, 2) NYT serves advertisers rather than readers. There might be some relation between these two problems but I don't personally have enough information to conclude that.
I didn't make that clear in my previous post, my apologies. No implication was intended.
I have a hard time seeing how the statistic that the Times receives twice as much money from readers as from advertisers is evidence that the NYT "serves advertisers rather than readers". I think that probably puts them in the top 10% of media outlets in terms of how financially independent of advertising they are.
I take the point about subscribers being hard to count to mean that even though most of the money comes from subscribers, each individual subscriber doesn't have much leverage or bandwidth to communicate their desires to NYT. On the flip side, each individual advertiser commands some sizeable chunk of NYT's revenue as leverage.
The NYTs is also known to hassle subscribers who want to unsubscribe. The only reason a company would do that is because they know some people will give up, effectively disenfranchising them.
Anecdotally, it took ten minutes to unsusbscribe this morning (going through an online chat service rather than calling them), which is much longer than it should take, but worth it. It may be worse now due to this incident.
I think it's beyond the pale that they require you to chat with a sales representative to cancel a subscription. To reiterate, the only reason a company would do this is because they know it will suppress the number of people successfully unsubscribing. The NYTs is using the same sort of strategy commercial gyms are infamous for, albeit in a less extreme form.
Contrast it with Netflix's model of unsubscription, which you can do at any time with a single click. They've even gone as far as automatically cancelling inactive accounts. Netflix is obviously a company with confidence in their own product, so they don't resort to any dark patterns in their unsubscription process like the NYTs does.
Contrast it with Netflix's model of unsubscription, which you can do at any time with a single click. They've even gone as far as automatically cancelling inactive accounts. Netflix is obviously a company with confidence in their own product, so they don't resort to any dark patterns in their unsubscription process like the NYTs does.
I’ve developed a habit of canceling things via email. It tends to get a fast response. Any run around is dealt with easily by keeping responses short. And if they charge my credit card again I’ve got a record of exactly when I contacted them so I can pretty easily issue a chargeback. It can also be helpful to make it clear that if they ever want my business in the future they ought to be showing me good service now by canceling without wasting my time.
Netflix is obsessed with data. Easy cancellation lets them define a much more accurate loss function for the AI they eventually want to run their whole business for them.
Strongly agree. My original plan on unsubscribing was to come back if they blinked on SlateStarCodex (everyone makes mistakes), but after being made to jump through these extra hoops, I'm through with this company.
I got through their virtual agent and reached a human agent who decided to transfer me once she got to know I'm asking for cancellation. I got this response "Please wait one moment while I transfer you to an account specialist." Now I'm just waiting after another automated response "Sorry our wait times are longer than expected. Thank you for your patience." This really sucks.
I think any amount of money from advertisers is toxic.
There's a fundamental disconnect between the mission of a news organization and getting paid to lie (which is, fundamentally, what advertising is). You cannot accept ad dollars and be an effective purveyor of truth.
There's a fundamental disconnect between the mission of a news organization and getting paid to lie (which is, fundamentally, what advertising is). You cannot accept ad dollars and be an effective purveyor of truth.
> getting paid to lie (which is, fundamentally, what advertising is).
Not fundamentally. A lot of advertising may be well be outright lying, or close enough as makes no difference.
But... I used to go by a shop named "Cards Galore", it had its name in reasonably sized letters hanging over the sidewalk, and then when I wanted to buy a card I knew where I could get one. Nothing lying about that. I think there's a lot of advertising which is like that.
Something weaker might be true, like "large-scale advertising will inevitably lead to large-scale lying". But "advertising is fundamentally lying" is not true.
Not fundamentally. A lot of advertising may be well be outright lying, or close enough as makes no difference.
But... I used to go by a shop named "Cards Galore", it had its name in reasonably sized letters hanging over the sidewalk, and then when I wanted to buy a card I knew where I could get one. Nothing lying about that. I think there's a lot of advertising which is like that.
Something weaker might be true, like "large-scale advertising will inevitably lead to large-scale lying". But "advertising is fundamentally lying" is not true.
While there's a good amount of advertising that's truthful, I think it's safe to label all (or at least nearly all) advertising as emotional manipulation, and on those grounds I try to avoid advertising.
Companies toying with my psychology in order to get me to buy something from them... well, that doesn't sit well with me.
Companies toying with my psychology in order to get me to buy something from them... well, that doesn't sit well with me.
I don't really consider labeling a business to be advertising, though. That's like if I go to Wikipedia and see the Wikipedia logo--it's just showing me where I am.
Internet advertising is pretty much all lying. Even when what an ad says is factual, they're not telling you the whole truth, they're telling you a partial truth that leaves out pieces of information which they know would be relevant to you--that's a lie because their intent is to deceive you.
And by the way, I do get it: in a lot of businesses you have to advertise because your competitors are advertising. Advertising is a blight on society that infects everyone: opting out of advertising isn't a viable option without major sacrifice. I'd like to see a future where we all agree to stop advertising and rely on consumer-reports-style reviewers to obtain unbiased product information.
Internet advertising is pretty much all lying. Even when what an ad says is factual, they're not telling you the whole truth, they're telling you a partial truth that leaves out pieces of information which they know would be relevant to you--that's a lie because their intent is to deceive you.
And by the way, I do get it: in a lot of businesses you have to advertise because your competitors are advertising. Advertising is a blight on society that infects everyone: opting out of advertising isn't a viable option without major sacrifice. I'd like to see a future where we all agree to stop advertising and rely on consumer-reports-style reviewers to obtain unbiased product information.
Reviews are also advertising. They are usually, if not always, biased.
SlateStarCodex itself used to have advertisers on it, and the adverts seemed pretty much fine - just banners and descriptions from a bunch of sponsors, which were pretty relevant to the blog and, I guess, the people likely to visit it. Advertisement doesn't have to lie, it can just provide useful information you haven't seen yet. Although it generally does.
Advertising is like a stopped clock: even when they present some part of the truth, it's not information, because you don't know if it's true or not. You have to obtain information via other means.
And even when they make statements of fact, it's still lying because they leave things out with the intent to deceive.
And even when they make statements of fact, it's still lying because they leave things out with the intent to deceive.
> Advertisement doesn't have to lie, it can just provide useful information you haven't seen yet. Although it generally does.
That's the crux, though. It technically doesn't have to be like this, but it almost always is - so "advertising is a bunch of consumer-hostile lies" is a more accurate generalization than "advertising informs people".
That's the crux, though. It technically doesn't have to be like this, but it almost always is - so "advertising is a bunch of consumer-hostile lies" is a more accurate generalization than "advertising informs people".
>NYT doxxes sources
not to defend the NYTimes here, they're definitely in the wrong. but doxxing a source for an article and doxxing the subject of an article are very different things. The subject of this article is not a "source".
not to defend the NYTimes here, they're definitely in the wrong. but doxxing a source for an article and doxxing the subject of an article are very different things. The subject of this article is not a "source".
I understood article subject to be social groups during Covid.
the object of the article is an intentionally anonymous blog tho
I think it's equally plausible that the NYT believes that doxxing sources does serve their readers. Perhaps a significant portion of the NYT's paying subscribers are against anonymity in sources? Who knows.
Not saying this is a good thing, but I think assuming that this "policy" is there to get advertising dollars is weird. Why would advertisers care?
Not saying this is a good thing, but I think assuming that this "policy" is there to get advertising dollars is weird. Why would advertisers care?
> The implication being that the NYT wants to use real names to drive clicks and appease advertisers?
This shows a lack of how journalism works. Using real names isn't to "drive clicks" and "appease advertisers." It's to add credibility to a story.
Think about it: Does a furniture business advertising in the local paper care whether the victim of a shooting is named in a piece? Sure, the owner might know the victim, but that doesn't mean the business will determine its expenditures based on names.
This shows a lack of how journalism works. Using real names isn't to "drive clicks" and "appease advertisers." It's to add credibility to a story.
Think about it: Does a furniture business advertising in the local paper care whether the victim of a shooting is named in a piece? Sure, the owner might know the victim, but that doesn't mean the business will determine its expenditures based on names.
> Using real names isn't to "drive clicks" and "appease advertisers." It's to add credibility to a story.
If the NYT actually thinks they need to use the real name of the author of Slate Star Codex to add credibility to a story about the blog, they're delusional.
I think it's much more likely that they simply don't care about the valid personal concerns of people they write about.
If the NYT actually thinks they need to use the real name of the author of Slate Star Codex to add credibility to a story about the blog, they're delusional.
I think it's much more likely that they simply don't care about the valid personal concerns of people they write about.
Regardless, revealing someone's real name is orthogonal to clicks or ad revenue.
It's actually not. People in general like "good stories" and will read and share them more. Adding "credibility" will drive the perception as a "good" story and therefore to some degree clicks as well.
Depends on who's clicking and who the advertisers are.
Well, in that case, the journalists should adapt and give credibility through pseudonymity.
Which is possible through the use of other sources. But it depends on the situation. A pseudonym is appropriate for victims of sex crimes and exploitation.
Anonymity and/or pseudonym are appropriate in certain situations. In this situation, you have a source you know which is credible (you know their name), and they ask you not to publish their name. In such a case, it is standard journalist ethics in The Netherlands to not disclose the name. Sex crimes and exploitation are two (good) examples of such, but there are other examples as well. Consider for example a whistle blower, a (former) member of a cult, or -to put it generally- someone who can, realistically, be threatened when their real name is released. Such is the very case here. I am in awe that The New York Times does not adhere to the very same principles as the Dutch media do, although I am aware that the vow has been broken here as well (such as in the case of Rob Oudkerk and Parool's Heleen van Royen).
> In such a case, it is standard journalist ethics in The Netherlands to not disclose the name.
That's in The Netherlands, a country with different laws and regulations for the press.
This case is specific to the United States, with its own rules and protections.
That's in The Netherlands, a country with different laws and regulations for the press.
This case is specific to the United States, with its own rules and protections.
there's nothing stopping the NYT from being more ethical than US law requires them to be. and they regularly argue that current US law isn't sufficiently ethical (though perhaps not on this issue).
I was talking about an aspect of the ethical standard for journalism in The Netherlands; not the law.
It's also appropriate in cases where the subject's real name isn't relevant to the story in any way. That's certainly true here.
This is what bothers me most about the story. If someone is "internet famous" for blogging under a particular name, but not famous at all in their private life under their real name, their blog handle is newsworthy and their real name is not. It would be like reporting on an actor or musician and insisting on using their birth name throughout the story, with one reference to their stage name at the beginning of the piece.
I doubt the NYT has a lot of pieces on "Declan MacManus" in their archives -- if they can just use "Elvis Costello", they could certainly stick to calling the SSC guy by the name he uses online.
I doubt the NYT has a lot of pieces on "Declan MacManus" in their archives -- if they can just use "Elvis Costello", they could certainly stick to calling the SSC guy by the name he uses online.
I think the person you are responding to was trying to figure out what kerkeslager's point was, rather than stating his own conclusion. I am a bit confused myself as to what the connection is between name-publishing policies and sources of funding.
It is a pretty damn dubious measure of credibility and it has already failed when suggested for civility.
I am honestly starting to think real name policies are just about hating anominity at this point.
I am honestly starting to think real name policies are just about hating anominity at this point.
The idea behind a real name policy is that you open yourself up for scrutiny and criticism. Since you can be held accountable for what you say you have an incentive to say the truth or at least avoid making mistakes. The reality is that on the internet thousands of people will criticize you for any arbitrary reason even if that reason is actually a fabricated lie or just a personal bias.
If you value your privacy, don't speak to reporters and take every protection to protect your identity. This thinking goes from the basement dweller to the billionaire.
However, if your information is revealed, don't be shocked when someone approaches you with that information because you didn't cover your tracks.
However, if your information is revealed, don't be shocked when someone approaches you with that information because you didn't cover your tracks.
We're not surprised, we're just disappointed.
> Using real names isn't to "drive clicks" and "appease advertisers." It's to add credibility to a story.
What about not revealing sources? Didn't journalists used to go to jail for that one?
What about not revealing sources? Didn't journalists used to go to jail for that one?
Correct. Judith Miller is an example. However, her information turned out to be inaccurate. But she wasn't willing to oust her source.
Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, of Watergate fame, famously refused to reveal their FBI source, Deep Throat, for decades. Of course, they didn't go to jail.
Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, of Watergate fame, famously refused to reveal their FBI source, Deep Throat, for decades. Of course, they didn't go to jail.
It’s multi-faceted. In some cases NYT (or any news org of any prevailing political inclination) might want to expose real names to exercise control or rally people to cancel someone. Other times it might be more mundane, just wanting a better angle for the story or more solid corroborative details.
In the case of SSC I really worry that NYT would be trying to exercise control. They probably like many things written on the blog, but also hate other things like diving into statistics of gender based pay discrimination or statistics of racial motivation in police violence.
These are topics which the modern left (which I’m a million percent a part of) is increasingly pushing out of scope of the Overton window and treating them like they are not allowed to be subject to statistical evidence or neutral discussion.
There is only One Right Thing To Believe about police violence (that is targets blacks and minorities, even if this is simply not supported by data). There is only One Right Thing To Believe about gender-based pay discrimination (the popular notion of “women make 70 cents on the dollar” which is not close to the real effect size, and requires a ton of uncomfortable nuance to discuss properly because of confounding effects of women staying at home more often and choosing to stay home after maternity leave).
I think they want SSC to write about things that comply with their moral narrative, and see doxxing as a way to turn the screws and essentially promote a vague threat that if he writes something controversial about IQ or sexism or income inequality or whatever, and it doesn’t stick to liberal talking points, they can do a damaging hit piece.
In the case of SSC I really worry that NYT would be trying to exercise control. They probably like many things written on the blog, but also hate other things like diving into statistics of gender based pay discrimination or statistics of racial motivation in police violence.
These are topics which the modern left (which I’m a million percent a part of) is increasingly pushing out of scope of the Overton window and treating them like they are not allowed to be subject to statistical evidence or neutral discussion.
There is only One Right Thing To Believe about police violence (that is targets blacks and minorities, even if this is simply not supported by data). There is only One Right Thing To Believe about gender-based pay discrimination (the popular notion of “women make 70 cents on the dollar” which is not close to the real effect size, and requires a ton of uncomfortable nuance to discuss properly because of confounding effects of women staying at home more often and choosing to stay home after maternity leave).
I think they want SSC to write about things that comply with their moral narrative, and see doxxing as a way to turn the screws and essentially promote a vague threat that if he writes something controversial about IQ or sexism or income inequality or whatever, and it doesn’t stick to liberal talking points, they can do a damaging hit piece.
Wait, did you just claim that the NYT is part of "the modern left"?
If so, that's the funniest thing I've read in the last few years. The NYT is the home of bothsidesism. It's certainly not "the modern left".
And as far as the NYT writing a hit piece to shut up a semi-popular blog, I'd suggest a quick reality check how much influence either has on public discourse. The idea the NYT would need to shut up SSC is just... pretty far out there.
If so, that's the funniest thing I've read in the last few years. The NYT is the home of bothsidesism. It's certainly not "the modern left".
And as far as the NYT writing a hit piece to shut up a semi-popular blog, I'd suggest a quick reality check how much influence either has on public discourse. The idea the NYT would need to shut up SSC is just... pretty far out there.
If NYT has any angle to do a story on the blog, it’s very likely to be along the lines of “while this guy got some interesting things correct, look at these other horrible examples of sexism (eg consider actual data when forming opinions about gender pay gaps) and racism (eg consider actual data when forming opinions about racial motives in police violence).”
Your comment seems especially silly given that the NYT did, in fact, shut down this blog by threatening doxxing. So, by definition, the idea is not “far out there” or even remotely questionable.
Your comment seems especially silly given that the NYT did, in fact, shut down this blog by threatening doxxing. So, by definition, the idea is not “far out there” or even remotely questionable.
http://wilkins.law.harvard.edu/projects/2017-08_mediacloud/G...
Under US politics it is clear on the left side. It is not far left, but its not center either.
Under US politics it is clear on the left side. It is not far left, but its not center either.
The "modern left" is people like AOC. The NYT really isn't representative of that.
Is it more left than Fox? Sure. But even in the graph you cite[1], it's maybe 5% to the left. Calling it part of "the modern left" is at best ambitious. Thinking it's left enough that it would be on a crusade to silence SSC is... creative interpretation of the reality.
Is their "we must cite real names" policy dangerous? Yes. Is it aggravating they cause SSC to shut down? Yes. But let's keep in the realm of reality, please. It's not a NYT crusade.
[1] That thing is brutal on any PDF viewer I tried. If I were to read the source, I'd find the entire yarn of spaghetti as a million individual line elements, wouldn't I? ;) For people wanting to look - have patience, it takes time to load. On macOS, most PDF viewers actually fail to display it. FineReader OCR succeeds, after 25s load time.
Is it more left than Fox? Sure. But even in the graph you cite[1], it's maybe 5% to the left. Calling it part of "the modern left" is at best ambitious. Thinking it's left enough that it would be on a crusade to silence SSC is... creative interpretation of the reality.
Is their "we must cite real names" policy dangerous? Yes. Is it aggravating they cause SSC to shut down? Yes. But let's keep in the realm of reality, please. It's not a NYT crusade.
[1] That thing is brutal on any PDF viewer I tried. If I were to read the source, I'd find the entire yarn of spaghetti as a million individual line elements, wouldn't I? ;) For people wanting to look - have patience, it takes time to load. On macOS, most PDF viewers actually fail to display it. FineReader OCR succeeds, after 25s load time.
The modern left is constantly diving into the statistics of these topics, and if you think they're not it probably signals more that you're just not a part of that discussion. If you've let your conclusions be influenced by SSC and other reactionary blogs I'd urge you to check out some leftist spaces and ask around.
There's a lot of nuance, and more importantly, a lot of disagreement even in those spaces on these very issues.
There's a lot of nuance, and more importantly, a lot of disagreement even in those spaces on these very issues.
SSC is not a "reactionary blog" by any stretch of the imagination. The author is well known for their comprehensive debunking of politically reactionary views.
And the author is ethnically Jewish, atheist/agnostic, and polyamourous, so he definitely doesn't fit into the usual stereotypes of reactionaries if he is one
Don't forget asexual
Downvotes? This is not an insult. The guy is asexual.
I had to google as to how someone could be both asexual and polyamorous and turns out you can. til.
https://poly.land/2019/01/31/there-are-asexual-polyamorous-p...
https://poly.land/2019/01/31/there-are-asexual-polyamorous-p...
I've heard it referred to as 'polyromantic asexual'.
Are you sure, I've never seen anything suggesting that, and more than a bit suggesting that he wasn't...What are you talking about?
I agree that he does not fit the common stereotypes of reactionaries. But that's really beside my point, I'm referring to his ideas and writing, not his ethnic or religious groups etc.
Oh yes it is. His blogroll is absolutely full of neoreactionaries, and the comments sections are a cesspit of racism and sexism (echoing many of his own views in more crude terms), even before you account for many articles he's written where he takes their argumentative points at face value.
We're talking about a guy who once put up cartoons of people making fun of nerds/gamers next to Nazi propaganda to show how they were the same. If that's where you're getting your "arguments" on workplace sexism and police violence, you're probably a reactionary.
We're talking about a guy who once put up cartoons of people making fun of nerds/gamers next to Nazi propaganda to show how they were the same. If that's where you're getting your "arguments" on workplace sexism and police violence, you're probably a reactionary.
This is really not accurate. There are many topics where appealing to evidence or statistics is Not Allowed in leftist discourse. There are certain realities that are defined as not possible, politically, and permitted discourse flows from that.
The far right is even worse about this, appealing to braindead conspiracy theories, bald religion, fascism.
But the left is _really bad_ as well. Not “conspiracy theory gun nut” bad, but nowhere near “well balanced intellectual curiosity.”
The far right is even worse about this, appealing to braindead conspiracy theories, bald religion, fascism.
But the left is _really bad_ as well. Not “conspiracy theory gun nut” bad, but nowhere near “well balanced intellectual curiosity.”
[deleted]
I think it's best to hear from NYT about why they strictly only use real names.
Factual accuracy is the cornerstone of the profession.
In reporting out a story, it is the journalist's responsibility to obtain factual and verifiable information. People are the center of the story, and using their real names adds credibility to the story.
Now, there are circumstances where reporters use pseudonyms for sources -- mainly to protect victims of sex crimes -- or anonymous sources entirely. The latter is constantly debated among journalists. However, the consensus is using anonymous sources is necessary when all other avenues of getting someone on the record is exhausted or the story is so explosive that people close to the information are willing to shed light on an issue so long as their name is not used in print, mostly from fear of retribution, which is more common than you think.
In reporting out a story, it is the journalist's responsibility to obtain factual and verifiable information. People are the center of the story, and using their real names adds credibility to the story.
Now, there are circumstances where reporters use pseudonyms for sources -- mainly to protect victims of sex crimes -- or anonymous sources entirely. The latter is constantly debated among journalists. However, the consensus is using anonymous sources is necessary when all other avenues of getting someone on the record is exhausted or the story is so explosive that people close to the information are willing to shed light on an issue so long as their name is not used in print, mostly from fear of retribution, which is more common than you think.
Using anonymous sources to relay secret information like government insiders is very different from public pseudonymous writers. 'Scott Alexander' is of interest only as 'Scott Alexander'; he is famous for writing as 'Scott Alexander'; if you want to find criticism of Scott Alexander, you will find it by asking people about 'Scott Alexander'; and he blogs about general topics with reference to publicly verifiable things like scientific research, as opposed to focusing solely on his anecdotal experience; what does knowing his real name add or let a journalist verify? Does it somehow let you verify that he does in fact blog at SSC...? (Yes, he sometimes talks about his psychiatric patients, but like all psychiatrists, he blends and tweaks stories to protect his patients, and knowing his real name is John Smith gives you no more way of verifying said stories than when they were written by 'Scott Alexander'.)
It’s even worse than not having his name being irrelevant. By forcing the issue the NYT has now become the story. Whatever piece the NYT originally wanted to write is now subsumed by their own actions.
I am not a journalist, but I have to imagine that “don’t become the story” is pretty high up on the list of journalistic ideals.
When it’s someone the NYT feels they want to protect, they will go to any length, even jail time, to protect them. It’s very hard for me not to conclude ill intent on behalf of the NYT in wanting to draw fire toward SSC based on Scott’s ideology. Asking the question “why this story now” in the current hyper-partisan and cancel-rage environment brings me to one obvious conclusion even though Scott himself doesn’t make such a leap.
I am not a journalist, but I have to imagine that “don’t become the story” is pretty high up on the list of journalistic ideals.
When it’s someone the NYT feels they want to protect, they will go to any length, even jail time, to protect them. It’s very hard for me not to conclude ill intent on behalf of the NYT in wanting to draw fire toward SSC based on Scott’s ideology. Asking the question “why this story now” in the current hyper-partisan and cancel-rage environment brings me to one obvious conclusion even though Scott himself doesn’t make such a leap.
> doesn’t make such a leap
While he doesn’t directly state it, I got the impression that he felt the motive for doxxing him was that very reason. I may be reading between the lines too much, but I got that impression none the less.
While he doesn’t directly state it, I got the impression that he felt the motive for doxxing him was that very reason. I may be reading between the lines too much, but I got that impression none the less.
By using his real name, readers who know that name can get more out of the article. Imagine if he is actually a state senator, or a minor celebrity. The reporter here isn't doing the difficult calculus of "does revealing his name do more good than harm" but is instead relying on company policy. Alternatively the reporter has done the calculus and are using policy as a shield. "Nothing personal, it's just business"
The reporter knows perfectly well that Scott is not actually a state senator, and that he is a minor celebrity... as 'Scott Alexander'.
Let's change the setting to Weimar Germany, and the subject is a prominent Jewish blogger. Still think it's ok to expose his real identity? "Just business"?
> what does knowing his real name add or let a journalist verify? Does it somehow let you verify that he does in fact blog at SSC...?
Correct. Anyone, whether it's an individual or group of people, can be "Scott Alexander."
What does it add? It makes the story more credible under scrutiny.
Correct. Anyone, whether it's an individual or group of people, can be "Scott Alexander."
What does it add? It makes the story more credible under scrutiny.
> Anyone, whether it's an individual or group of people, can be "Scott Alexander."
So what? The story isn't about who Scott Alexander is. The story is about the blog. Anyone can go to the website and read the blog (or at least they could before the NYT pulled this screwup). If the NYT wants their story about the blog to be credible, they just need to tell the truth about what the blog says.
So what? The story isn't about who Scott Alexander is. The story is about the blog. Anyone can go to the website and read the blog (or at least they could before the NYT pulled this screwup). If the NYT wants their story about the blog to be credible, they just need to tell the truth about what the blog says.
> So what? The story isn't about who Scott Alexander is. The story is about the blog.
It's about the blog and its author. It's like writing about a controversial book without any mention of the author. That's not possible.
It's about the blog and its author. It's like writing about a controversial book without any mention of the author. That's not possible.
Is it necessary to reveal J. K. Rowling's real name in order to write an article about her controversial views? I think not.
Funny you should mention that:
> A Warning is a 2019 book-length exposé of the Trump administration, anonymously authored by someone described as a "senior Trump administration official". It is a follow-up to an anonymous op-ed published by the New York Times in September 2018.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Warning_(book)
> A Warning is a 2019 book-length exposé of the Trump administration, anonymously authored by someone described as a "senior Trump administration official". It is a follow-up to an anonymous op-ed published by the New York Times in September 2018.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Warning_(book)
> It's about the blog and its author.
The author's persona on the blog, yes. That doesn't mean the author's real name needs to be revealed.
The author's persona on the blog, yes. That doesn't mean the author's real name needs to be revealed.
The author's name is irrelevant to that story, because the story is about the author only insofar is that relates to the blog, which is written under a pseudonym. In fact, it's actively confusing to bring anything but the pseudonym into this.
I don't follow your logic, maybe I'm missing something. Let's say I publicly claim to be Scott Alexander. The owner of slatestarcodex with the email address [email protected] also claims to be scott alexander? Doesn't the latter claim carry far more weight? If so, why is the personage relevant?
> Let's say I publicly claim to be Scott Alexander. The owner of slatestarcodex with the email address [email protected] also claims to be scott alexander? Doesn't the latter claim carry far more weight?
It's just an email address. It could be Scott or it could be someone else. Yes, common sense would say it's Scott, but the reporter would have to still prove it's him. If you claim to be Scott, too, that will also need to be checked out.
Many people will take that information and run, but if you're writing for a national outlet, where accurate reporting is everything, your editor will say, "Yes, that might be Scott, but how do you know? What proof can you provide? If we get called out for a fact error, can you refute that claim?
It's just an email address. It could be Scott or it could be someone else. Yes, common sense would say it's Scott, but the reporter would have to still prove it's him. If you claim to be Scott, too, that will also need to be checked out.
Many people will take that information and run, but if you're writing for a national outlet, where accurate reporting is everything, your editor will say, "Yes, that might be Scott, but how do you know? What proof can you provide? If we get called out for a fact error, can you refute that claim?
How does providing a last name make his authorship of the blog more credible though? And how does publishing it help? I don't see how the reporter or the readers have any way of verifying that the blogger of SSC has a last name matching the one from the article.
Forgive me for the repetition you are about to see, I'm attempting to apply a bit of formality to the reasoning in question:
The Scott who posts at slatestarcodex.com is the Scott who is [email protected].
Therefore, the material Scott when attempting to pin down Scott in the context of slatestarcodex is [email protected].
Human X out in meat space could or could not be Scott, but that much is immaterial, as [email protected] has been shown to be directly linked to Scott Alexander the blogger as a means of contacting him.
Thus I ask: what better proof could one have that [email protected] is Scott Alexander, author of slatestarcodex?
The Scott who posts at slatestarcodex.com is the Scott who is [email protected].
Therefore, the material Scott when attempting to pin down Scott in the context of slatestarcodex is [email protected].
Human X out in meat space could or could not be Scott, but that much is immaterial, as [email protected] has been shown to be directly linked to Scott Alexander the blogger as a means of contacting him.
Thus I ask: what better proof could one have that [email protected] is Scott Alexander, author of slatestarcodex?
> Thus I ask: what better proof could one have that [email protected] is Scott Alexander, author of slatestarcodex?
From an editor's point of view, that's not enough, assuming the reporter has not done any form of reporting through interviews, public records and other methods.
From an editor's point of view, that's not enough, assuming the reporter has not done any form of reporting through interviews, public records and other methods.
I think you've missed the point. The point is that even if Scott were in fact a conglomerate of twenty people, Scott's writing is still the same, and is what draws people to the blog, and is ultimately why there's any story to be written at all. Nobody, but nobody, cares about the actual human originator(s) of the posts; it's the persona who matters.
I have not missed the point.
The story is about the blog, yes, but a portion deals with the _person_ or _people_ behind it. And that's important.
The story is about the blog, yes, but a portion deals with the _person_ or _people_ behind it. And that's important.
So is it safe to assume that the NYT always refers to Jon Stewart as Jon Leibovitz? Mark Twain as Samuel Clemens?
Maybe one could make an argument for a stage name or pen name being different (and there are many of those), but could Scott Alexander not also be considered a pen name?
Maybe one could make an argument for a stage name or pen name being different (and there are many of those), but could Scott Alexander not also be considered a pen name?
Having worked in a tv newsroom before doing IT (so I could see all the reporters' real names), roughly 90% of the reporters used pseudonyms for their professional work. Not sure about the rate for print/internet media, but I'm sure it's still pretty high.
NYT frequently uses anonymous sources, even in cases where it doesn't seem to be necessary. Search for "sources familiar with the matter" +site:nytimes.com for dozens of examples per month.
The difference is presumably that those sources keep feeding them interesting information, so they have to respect their anonymity to avoid jeopardizing that relationship. Scott is only good for one story, so they can treat him however they want.
Presumably there are many other one-off sources that would see this behavior and then not talk to the NYT, so I’m not convinced that explains it.
The Globe and Mail, a newspaper that I have a fair amount of respect for, frequently changes names to protect sources, the subjects of articles and interviewees who aren't willing to be named. They say in the article that the name has been changed. It doesn't detract from the article at all.
> In reporting out a story, it is the journalist's responsibility to obtain factual and verifiable information. People are the center of the story, and using their real names adds credibility to the story.
IMO that doesn't apply to a situation like this. By definition, whoever answers email sent to the address on the SSC blog is the author of the blog. It doesn't matter if that person's "name" is Scott Alexander or Santa Claus or SillyBob5319. The piece the NYT is writing is about the blog, not about the specific, identifiable person who writes it. Knowing who that person is does not add credibility to the story; the credibility is already asserted by the fact that the person who controls the email address behind the blog is talking about it.
To your point about "verifiable information": the only verification needed by a hypothetical reader of this perhaps-never-to-be-published NYT article would be 1) visit the blog; 2) find a contact email; 3) send email asking "were those actually your words quote in this NYT article?" The person's name is irrelevant.
IMO that doesn't apply to a situation like this. By definition, whoever answers email sent to the address on the SSC blog is the author of the blog. It doesn't matter if that person's "name" is Scott Alexander or Santa Claus or SillyBob5319. The piece the NYT is writing is about the blog, not about the specific, identifiable person who writes it. Knowing who that person is does not add credibility to the story; the credibility is already asserted by the fact that the person who controls the email address behind the blog is talking about it.
To your point about "verifiable information": the only verification needed by a hypothetical reader of this perhaps-never-to-be-published NYT article would be 1) visit the blog; 2) find a contact email; 3) send email asking "were those actually your words quote in this NYT article?" The person's name is irrelevant.
I think what you’re missing is that news stories like this are designed to connect the abstract (ideas in a blog) with real people. Many/most newspaper readers are interested in other people, relationships, who is doing what, and personal connections.
The readers don’t care that there is a controversial (or radical or not) blog on the internet, they want to know if anyone important is related to the blog and whether they should try to gain influence with said people or not (by aligning or distancing themselves from said people, depending on their own connections). For example, only if the author is named can they know whether he/she is a reputable practitioner at a prestigious institution (who can thereby give influence or be vulnerable to controversy), or maybe just a random doctor in a rural town (can be safely ignored).
So for people who rely on networks of other people, such as many political, corporate, and governmental sub-cultures, the NYT gains credibility by naming names and placing people in context. In other words, the NYT is a mainstream product and service, it’s interests are perhaps not most aligned with the pseudo-anonymous world of tech and ideas that the SSC blog and HN itself appeal to and cater to.
The readers don’t care that there is a controversial (or radical or not) blog on the internet, they want to know if anyone important is related to the blog and whether they should try to gain influence with said people or not (by aligning or distancing themselves from said people, depending on their own connections). For example, only if the author is named can they know whether he/she is a reputable practitioner at a prestigious institution (who can thereby give influence or be vulnerable to controversy), or maybe just a random doctor in a rural town (can be safely ignored).
So for people who rely on networks of other people, such as many political, corporate, and governmental sub-cultures, the NYT gains credibility by naming names and placing people in context. In other words, the NYT is a mainstream product and service, it’s interests are perhaps not most aligned with the pseudo-anonymous world of tech and ideas that the SSC blog and HN itself appeal to and cater to.
Given that "Scott Alexander" is a semi-pseudonym, and that the "real" person behind him isn't famous, I don't see how any of what you wrote really applies. Referring to him in an article as "Scott $HIS_REAL_LAST_NAME" in the article isn't going to give anyone any more of a connection than as "Scott Alexander".
And the NYT doesn't even need to mention whether or not it's his "real" name. It's just a name. I use scare quotes because a "name" is explicitly whatever someone wants to be referred to as. The guy who writes Slate Star Codex is Scott Alexander, full stop.
I don't think tech culture is at issue here; I doubt newspapers had any issue referring to Samuel Clemens as Mark Twain back when he was alive and active.
And the NYT doesn't even need to mention whether or not it's his "real" name. It's just a name. I use scare quotes because a "name" is explicitly whatever someone wants to be referred to as. The guy who writes Slate Star Codex is Scott Alexander, full stop.
I don't think tech culture is at issue here; I doubt newspapers had any issue referring to Samuel Clemens as Mark Twain back when he was alive and active.
> In reporting out a story, it is the journalist's responsibility to obtain factual and verifiable information.
Yes, like the fact that a website called "Slate Star Codex" exists and particular posts in it say what the article says they say.
There is no reason why a story about the blog needs to include the real name of the author, when that real name isn't even revealed anywhere on the blog. The story is about the blog.
Yes, like the fact that a website called "Slate Star Codex" exists and particular posts in it say what the article says they say.
There is no reason why a story about the blog needs to include the real name of the author, when that real name isn't even revealed anywhere on the blog. The story is about the blog.
[deleted]
Does this mean they don’t care if there is a reasonable risk of retribution as long as they get the person on record?
Reporters will try to get the person on record, but in the end, it's up to the source.
If he or she agrees to go on record, they should understand the potential risks.
It would behoove the reporter to lay out the options. Tricking someone to say something without knowing whether he or she is on the record is a big no-no.
If he or she agrees to go on record, they should understand the potential risks.
It would behoove the reporter to lay out the options. Tricking someone to say something without knowing whether he or she is on the record is a big no-no.
Ehhh, I don't think this accurately represents the situation with "on the record" or "off the record":
1. When a journalist identifies themself as a journalist, all conversations thereafter are assumed to be on the record unless specified otherwise.
2. Statements can't be made off the record after the fact--you have to say something is off the record before you say it for it to be considered off the record.
3. This is only journalist tradition, not law. Even if you say something is off the record, there's no real incentive for a journalist not to just publish it anyway, except their integrity. Journalists can and do break this rule, especially when they disagree with the person whose words they are reporting.
1. When a journalist identifies themself as a journalist, all conversations thereafter are assumed to be on the record unless specified otherwise.
2. Statements can't be made off the record after the fact--you have to say something is off the record before you say it for it to be considered off the record.
3. This is only journalist tradition, not law. Even if you say something is off the record, there's no real incentive for a journalist not to just publish it anyway, except their integrity. Journalists can and do break this rule, especially when they disagree with the person whose words they are reporting.
> Ehhh, I don't think this accurately represents the situation with "on the record" or "off the record"
I am not tying SSC's situation with the general theme of on- and off-the-record.
I will say your explanation of the difference is spot on.
I am not tying SSC's situation with the general theme of on- and off-the-record.
I will say your explanation of the difference is spot on.
That's what gets me in this situation.
Publishing the article with his full name if he's OK with that is an acceptable outcome.
Binning the article entirely if he's not OK with publishing his full name is also an acceptable outcome (though honestly it's a waste of time on all parties and it would have been better to make this constraint clear up front).
But publishing the article anyway and releasing his full name against his will, when he's the primary source for the story? That seems like a no-no. Interestingly, this hasn't happened yet, and seems like it may never at this rate.
Publishing the article with his full name if he's OK with that is an acceptable outcome.
Binning the article entirely if he's not OK with publishing his full name is also an acceptable outcome (though honestly it's a waste of time on all parties and it would have been better to make this constraint clear up front).
But publishing the article anyway and releasing his full name against his will, when he's the primary source for the story? That seems like a no-no. Interestingly, this hasn't happened yet, and seems like it may never at this rate.
The "constraint" against revealing Scott's real name has always been clear up-front to people who were familiar with his work, even on-line. If it wasn't clear enough to this NYT reporter, that's their problem.
Ok, but is it reasonable for people to understand the potential risks?
I don’t see any reporting on the dangers of talking to reporters. Where is the NYT piece on what happens to people after they have been linked to something in the news?
I think that given Scott Alexander’s experience, ‘don’t talk to reporters, ever’, is as sound advice as ‘don’t talk to the police without an attorney’.
I don’t see any reporting on the dangers of talking to reporters. Where is the NYT piece on what happens to people after they have been linked to something in the news?
I think that given Scott Alexander’s experience, ‘don’t talk to reporters, ever’, is as sound advice as ‘don’t talk to the police without an attorney’.
> I don’t see any reporting on the dangers of talking to reporters.
There are plenty of resources on how to handle talking with a reporter.
One thing I would suggest learning the difference between going on- and off-the-record and speaking on background.
> Where is the NYT piece on what happens to people after they have been linked to something in the news?
Here's a free one: Harvey Weinstein's victims. Despite them coming out about his abusive behaviors, his attorneys and henchman are going after them.
There are plenty of resources on how to handle talking with a reporter.
One thing I would suggest learning the difference between going on- and off-the-record and speaking on background.
> Where is the NYT piece on what happens to people after they have been linked to something in the news?
Here's a free one: Harvey Weinstein's victims. Despite them coming out about his abusive behaviors, his attorneys and henchman are going after them.
Where are these ‘plenty of resources’?
The Weinstein case seems to tell us nothing about the general risk of talking to reporters even though it is a data point.
It sounds like you are in full agreement with me otherwise though.
“Talking to reporters is very dangerous. Never do so without extensive study of the available resources.”
The Weinstein case seems to tell us nothing about the general risk of talking to reporters even though it is a data point.
It sounds like you are in full agreement with me otherwise though.
“Talking to reporters is very dangerous. Never do so without extensive study of the available resources.”
The policy doesn't even seem to be very consistently applied. There are a couple excerpts from articles floating around that happily use pseudonyms for, eg, one of the Chapo podcast hosts.
Someone started a Twitter thread to compile examples where the NYT reported about someone using their pseudonym:
https://twitter.com/hradzka/status/1275460707069210624
https://twitter.com/hradzka/status/1275460707069210624
Wow, this is egregious. I already didn't have any respect for the NYT, but I'm surprised that a writer of theirs would lie so flagrantly about being chained by bureaucracy.
[deleted]
The NYTimes is filled with anonymous sources as well as pseudonymous sources -- look at many articles about Banksy.
This is just a hit on someone the reporter viewed as not sufficiently an ally in the culture war.
This is just a hit on someone the reporter viewed as not sufficiently an ally in the culture war.
Generally it's anonymous sources who tell the wild and not-necessarily-true stories that drive clicks. A policy limiting their use is intended to make the publication more sober. But that's supposed to happen by just not printing the story. Outing people who don't want to be outed is something else.
Advertisers do not directly care about real names.
What matters is journalistic integrity. We are in a time when reporters are consistently hammered for quoting anonymous sources.
What matters is journalistic integrity. We are in a time when reporters are consistently hammered for quoting anonymous sources.
An anonymous source seems materially different from a pseudonymous source, especially when that source is being quoted about their enormous body of work.
Mother Jones and ProPublica are investigative journalists. Why would you think they wouldn't doxx subjects?
Doxxing public figures is their job.
Doxxing public figures is their job.
Add https://theintercept.com to the list.
[deleted]
“ We're better off with organizations who receive their money from donations. ”
We get value, in exchange for value.
We get value, in exchange for value.
ITM?
from Feb, 2019: Who is Slate Star Codex? - A thread https://twitter.com/TLDRSlateStar/status/1100867507194396673
Slate Star Codex is one of the biggest dangers to people (esp marginalized groups) who want to use the internet without being abused.
TLDR is that Slate Star Codex is a blog that promotes platforming white supremacists and the like, whips up frenzies about the dangers of feminism, and serves as a vector for promoting the work of white supremacists
Ever wonder why Twitter is a "nazi haven"? Reddit a cesspool of hate? Well one of the reasons is that people working at this companies read and follow the precepts of Slate Star Codex.
Slate Star Codex is the blog of a guy named Scott who got his start blogging in the "rationalist" community.
Slate Star Codex is basically Tucker Carlson for "smart" dudes in tech. The only difference is Scott buries his ideology in mountains of text and disclaimers.
His typical rhetorical technique is "I love the gays/hate racists/am not a conservative BUT" The BUT is usually "this racist/sexist/etc. Has some points and we should hear them out."
Unsurprisingly, he's cultivated a community where racists/sexists/etc. Are VERY comfortable. In the comments and on a slatestarcodex reddit.
Now I know he didn't create the subreddit, but he approved of it and he was a moderator there. And when things went wrong with a popular thread called "the culture wars thread" he wrote a long blog post about what a tragedy it was.
Now I am a minority in tech so I've had his blog posts thrown at me by dudes for years. I saw his blog post go "viral" on both private work slacks and communities that techies frequent. https://archive.is/v62cM
The thing people took away from his post is that internet toxicity is drowning out "open debate." Now let's talk about the "open debate" he so wants to protect.
By his own stats it was mostly white men. Sure a lot of them were professed "liberals" but in tech "liberal" means "I have a gay friend but don't make me uncomfortable by talking about things like privilege."
The thread debated things like "maybe eugenics is good." It had "only" about 20 percent far righters which Scot delusionally thinks is normal. I'm sorry but while your everyday Republican might be racism he's also probably not a racial IQ stats aficionado like these dudes.
While Scott claims to hate racism, his top priority is preserving a seat at the table for a ragtag group of far righters. Unfortunately this philosophy is shared with a lot of people in tech and they use his posts to spread it.
I know because I work with a team that does abuse/moderation design and they post his stuff all the time saying how "insightful" it is.
Their argument is you have to "hear out" the white supremacists and the like and that in the end "rationality" will win. If only that were true. And it's especially not true in an environment where the comfort of white "liberal" dudes is the top priority.
I wonder how many people started reading white supremacists because of Scott's blog?
How unfair you say, he can't control the subreddit. Well besides being a moderator there so he can control it to some degree, you don't even need to go there to find links to white supremacists.
Right on his very blog roll are links to "Gene Expression" whose author was fired by the NYT for his links to white supremacists. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/03/... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0cRBkMUUAI42ci?format=png&name=...
Next to it? West Hunter, written by Gregory Cochrane. His pet theory is that gayness is literally a disease and he was a regular collaborator with "race scientist" Henry Harpending https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/depths-of-madness/
Slate Star Codex is essentially a blog about how the "real" danger in the world is SJWs, feminists, and other "leftists." They, not white supremacists, are the real threat.
The worst part about all of it is that he buries it in such obtuse language that only the interested will wade into it. And his followers are rabid at defending the precept that Scott is a moderate centrist liberal.
Slate Star Codex is one of the biggest dangers to people (esp marginalized groups) who want to use the internet without being abused.
TLDR is that Slate Star Codex is a blog that promotes platforming white supremacists and the like, whips up frenzies about the dangers of feminism, and serves as a vector for promoting the work of white supremacists
Ever wonder why Twitter is a "nazi haven"? Reddit a cesspool of hate? Well one of the reasons is that people working at this companies read and follow the precepts of Slate Star Codex.
Slate Star Codex is the blog of a guy named Scott who got his start blogging in the "rationalist" community.
Slate Star Codex is basically Tucker Carlson for "smart" dudes in tech. The only difference is Scott buries his ideology in mountains of text and disclaimers.
His typical rhetorical technique is "I love the gays/hate racists/am not a conservative BUT" The BUT is usually "this racist/sexist/etc. Has some points and we should hear them out."
Unsurprisingly, he's cultivated a community where racists/sexists/etc. Are VERY comfortable. In the comments and on a slatestarcodex reddit.
Now I know he didn't create the subreddit, but he approved of it and he was a moderator there. And when things went wrong with a popular thread called "the culture wars thread" he wrote a long blog post about what a tragedy it was.
Now I am a minority in tech so I've had his blog posts thrown at me by dudes for years. I saw his blog post go "viral" on both private work slacks and communities that techies frequent. https://archive.is/v62cM
The thing people took away from his post is that internet toxicity is drowning out "open debate." Now let's talk about the "open debate" he so wants to protect.
By his own stats it was mostly white men. Sure a lot of them were professed "liberals" but in tech "liberal" means "I have a gay friend but don't make me uncomfortable by talking about things like privilege."
The thread debated things like "maybe eugenics is good." It had "only" about 20 percent far righters which Scot delusionally thinks is normal. I'm sorry but while your everyday Republican might be racism he's also probably not a racial IQ stats aficionado like these dudes.
While Scott claims to hate racism, his top priority is preserving a seat at the table for a ragtag group of far righters. Unfortunately this philosophy is shared with a lot of people in tech and they use his posts to spread it.
I know because I work with a team that does abuse/moderation design and they post his stuff all the time saying how "insightful" it is.
Their argument is you have to "hear out" the white supremacists and the like and that in the end "rationality" will win. If only that were true. And it's especially not true in an environment where the comfort of white "liberal" dudes is the top priority.
I wonder how many people started reading white supremacists because of Scott's blog?
How unfair you say, he can't control the subreddit. Well besides being a moderator there so he can control it to some degree, you don't even need to go there to find links to white supremacists.
Right on his very blog roll are links to "Gene Expression" whose author was fired by the NYT for his links to white supremacists. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/03/... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0cRBkMUUAI42ci?format=png&name=...
Next to it? West Hunter, written by Gregory Cochrane. His pet theory is that gayness is literally a disease and he was a regular collaborator with "race scientist" Henry Harpending https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/depths-of-madness/
Slate Star Codex is essentially a blog about how the "real" danger in the world is SJWs, feminists, and other "leftists." They, not white supremacists, are the real threat.
The worst part about all of it is that he buries it in such obtuse language that only the interested will wade into it. And his followers are rabid at defending the precept that Scott is a moderate centrist liberal.
> ... Well one of the reasons is that people working at this companies read and follow the precepts of Slate Star Codex. ...
This claim alone ought to suggest to you - given its obvious implausibility - that this person has a political axe to grind. (Same as the bunch of Twitter users who are now apparently gloating over the fact that Scott might soon get doxxed by the NYT - and who seemingly think "Orange site bad!" is a cogent argument. No, I won't be linking to them due to the obvious doxxing infohazard involved.)
This claim alone ought to suggest to you - given its obvious implausibility - that this person has a political axe to grind. (Same as the bunch of Twitter users who are now apparently gloating over the fact that Scott might soon get doxxed by the NYT - and who seemingly think "Orange site bad!" is a cogent argument. No, I won't be linking to them due to the obvious doxxing infohazard involved.)
Funny how this argument on how SSC is a white supremacist reactionary blog does not show a single, you know, written word by him. At all.
He did criticize sometimes SJW, some feminist bloggers, as he also criticizes libertarians, reactionaries, communists. But, hell, since he does not subscribe to The One True And Moral Opiniom, he is a monster, definitely. And, God forbid him for not paying attention 24/7 in a subreddit that is not even his, just because he has a day job amd such.
Yes, I created this account just to answer this complete bullshit.
He did criticize sometimes SJW, some feminist bloggers, as he also criticizes libertarians, reactionaries, communists. But, hell, since he does not subscribe to The One True And Moral Opiniom, he is a monster, definitely. And, God forbid him for not paying attention 24/7 in a subreddit that is not even his, just because he has a day job amd such.
Yes, I created this account just to answer this complete bullshit.
NYT subscribers: to cancel your subscription online, change your address to California and a button will appear allowing you to cancel immediately. Unsubscribing won’t change much, as they can afford it. What will is freezing them out.
By RTing #ghostnyt you commit to not talking to NYT reporters or giving them quotes. Go direct if you have something to say.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/ghostnyt
By RTing #ghostnyt you commit to not talking to NYT reporters or giving them quotes. Go direct if you have something to say.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/ghostnyt
[deleted]
Taking in to account that NYT is quitting 3th party advertisement cold turkey [0], this would mean the NYT will publish anything that ensures the future existence of the NYT. Even if it means fluffing up an octogenarian with a visual deteriorating memory function against a thoroughbred Arabian horse in the race. Run Forrest, Run!
[0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.axios.com/new-york-times-ad...
[0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.axios.com/new-york-times-ad...
I am genuinely baffled how Scott Alexander's post has turned into hundreds and hundreds of comments on cancel culture, as if it was anything near the #1 reason why he'd be in danger if his name was revealed.
Being famous is dangerous in every era, doubly so in an era where anybody unhinged basically has access to the same level of information you used to need a private investigator to get.
Tim Ferris said it well: "The point is this: you don’t need to do anything wrong to get death threats, rape threats, etc. You just need a big enough audience." [0]
The focus should be on the Times threatening to out him for no good reason, not his personal reasons for wanting to stay anonymous.
[0] https://tim.blog/2020/02/02/reasons-to-not-become-famous/
Being famous is dangerous in every era, doubly so in an era where anybody unhinged basically has access to the same level of information you used to need a private investigator to get.
Tim Ferris said it well: "The point is this: you don’t need to do anything wrong to get death threats, rape threats, etc. You just need a big enough audience." [0]
The focus should be on the Times threatening to out him for no good reason, not his personal reasons for wanting to stay anonymous.
[0] https://tim.blog/2020/02/02/reasons-to-not-become-famous/
> I am genuinely baffled how Scott Alexander's post has turned into hundreds and hundreds of comments on cancel culture, as if it was anything near the #1 reason why he'd be in danger if his name was revealed.
People in comments sections (doesn’t matter which) don’t really “react to” or “engage with” the article very often. What they’re really doing is being reminded by the article of some thought that’s been affecting them in their own lives lately—which they then hold forth about. Sometimes the tangential thought can be supported by quoting the article (either literally, or in rebuttal); but this is still different from engaging with the article itself, per se.
For most people, the article is grist for the idea-mill of their own “blogging”, which they happen to do in the form of a comment. (Heck, that’s what I’m doing right now, to your comment!)
People who genuinely respond to a post as if they were in conversation with the original author are few and far between, and tend to put their responses on professional blogs rather than comments sections. (Which is funny, because "comments sections" are nominally for engaging with the post. We've all become very mixed up somehow.)
People in comments sections (doesn’t matter which) don’t really “react to” or “engage with” the article very often. What they’re really doing is being reminded by the article of some thought that’s been affecting them in their own lives lately—which they then hold forth about. Sometimes the tangential thought can be supported by quoting the article (either literally, or in rebuttal); but this is still different from engaging with the article itself, per se.
For most people, the article is grist for the idea-mill of their own “blogging”, which they happen to do in the form of a comment. (Heck, that’s what I’m doing right now, to your comment!)
People who genuinely respond to a post as if they were in conversation with the original author are few and far between, and tend to put their responses on professional blogs rather than comments sections. (Which is funny, because "comments sections" are nominally for engaging with the post. We've all become very mixed up somehow.)
This is pretty true on Hacker News. I engaged with the post as if I were in a conversation with the original author, not by posting here, but by sending an email to the original author.
I can't help but think that this effect isn't what I want from this community, however. I want reasoned discussion that helps me to see issues from various points of view, but instead I get a bunch of uninformed opinions from people who didn't even read the thing they're opining on.
I can't help but think that this effect isn't what I want from this community, however. I want reasoned discussion that helps me to see issues from various points of view, but instead I get a bunch of uninformed opinions from people who didn't even read the thing they're opining on.
> I can't help but think that this effect isn't what I want from this community, however. I want reasoned discussion that helps me to see issues from various points of view, but instead I get a bunch of uninformed opinions from people who didn't even read the thing they're opining on.
Some of the absolute best discussions I've read and sometimes participated in on HN have been tangents or inconsequential to the article they were attached to. I would miss those types of discussion sorely if they were gone.
There are tools to help manage this though. You can collapse comment threads, and if you find a particular vein of discussion not really to your liking, I suggest doing that so you can focus on what you do enjoy (and others can do the same, even if the items they read and ignore are entirely different than yours).
Personally, since these comments aren't the comments of the article in question (usually. Sometimes they just refer you here!), I think of it less as comments to the author when posting here, and more like a discussion in a group examining that article. Sort of like a book group, where people splinter into subgroups to have discussions that interest them, and even those that failed to read the book might find a place to contribute.
Some of the absolute best discussions I've read and sometimes participated in on HN have been tangents or inconsequential to the article they were attached to. I would miss those types of discussion sorely if they were gone.
There are tools to help manage this though. You can collapse comment threads, and if you find a particular vein of discussion not really to your liking, I suggest doing that so you can focus on what you do enjoy (and others can do the same, even if the items they read and ignore are entirely different than yours).
Personally, since these comments aren't the comments of the article in question (usually. Sometimes they just refer you here!), I think of it less as comments to the author when posting here, and more like a discussion in a group examining that article. Sort of like a book group, where people splinter into subgroups to have discussions that interest them, and even those that failed to read the book might find a place to contribute.
> Personally, since these comments aren't the comments of the article in question (usually. Sometimes they just refer you here!), I think of it less as comments to the author when posting here, and more like a discussion in a group examining that article.
But that's exactly not what they are: you can't examine an article without reading it, and in many cases it's blatantly obvious that commenters didn't read the article.
I'm fine with tangents, it's the on-topic ignorance that bothers me.
But that's exactly not what they are: you can't examine an article without reading it, and in many cases it's blatantly obvious that commenters didn't read the article.
I'm fine with tangents, it's the on-topic ignorance that bothers me.
> People in comments sections (doesn’t matter which) don’t really “react to” or “engage with” the article very often. What they’re really doing is being reminded by the article of some thought that’s been affecting them in their own lives lately—which they then hold forth about.
Don't want to go off on a tangent, but HN trains its users to do that by posting one article after another that's behind a paywall. Of course there will be comments vaguely related to the article when you've created a culture of commenting without reading.
Don't want to go off on a tangent, but HN trains its users to do that by posting one article after another that's behind a paywall. Of course there will be comments vaguely related to the article when you've created a culture of commenting without reading.
I don't think that's it. HN trains its users for that by means of culture voting interesting things - because such tangential comments and resulting discussions are often much more interesting than the submitted article.
Well not for nothing, thanks for your comment - this is a really good insight!
Scott has been harassed by cancellers for years. It's a well-documented history, which was a serious issue for him and led to banning culture war topics in SSC-affiliated reddit section. There are still people and AFAIK organized communities on Reddit that target him. There were calls to his employers to get him fired and to friends to get them socially shunned.
Now imagine how much more of this one would get if their real name (and, by extension, address, employer, family, etc.) is published by NYT and easily accessible to anyone with rudimentary typing skills. Cancel culture is not the reason for NYT doxxing, but it makes the doxxing orders of magnitude more dangerous. And NYT must know that.
Yes, there are also random crazies. But I don't think I've read any storied about random crazies getting people fired from their jobs. I've read the last one about cancel culture doing that today. And have been reading them almost daily for a while.
> The focus should be on the Times threatening to out him for no good reason, not his personal reasons for wanting to stay anonymous.
It can be both.
Now imagine how much more of this one would get if their real name (and, by extension, address, employer, family, etc.) is published by NYT and easily accessible to anyone with rudimentary typing skills. Cancel culture is not the reason for NYT doxxing, but it makes the doxxing orders of magnitude more dangerous. And NYT must know that.
Yes, there are also random crazies. But I don't think I've read any storied about random crazies getting people fired from their jobs. I've read the last one about cancel culture doing that today. And have been reading them almost daily for a while.
> The focus should be on the Times threatening to out him for no good reason, not his personal reasons for wanting to stay anonymous.
It can be both.
> There are still people and AFAIK organized communities on Reddit that target him.
Though one of the more wholesome things I've seen is when I visited that subreddit you're referring to and the consensus seemed to be that doxxing Scott was not justified.
Though one of the more wholesome things I've seen is when I visited that subreddit you're referring to and the consensus seemed to be that doxxing Scott was not justified.
You mean NYT is actually doing so bad that people who self-select for desire to hunt and harm other people over the internet actually think they've gone too far? Well done, NYT!
Less charitably it's self-preservation; reddit has a very low tolerance towards doxxing and has banned multiple subreddits (some sizeable) for it.
Many there would still support the article and his name being published, and would push for his cancellation.
Many there would still support the article and his name being published, and would push for his cancellation.
> Yes, there are also random crazies.
The issue here is that he's a psychiatrist. Dealing with random crazies, some of whom might literally try to kill him if they knew where he lived, is his day job.
The issue here is that he's a psychiatrist. Dealing with random crazies, some of whom might literally try to kill him if they knew where he lived, is his day job.
Those people already know his real name.
So the extra danger from that direction associated with the NYT publishing his real name in an article about SSC is that they might read that article, discover that Xxxxx Xxxxx who treats them for paranoid schizophrenia also has this blog that says yyyy yyyyy yyy yyyyyy and that zzzzzz zzz zzzzz, and then go after him (using the real name they already had).
The harm there isn't zero, but I think it's much less than the harm that results from giving his real name to people who already knew about SSC and hated it for some reason.
(Also, at present at least, it's easier to go from Scott's real name to his blogging pseudonym than in the other direction with a couple of minutes and a search engine. Neither direction is terribly difficult, but that's no reason why the NYT should make them both easier.)
So the extra danger from that direction associated with the NYT publishing his real name in an article about SSC is that they might read that article, discover that Xxxxx Xxxxx who treats them for paranoid schizophrenia also has this blog that says yyyy yyyyy yyy yyyyyy and that zzzzzz zzz zzzzz, and then go after him (using the real name they already had).
The harm there isn't zero, but I think it's much less than the harm that results from giving his real name to people who already knew about SSC and hated it for some reason.
(Also, at present at least, it's easier to go from Scott's real name to his blogging pseudonym than in the other direction with a couple of minutes and a search engine. Neither direction is terribly difficult, but that's no reason why the NYT should make them both easier.)
DagAgren(1)
>I am genuinely baffled how Scott Alexander's post has turned into hundreds and hundreds of comments on cancel culture, as if it was anything near the #1 reason why he'd be in danger if his name was revealed.
Isn't it obvious that the upcoming NYT articles is going to be a hit piece with the goal of ruining his personal credibility and professional career.
I hope to be wrong, but somehow I don't think so.
>Being famous is dangerous in every era, doubly so in an era where anybody unhinged basically has access to the same level of information you used to need a private investigator to get.
Nobody would really care if it was just some twitter people bitching on twitter. The problem is that media, employers, sponsors, advertisers, etc. listen to them and act on what they think the mob wants.
And we are way past targeting famous people. The step-mother of the Atlanta cop who shot Brooks was fired for having the audacity of defending her step-son on social media. Imagine a world where you fault a mother for not disowning her son!! WaPo put together a 3000 word article attacking and naming a staffer for a Halloween costume she wore two years ago (with no ill intent!). She profusely apologized, but that doesn't matter - she was fired after being publicly humiliated by a noted paper of record who was also her employer. WaPo did that to their own employee!! How about that "Karen" (a modern day slur against women) in San Francisco who merely inquired, very very politely, if a gentleman who was writing out a BLM slogan on a property if he lived at that property .. she was dragged through the mud, forced into a public apology, which was not accepted (apologies are never accepted but instead are used as evidence of guilt) her small business was shut down (after the mob targeted her customers), and her husband was fired from his job.
This is all great stuff.
Isn't it obvious that the upcoming NYT articles is going to be a hit piece with the goal of ruining his personal credibility and professional career.
I hope to be wrong, but somehow I don't think so.
>Being famous is dangerous in every era, doubly so in an era where anybody unhinged basically has access to the same level of information you used to need a private investigator to get.
Nobody would really care if it was just some twitter people bitching on twitter. The problem is that media, employers, sponsors, advertisers, etc. listen to them and act on what they think the mob wants.
And we are way past targeting famous people. The step-mother of the Atlanta cop who shot Brooks was fired for having the audacity of defending her step-son on social media. Imagine a world where you fault a mother for not disowning her son!! WaPo put together a 3000 word article attacking and naming a staffer for a Halloween costume she wore two years ago (with no ill intent!). She profusely apologized, but that doesn't matter - she was fired after being publicly humiliated by a noted paper of record who was also her employer. WaPo did that to their own employee!! How about that "Karen" (a modern day slur against women) in San Francisco who merely inquired, very very politely, if a gentleman who was writing out a BLM slogan on a property if he lived at that property .. she was dragged through the mud, forced into a public apology, which was not accepted (apologies are never accepted but instead are used as evidence of guilt) her small business was shut down (after the mob targeted her customers), and her husband was fired from his job.
This is all great stuff.
> Isn't it obvious that the upcoming NYT articles is going to be a hit piece with the goal of ruining his personal credibility and professional career.
I suppose if i had and axe to grind against NYT it might be "obvious". Even the blog author mentions it would be a "mostly positive piece". Where are you getting your information from?
I suppose if i had and axe to grind against NYT it might be "obvious". Even the blog author mentions it would be a "mostly positive piece". Where are you getting your information from?
>I suppose if i had and axe to grind against NYT it might be "obvious".
Like I said, I hope to be wrong, but I am cynical about the motives of NYT, especially given this quote from the blog post: "He told me it would be a ___mostly___ positive piece about how we were an interesting gathering place for people in tech, and how we were ahead of the curve on some aspects of the coronavirus situation." (emphasis mine) - that's a reporter buttering up Scott Alexander to get a quote and compliance until the hit piece drops.
When that article drops, we'll see. If it is balanced and fair I will own up to being wrong. Gladly. I just don't thinks so.
Like I said, I hope to be wrong, but I am cynical about the motives of NYT, especially given this quote from the blog post: "He told me it would be a ___mostly___ positive piece about how we were an interesting gathering place for people in tech, and how we were ahead of the curve on some aspects of the coronavirus situation." (emphasis mine) - that's a reporter buttering up Scott Alexander to get a quote and compliance until the hit piece drops.
When that article drops, we'll see. If it is balanced and fair I will own up to being wrong. Gladly. I just don't thinks so.
Does the NYT have an obligation to write a fluff piece? You're being "cynical" because of the qualifier "mostly"?
>You're being "cynical" because of the qualifier "mostly"?
I'm being cynical because of what's been happening in these media outlets.
There's not much else to add to this until the article drops.
>Does the NYT have an obligation to write a fluff piece?
They have an obligation to write a fair piece, and I don't believe they will.
I'm being cynical because of what's been happening in these media outlets.
There's not much else to add to this until the article drops.
>Does the NYT have an obligation to write a fluff piece?
They have an obligation to write a fair piece, and I don't believe they will.
The NYT has previously respected the anonymity of others, including an ISIS fighter[0]. That the NYT has a blanket policy about publishing real names is possible, but certainly suspicious.
> Tim Ferris said it well: "The point is this: you don’t need to do anything wrong to get death threats, rape threats, etc. You just need a big enough audience."
True, but a big part of why Scott has such a big audience is his willingness to write about the problems of cancel culture, and cancel culture would almost certainly come after him if he is doxxed.
[0]https://twitter.com/AlanMCole/status/1275446136375898114
> Tim Ferris said it well: "The point is this: you don’t need to do anything wrong to get death threats, rape threats, etc. You just need a big enough audience."
True, but a big part of why Scott has such a big audience is his willingness to write about the problems of cancel culture, and cancel culture would almost certainly come after him if he is doxxed.
[0]https://twitter.com/AlanMCole/status/1275446136375898114
one explanation: the policy exists and symbolizes the ideal for a news organization that prides itself on integrity and transparency. when this journalistic ideal conflicts with the practical concern of creating a story, the organization allows for discretion and trusts the writer to make an ethical decision.
in the ISIS case, the article likely doesn't happen without the fighter's cooperation, so the writer must defer to the subject or risk losing the story.
in the scott alexander case, the article can happen with or without subject cooperation, so the writer can afford to obey the stated policy and increase "transparency" on this story.
in the ISIS case, the article likely doesn't happen without the fighter's cooperation, so the writer must defer to the subject or risk losing the story.
in the scott alexander case, the article can happen with or without subject cooperation, so the writer can afford to obey the stated policy and increase "transparency" on this story.
> one explanation: the policy exists and symbolizes the ideal for a news organization that prides itself on integrity and transparency. when this journalistic ideal conflicts with the practical concern of creating a story, the organization allows for discretion and trusts the writer to make an ethical decision.
There's no indication that the cited policy allows for such discretion.
> in the scott alexander case, the article can happen with or without subject cooperation, so the writer can afford to obey the stated policy and increase "transparency" on this story.
Does that also apply to Virgil Texas of "Chapo Trap House"[1]?
It's clear that the NYT does not, in practice, have a blanket policy against pseudonyms. The writer's claims that it does are therefore at least somewhat BS. Violating the privacy of a practicing mental health professional who is obligated to hide his personal life from his patients is a pretty serious mistake. This could all be some sort of bureaucratic bungling, but as the saying goes: mistakes of this magnitude are rarely innocent.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/us/politics/bernie-sander...
EDIT: see this as well https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23619347
More and more evidence against such a policy, and for the theory that this is a hit piece.
EDIT2: NYT protecting a therapist's identity in 2015 https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1275436187713286144
There's no indication that the cited policy allows for such discretion.
> in the scott alexander case, the article can happen with or without subject cooperation, so the writer can afford to obey the stated policy and increase "transparency" on this story.
Does that also apply to Virgil Texas of "Chapo Trap House"[1]?
It's clear that the NYT does not, in practice, have a blanket policy against pseudonyms. The writer's claims that it does are therefore at least somewhat BS. Violating the privacy of a practicing mental health professional who is obligated to hide his personal life from his patients is a pretty serious mistake. This could all be some sort of bureaucratic bungling, but as the saying goes: mistakes of this magnitude are rarely innocent.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/us/politics/bernie-sander...
EDIT: see this as well https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23619347
More and more evidence against such a policy, and for the theory that this is a hit piece.
EDIT2: NYT protecting a therapist's identity in 2015 https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1275436187713286144
to clarify, the explanation isn't condoning the reporter's behavior. it is simply trying to explain the behavior without assuming malice.
it's obvious that doxxing scott alexander is not necessary for this article. in fact, it's actually quite dangerous given the history of threats.
it's obvious that doxxing scott alexander is not necessary for this article. in fact, it's actually quite dangerous given the history of threats.
> to clarify, the explanation isn't condoning the reporter's behavior. it is simply trying to explain the behavior without assuming malice.
Oh, I understand. And that would be my general default assumption as well. Scott also doesn't assume malice.
It's just that some form of the "malice" interpretation is looking increasingly likely.
Oh, I understand. And that would be my general default assumption as well. Scott also doesn't assume malice.
It's just that some form of the "malice" interpretation is looking increasingly likely.
It got malicious at the point where Scott ALexander pointed out the issues to the reporter and the reporter still refused to protect his identity.
Ya. And even if he was writing on totally un-emotional topics, like a food blog or something, his job is such that patients being able to discover these aspects of his personal life would be likely to pollute his doctor-patient relationship with them. Psychiatrists understandably want to limit what their patients know about them, to keep the focus on the patient and their needs, rather than the personality of their psychiatrist.
I think this is what Scott's more concerned about than anything. I'm sure he worries about canceling and stuff too, but this is really out of concern for his ability to treat patients effectively at his day job.
I think this is what Scott's more concerned about than anything. I'm sure he worries about canceling and stuff too, but this is really out of concern for his ability to treat patients effectively at his day job.
I agree with you that we should focus on the doxxing, not his reasons for staying anonymous. As far as I'm concerned, people don't need a reason to want to be anonymous.
But I think cancel culture is still relevant because it very well may be why the NYT was threatening to dox him.
But I think cancel culture is still relevant because it very well may be why the NYT was threatening to dox him.
Most people don’t have to hide their identity as long as they babble correct talking points. Turn on TV, for example. This is an absolutely ridiculous statement.
>> Tim Ferris said it well: "The point is this: you don’t need to do anything wrong to get death threats, rape threats, etc. You just need a big enough audience."
And that is why we need to abolish anonymity on the internet and ensure traceability. If people can trace threats and harassment, it either won't happen or can be reported.
And that is why we need to abolish anonymity on the internet and ensure traceability. If people can trace threats and harassment, it either won't happen or can be reported.
That's a lot of trust in the government. It's also the exact opposite of what the whole blog post is about, preserving anonymity.
>> That's a lot of trust in the government.
I'd prefer to keep them out of it. I'd prefer technical solutions that ensure we can find out where packets, email, or phone calls come from.
>> It's also the exact opposite of what the whole blog post is about, preserving anonymity.
I imagine a world where you can be annoymous, just not by default. A blogger might use a pseudonym, but refuse incoming comments lacking tracability.
I'd prefer to keep them out of it. I'd prefer technical solutions that ensure we can find out where packets, email, or phone calls come from.
>> It's also the exact opposite of what the whole blog post is about, preserving anonymity.
I imagine a world where you can be annoymous, just not by default. A blogger might use a pseudonym, but refuse incoming comments lacking tracability.
It doesn't take too much imagination to see how easy it would be to write a hit piece.
Scott writes eloquently and in depth, but the news is not about either of those things. Scott has written a few times about problematic issues which have surfaced in recent months and it would be very easy to write "some people say that Scott is ${label}" with just a bit of superficial quotes. Today's climate of online mob justice in partnership with click bait news would not go well for Scott at all.
Scott writes eloquently and in depth, but the news is not about either of those things. Scott has written a few times about problematic issues which have surfaced in recent months and it would be very easy to write "some people say that Scott is ${label}" with just a bit of superficial quotes. Today's climate of online mob justice in partnership with click bait news would not go well for Scott at all.
Scott is the type of individual where literally any side of a political debate can write a hit piece with some quotes, because he considers ALL the sides of a debate. Unfortunately, that's a rare trait these days.
I don't think I've seen anyone right-of-center have anything really bad to say about Scott. I doubt any of those outlets (Breitbart, etc.) would want to do that to him.
This may itself be reason for some people to distrust Scott, except that he's probably done more to bring people to a moderate or left-of-center position on some topics than all the people shouting "racist!" combined.
This may itself be reason for some people to distrust Scott, except that he's probably done more to bring people to a moderate or left-of-center position on some topics than all the people shouting "racist!" combined.
I think this is just because the right is on the cultural defensive right now. Most people are really bad people; they don't process liberal principles intended to protect the powerless (on any dimension) as anything but a hollow tool, to be used when they're being protected and ignored (to the extent possible) when they want to crush their enemies.
That is to say, those who are culturally out of power _need_ to act relatively civilized, because civilization is the only thing that protects them, while those that dominate norm-shaping are free to act as the monsters they truly are. It's no coincidence that so much of the left has started pretending that caring about free speech is only ever a tactical decision to protect unforgivable rightwing views: if you're the kind of morally hollow creature that can't conceive of holding a principle, you also can't conceive of anyone else holding one. (Not incidentally, this is why Scott is so often tarred as alt-right or alt-right-adjacent, despite being pretty firmly on the left).
In the GWB years of an ascendant cultural right, Scott would have likely faced the same threats from the right as he does from the left, over different issues.
That is to say, those who are culturally out of power _need_ to act relatively civilized, because civilization is the only thing that protects them, while those that dominate norm-shaping are free to act as the monsters they truly are. It's no coincidence that so much of the left has started pretending that caring about free speech is only ever a tactical decision to protect unforgivable rightwing views: if you're the kind of morally hollow creature that can't conceive of holding a principle, you also can't conceive of anyone else holding one. (Not incidentally, this is why Scott is so often tarred as alt-right or alt-right-adjacent, despite being pretty firmly on the left).
In the GWB years of an ascendant cultural right, Scott would have likely faced the same threats from the right as he does from the left, over different issues.
> In the GWB years of an ascendant cultural right, Scott would have likely faced the same threats from the right as he does from the left, over different issues.
I agree with your general point about power, but I disagree where cultural power has been historically. Consider, when was the last time the NYT was not the paper of record?
If anything, the cultural right is far more powerful now than it has ever been - at least since Barry Goldwater. And it still isn't on top, but that seems to be the current trajectory.
I agree with your general point about power, but I disagree where cultural power has been historically. Consider, when was the last time the NYT was not the paper of record?
If anything, the cultural right is far more powerful now than it has ever been - at least since Barry Goldwater. And it still isn't on top, but that seems to be the current trajectory.
> In the GWB years of an ascendant cultural right, Scott would have likely faced the same threats from the right as he does from the left, over different issues.
The rationalist/secularist/etc. community was around back then, and that didn't really happen. I agree that a limited incumbent effect does apply, but it seems quite clear that liberal norms and principles really do get more respect on the (non-extreme) right than they do on the left.
The rationalist/secularist/etc. community was around back then, and that didn't really happen. I agree that a limited incumbent effect does apply, but it seems quite clear that liberal norms and principles really do get more respect on the (non-extreme) right than they do on the left.
Sure, but thats not the issue here. It is about naming sources.
The article is about Scott, as a person who runs a popular blog. The source is named "Scott Alexander". There is no need to publish his personal information. If the NYT wants to verify that he is actually a practicing psychiatrist etc, then they can gather that information, do the legwork, publish the information ("NYT can confirm that SA is who he says he is"), without jeopardizing that practice.
The anti-out-of-context-quote-hit-piece-insurance that Sam Harris went to in his recent podcast on police violence etc was insane. I fully understand why, he's been burned by the Twitter mob before, but it's eye-opening to the media-induced reasonable paranoia some "public" people will go through when there's basically three paragraphs of "I'm not saying this is the one and only truth, I believe in equality, justice..." for every one paragraph of stats or opinion they post.
It has a very religious witch hunt feel where you constantly need to assure everybody that you are totally not a member of the out-group and you believe in the same things they do and you really are not possessed by the devil and they really shouldn't burn you, but they may have gotten something a tiny bit wrong in their, of course totally justified, blind rage.
It has a very religious witch hunt feel where you constantly need to assure everybody that you are totally not a member of the out-group and you believe in the same things they do and you really are not possessed by the devil and they really shouldn't burn you, but they may have gotten something a tiny bit wrong in their, of course totally justified, blind rage.
Slate Star Codex says they were expecting a relatively nice article, not a hit piece.
Are you referring to Episode 207? https://overcast.fm/+KhqFMR3J4
I think Sam did a very poor job in that episode -- he was preaching exclusively to the choir. He spends the start of the podcast explaining the important distinction between justified and unjustified police involved killings. This is a very important distinction, and I would love to see data about the racial breakdown of unjustified killings, relative to a racial breakdown of police interactions.
But, Sam then completely abandons this distinction. He discusses "An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force", Roland G. Fryer, Jr. July 2007, a NYC-only study that does not measure unjustified killings.
Then, as usual, he spends an awful lot of time spouting his usual rhetoric of truth, epistemology, science, data, facts, and knowledge. This is merely rhetoric because his reference to that study is clearly meant to be evidence that we have the truth -- that police brutality is the issue, and unjustified killings do not disproportionately affect black Americans. He even discusses the Fryer study and moments later is confidently stating "race isn't the relevant variable". This is a grand claim that can't possibly be justified based on the Fryer study.
All interspersed with more rhetoric such as:
- "expiation of sins" for you Botox as if you're "woke as AOC"
- "ecstasy of ideological conformity"
- "woke analysis" is where "democratic politics goes to die" (probably means Democratic Party politics)
- "social activists playing chicken with the forces of chaos"
- "form of political pornography"
- "unable to speak or even think about facts"
Sam's usual parade of platitudes about epistemology are best understood by another quotation from this episode: "the difference between the branding of a movement and its actual aims, that's why propaganda works".
Are you referring to Episode 207? https://overcast.fm/+KhqFMR3J4
I think Sam did a very poor job in that episode -- he was preaching exclusively to the choir. He spends the start of the podcast explaining the important distinction between justified and unjustified police involved killings. This is a very important distinction, and I would love to see data about the racial breakdown of unjustified killings, relative to a racial breakdown of police interactions.
But, Sam then completely abandons this distinction. He discusses "An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force", Roland G. Fryer, Jr. July 2007, a NYC-only study that does not measure unjustified killings.
Then, as usual, he spends an awful lot of time spouting his usual rhetoric of truth, epistemology, science, data, facts, and knowledge. This is merely rhetoric because his reference to that study is clearly meant to be evidence that we have the truth -- that police brutality is the issue, and unjustified killings do not disproportionately affect black Americans. He even discusses the Fryer study and moments later is confidently stating "race isn't the relevant variable". This is a grand claim that can't possibly be justified based on the Fryer study.
All interspersed with more rhetoric such as:
- "expiation of sins" for you Botox as if you're "woke as AOC"
- "ecstasy of ideological conformity"
- "woke analysis" is where "democratic politics goes to die" (probably means Democratic Party politics)
- "social activists playing chicken with the forces of chaos"
- "form of political pornography"
- "unable to speak or even think about facts"
Sam's usual parade of platitudes about epistemology are best understood by another quotation from this episode: "the difference between the branding of a movement and its actual aims, that's why propaganda works".
> Slate Star Codex says they were expecting a relatively nice article, not a hit piece.
Yeah, I wasn't referencing the article specifically, but the general state. What Sam Harris said at the beginning of that episode (I was talking about the one you linked, but I only read the transcript, I don't have the attention span for podcasts) rang true for me: opening your mouth is risky for normal people, but it's extra risky if you're a publicist/commentator/celebrity and that has an extreme chilling effect.
I don't want to debate his opinions, I don't regularly listen to Harris, but the fact that he felt it's necessary to add so much "please don't take this out of context" left me impressed, and I haven't marked Harris down as somebody who'd do that for effect, to claim victimhood etc. I also don't believe that he does so for his usual audience, because they most likely know his general positions, know that he's not alt-right or a white supremacist and that he may say something that doesn't intuitively sound "okay" but usually has at least some reason for it. On the contrary, I think he does it purely for the Twitter mob who is sure to look for material in whatever he says. And that's really just a sad state of affairs, when any public utterance is basically "my lawyer has advised me not to answer that question" because whatever you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion, will be taken out of context and will be enhanced with rumors and lies.
That's not specific to Sam Harris, of course, and the tactic isn't specific to whatever you want to label the people who hate him. It's pretty universal in both the targets and those that target them.
Yeah, I wasn't referencing the article specifically, but the general state. What Sam Harris said at the beginning of that episode (I was talking about the one you linked, but I only read the transcript, I don't have the attention span for podcasts) rang true for me: opening your mouth is risky for normal people, but it's extra risky if you're a publicist/commentator/celebrity and that has an extreme chilling effect.
I don't want to debate his opinions, I don't regularly listen to Harris, but the fact that he felt it's necessary to add so much "please don't take this out of context" left me impressed, and I haven't marked Harris down as somebody who'd do that for effect, to claim victimhood etc. I also don't believe that he does so for his usual audience, because they most likely know his general positions, know that he's not alt-right or a white supremacist and that he may say something that doesn't intuitively sound "okay" but usually has at least some reason for it. On the contrary, I think he does it purely for the Twitter mob who is sure to look for material in whatever he says. And that's really just a sad state of affairs, when any public utterance is basically "my lawyer has advised me not to answer that question" because whatever you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion, will be taken out of context and will be enhanced with rumors and lies.
That's not specific to Sam Harris, of course, and the tactic isn't specific to whatever you want to label the people who hate him. It's pretty universal in both the targets and those that target them.
it has the feel of the religious witch hunt because that is exactly what is has become. Many of these groups no longer look at data or science or any empirical evidence for the basis of their positions or policy, it is pure emotional dogma at this point. They are non-theistic religions
Political groups have replaced religious groups as providing a sense of meaning and purpose in modern times.
Politics is the new religion. Combine that with destabilizing effects of instant communication and social media and you get what we have now. Essentially divergent realities created by our narrow casted views (news feeds) that create a modern day tower of Babel moment where we literally can't understand each other.
Politics is the new religion. Combine that with destabilizing effects of instant communication and social media and you get what we have now. Essentially divergent realities created by our narrow casted views (news feeds) that create a modern day tower of Babel moment where we literally can't understand each other.
And they heavily share the proselytizing aspect of many religions as well.
I generally doubt that the striking down of religion was a force for good. When we've kept the "group identity generation" only partially in this world and a lot in the next, you can feel all high and mighty knowing that you will go to paradise while the wrong-believers will go to hell, and God will judge everybody.
Now, there's no more God to judge, there's no more "in the afterlife", there's only here and now, and everything becomes an integral part of your identity, from your programming language to your favored comic universe, and it all feels much fiercer. Maybe it's the lack of the after-life where they can be punished, so you need to see them punished in this life.
I generally doubt that the striking down of religion was a force for good. When we've kept the "group identity generation" only partially in this world and a lot in the next, you can feel all high and mighty knowing that you will go to paradise while the wrong-believers will go to hell, and God will judge everybody.
Now, there's no more God to judge, there's no more "in the afterlife", there's only here and now, and everything becomes an integral part of your identity, from your programming language to your favored comic universe, and it all feels much fiercer. Maybe it's the lack of the after-life where they can be punished, so you need to see them punished in this life.
Scott’s “Meditations on Moloch” is a good summary of the underlying issue. It’s too bad I can’t provide a link.
[deleted]
John McWhorter makes this exact claim in his debate on the damage of racism and anti-racism. Its an interesting full debate but here is just his opening remarks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT2rlJe9cuU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT2rlJe9cuU
Reading this made me think of two essays I've recently revisited.
1. The Sound of Silence, by Jessica Livingston
Three years ago she argued that the smartest people are silencing themselves because the downside risk of being attacked for (misinterpretations of) their opinions are too high. People are wary of sharing useful information outside of trusted circles, which serves to consolidate power with insiders – those who are already powerful.
2. What You Can't Say, by Paul Graham
Reflection on how to separate truths that will endure from "moral fashions" particular to a time and place in history. Written over 15 years ago and more relevant today.
> What scares me is that there are moral fashions too. They're just as arbitrary, and just as invisible to most people. But they're much more dangerous. Fashion is mistaken for good design; moral fashion is mistaken for good. Dressing oddly gets you laughed at. Violating moral fashions can get you fired, ostracized, imprisoned, or even killed.
[1] https://foundersatwork.posthaven.com/the-sound-of-silence [2] http://paulgraham.com/say.html
1. The Sound of Silence, by Jessica Livingston
Three years ago she argued that the smartest people are silencing themselves because the downside risk of being attacked for (misinterpretations of) their opinions are too high. People are wary of sharing useful information outside of trusted circles, which serves to consolidate power with insiders – those who are already powerful.
2. What You Can't Say, by Paul Graham
Reflection on how to separate truths that will endure from "moral fashions" particular to a time and place in history. Written over 15 years ago and more relevant today.
> What scares me is that there are moral fashions too. They're just as arbitrary, and just as invisible to most people. But they're much more dangerous. Fashion is mistaken for good design; moral fashion is mistaken for good. Dressing oddly gets you laughed at. Violating moral fashions can get you fired, ostracized, imprisoned, or even killed.
[1] https://foundersatwork.posthaven.com/the-sound-of-silence [2] http://paulgraham.com/say.html
I was just thinking about this now after reading attacks on Yann Lecun on twitter. He's a prominent AI figure (head of facebook research and turing award recipient). My interpretation - he was saying that bias in AI is mostly a problem of data. He didn't say there's no bias or that you can't solve bias with modeling. Just that the model itself isn't what causing the bias. One woman researcher started attacking him and everyone is backing her up... even calling him a racist. I guess a lot of people who work on fairness in AI got offended because they feel he calls their research BS. (which I don't think is what he meant)
I think his points are informative but instead of creating a useful discussion and debate, people focus on attacking him. I wouldn't be surprised if some people will request FB to fire him... (which thankfully won't happen) It's likely next time he will think twice before saying his opinion on social media. That's how toxic social media has become.
Update: Great to see this got so many upvotes so quickly. Just shows how biased (no pun intended) social media like Twitter is, and how concerned people are to say their opinion publicly these days.
I think his points are informative but instead of creating a useful discussion and debate, people focus on attacking him. I wouldn't be surprised if some people will request FB to fire him... (which thankfully won't happen) It's likely next time he will think twice before saying his opinion on social media. That's how toxic social media has become.
Update: Great to see this got so many upvotes so quickly. Just shows how biased (no pun intended) social media like Twitter is, and how concerned people are to say their opinion publicly these days.
I'm in the field - though not as prominent as Yann (who has been very nice and helpful in my few interactions with him) - and your interpretation is off. People are disagreeing with his stance that researchers should not bother exploring bias implications of their research. (He says this is because bias is a problem of data - and therefore we should focus on building cool models and let production engineers worry about training production models on unbiased data.)
People are disagreeing not because of political correctness, but because this is a fundamental mischaracterization of how research works and how it gets transferred to "real world" applications.
(1) Data fuels modern machine learning. It shapes research directions in a really fundamental way. People decide what to work on based on what huge amounts of data they can get their hands on. Saying "engineers should be the ones to worry about bias because it's a data problem" is like saying "I'm a physicist, here's a cool model, I'll let the engineers worry about whether it works on any known particle in any known world."
(2) Most machine learning research is empirical (though not all). It's very rare to see a paper (if not impossible nowadays, since large deep neural networks are so massive and opaque) that works purely off math without showing that its conclusions improve some task on some dataset. No one is doing research without data, and saying "my method is good because it works on this data" means you are making choices and statements about what it means to "work" - which, as we've seen, involves quite a lot of bias.
(3) Almost all prominent ML researchers work for massively rich corporations. He and his colleagues don't work in ivory towers where they develop pure algorithms which are then released over the ivy walls into the wild, to be contaminated by filthy reality. He works for Facebook. He's paid with Facebook money. So why draw this imaginary line between research and production? He is paid to do research that will go into production.
So his statement is so wildly disconnected from research reality that it seems like it was not made in good faith - or at least without much thought - which is what people are responding to.
Also, language tip - a "woman researcher" is a "researcher".
People are disagreeing not because of political correctness, but because this is a fundamental mischaracterization of how research works and how it gets transferred to "real world" applications.
(1) Data fuels modern machine learning. It shapes research directions in a really fundamental way. People decide what to work on based on what huge amounts of data they can get their hands on. Saying "engineers should be the ones to worry about bias because it's a data problem" is like saying "I'm a physicist, here's a cool model, I'll let the engineers worry about whether it works on any known particle in any known world."
(2) Most machine learning research is empirical (though not all). It's very rare to see a paper (if not impossible nowadays, since large deep neural networks are so massive and opaque) that works purely off math without showing that its conclusions improve some task on some dataset. No one is doing research without data, and saying "my method is good because it works on this data" means you are making choices and statements about what it means to "work" - which, as we've seen, involves quite a lot of bias.
(3) Almost all prominent ML researchers work for massively rich corporations. He and his colleagues don't work in ivory towers where they develop pure algorithms which are then released over the ivy walls into the wild, to be contaminated by filthy reality. He works for Facebook. He's paid with Facebook money. So why draw this imaginary line between research and production? He is paid to do research that will go into production.
So his statement is so wildly disconnected from research reality that it seems like it was not made in good faith - or at least without much thought - which is what people are responding to.
Also, language tip - a "woman researcher" is a "researcher".
> He works for Facebook. He's paid with Facebook money. So why draw this imaginary line between research and production? He is paid to do research that will go into production.
This is a silly standard to uphold. The sizable bulk of American academic researchers are at least partially funded by grants made from the US federal budget.
If you were to enforce your standards consistently, then all of those researchers would be held responsible for any eventual usage of their research by the US federal government.
I really doubt you apply the same standard. So, the criticism mostly seems to be an isolated demand for rigor. You're holding Facebook Research to a different standard than the average university researcher funded by a federal grant.
This is a silly standard to uphold. The sizable bulk of American academic researchers are at least partially funded by grants made from the US federal budget.
If you were to enforce your standards consistently, then all of those researchers would be held responsible for any eventual usage of their research by the US federal government.
I really doubt you apply the same standard. So, the criticism mostly seems to be an isolated demand for rigor. You're holding Facebook Research to a different standard than the average university researcher funded by a federal grant.
This seems almost purposefully disingenuous to me.
Yann LeCun isn't receiving a partial research grant from Facebook. He's literally an employee of Facebook. His job title is "VP & Chief AI Scientist" (at least according to LinkedIn).
There's an obvious and clear distinction between an employee and a research grant, and this feels like it's almost wilfully obtuse.
Yann LeCun isn't receiving a partial research grant from Facebook. He's literally an employee of Facebook. His job title is "VP & Chief AI Scientist" (at least according to LinkedIn).
There's an obvious and clear distinction between an employee and a research grant, and this feels like it's almost wilfully obtuse.
Did you read what I wrote?
I don't think his argument is true. (That is, I do think researchers should keep bias in mind when developing machine learning projects.) (Regardless of their funding sources.)
Because of his employment, this argument is a particularly silly one for him to make.
I don't think his argument is true. (That is, I do think researchers should keep bias in mind when developing machine learning projects.) (Regardless of their funding sources.)
Because of his employment, this argument is a particularly silly one for him to make.
Don't have a lot of time to respond now, but will try to do it later. Just a quick note. I agree his comment about engineers need to worry more about bias than researchers is strange. But in my opinion it wasn't the focus of what he was tying to say.
I used "woman researcher" since it was important for the context as people accused him of mansplaining.
I used "woman researcher" since it was important for the context as people accused him of mansplaining.
I agree with all of your points about the diffusion of responsibility that is common in ML, though I think you may not be sensitive enough to the harmful framing being created by the "anti-bias" side.
The original locus of the debate was how the recent face-depixelation paper turned out to depixelate pictures of black faces into ones with white features. That discovery is an interesting and useful showcase for talking about how ML can demonstrate unexpected racial bias, and it should be talked about.
As often happens, the nuances of what exactly this discovery means and what we can learn from it quickly got simplified away. Just hours later, the paper was being showcased as a prime example of unethical and racist research. When LeCun originally commented on this, I took his point to be pretty simple: that for an algorithm trained to depixelate faces, it's no surprise that it fills in the blank with white features because that's just what the FlickFaceHQ dataset looks like. If you had trained it on a majority-black dataset, we would expect the inverse.
That in no way dismisses all of the real concerns people have (and should have!) about bias in ML. But many critics of this paper seem far too willing to catastrophize about how irresponsible and unethical this paper is. LeCun's original point was (as I understand it) that this criticism goes overboard given that the training dataset is an obvious culprit for the observed behavior.
Following his original comment, he has been met with some extremely uncharitable responses. The most circulated example is this tweet (https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1274809417653866496?s...) where a bias-in-ml researcher calls him out without as much as a mention of why he is wrong, or even what he is wrong about. LeCun responds with a 17-tweet thread clarifying his stance, and her response is to claim that educating him is not worth her time (https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1275191341455048704?s...).
The overwhelming attitude there and elsewhere is in support of the attacker. Not of the attacker's arguments - they were never presented - but of the symbolic identity she takes on as the anti-racist fighting the racist old elite.
I apologize if my frustration with their behavior shines through, but it really pains me to see this identity-driven mob mentality take hold in our community. Fixing problems requires talking about them and understanding them, and this really isn't it.
The original locus of the debate was how the recent face-depixelation paper turned out to depixelate pictures of black faces into ones with white features. That discovery is an interesting and useful showcase for talking about how ML can demonstrate unexpected racial bias, and it should be talked about.
As often happens, the nuances of what exactly this discovery means and what we can learn from it quickly got simplified away. Just hours later, the paper was being showcased as a prime example of unethical and racist research. When LeCun originally commented on this, I took his point to be pretty simple: that for an algorithm trained to depixelate faces, it's no surprise that it fills in the blank with white features because that's just what the FlickFaceHQ dataset looks like. If you had trained it on a majority-black dataset, we would expect the inverse.
That in no way dismisses all of the real concerns people have (and should have!) about bias in ML. But many critics of this paper seem far too willing to catastrophize about how irresponsible and unethical this paper is. LeCun's original point was (as I understand it) that this criticism goes overboard given that the training dataset is an obvious culprit for the observed behavior.
Following his original comment, he has been met with some extremely uncharitable responses. The most circulated example is this tweet (https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1274809417653866496?s...) where a bias-in-ml researcher calls him out without as much as a mention of why he is wrong, or even what he is wrong about. LeCun responds with a 17-tweet thread clarifying his stance, and her response is to claim that educating him is not worth her time (https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1275191341455048704?s...).
The overwhelming attitude there and elsewhere is in support of the attacker. Not of the attacker's arguments - they were never presented - but of the symbolic identity she takes on as the anti-racist fighting the racist old elite.
I apologize if my frustration with their behavior shines through, but it really pains me to see this identity-driven mob mentality take hold in our community. Fixing problems requires talking about them and understanding them, and this really isn't it.
I think this is relevant: https://twitter.com/AnimaAnandkumar/status/12711371765294161...
Nvidia AI researcher calling out OpenAI's GPT-2 over how GPT-2 is horrible because it's trained on Reddit (except it includes contents of submissions, and I'm not sure if there's no data except Reddit)
Reddit is supposedly not a good source of data to train NLP models because it's... racist? sexist? Like it's even rightist in general...
Anyway; the table looks horrific - why would they include these results? Oh, turns out paper was on bias: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.01326.pdf
Anyway; one can toy with GPT-2 large (paper is on medium, so it might be different) at talktotransformer.com
"The woman worked as a ": 2x receptionist, teacher's aide, waitress. Man: waiter, fitness instructor, spot worker, (construction?) engineer. Black man: farm hand, carpenter, carpet installer(?), technician. White man: assistant architect, [carpenter but became a shoemaker], general in the army, blacksmith.
I didn't read the paper, I admit, maybe I'm missing something here. But these tweets look like... person responsible should be fired.
Nvidia AI researcher calling out OpenAI's GPT-2 over how GPT-2 is horrible because it's trained on Reddit (except it includes contents of submissions, and I'm not sure if there's no data except Reddit)
Reddit is supposedly not a good source of data to train NLP models because it's... racist? sexist? Like it's even rightist in general...
Anyway; the table looks horrific - why would they include these results? Oh, turns out paper was on bias: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.01326.pdf
Anyway; one can toy with GPT-2 large (paper is on medium, so it might be different) at talktotransformer.com
"The woman worked as a ": 2x receptionist, teacher's aide, waitress. Man: waiter, fitness instructor, spot worker, (construction?) engineer. Black man: farm hand, carpenter, carpet installer(?), technician. White man: assistant architect, [carpenter but became a shoemaker], general in the army, blacksmith.
I didn't read the paper, I admit, maybe I'm missing something here. But these tweets look like... person responsible should be fired.
Very well articulated, thank you!
So, your argument is that you disagree with data being the root of the problem by arguing that data "shapes research directions in a really fundamental way", research is "empirical" (i.e. based on data) and his research can't be isolated from data it'd be used on in production?
Looks to me that you're argumentatively agreeing with Yann.
Looks to me that you're argumentatively agreeing with Yann.
Not really, Yann's original claim (which he sort of kind of partially walked back) was that data is the only source of bias [0][1]. He walked that back somewhat to claim that he was being very particular in this case[2], which is perhaps true, but still harmful. The right thing to do when you make a mistake is apologize. Not double down and badly re-explain what other experts have been telling you back at them.
So then Yann notes that generic models don't have bias[3]. This is, probably, true. I'd be surprised if on the whole, "CNNs" encoded racial bias. But the specific networks we use, say ResNet, which are optimized to perform well on biased datasets, may themselves encode bias in the model architecture[4]. That is, the models that perform best on a biased dataset may themselves be architecturally biased. In fact, we'd sort of expect it.
And that all ignores one of the major issues which Yann entirely skips, but which Timnit covers in some of her work: training on data, even "representative data" encodes the biases that are present in the world today.
You see this come up often with questions about tools like "crime predictors based on faces". In that context it's blatantly obvious that no, what the model learns will not be how criminal someone is, but how they are treated by the justice system today. Those two things might be somewhat correlated, but they're not causally related, and so trying to predict one from the other is a fool's errand and a dangerous fool's errand since the model will serve to encode existing biases behind a facade of legitimacy.
Yann doesn't ever respond to that criticism, seemingly because he hasn't taken the time to actually look at the research in this area.
So insofar as data is the root of the problem, yes. Insofar as the solution is to just use more representative data in the same systems, no. That doesn't fix things. You have to go further and use different systems or even ask different questions (or rule out certain questions as too fraught with problems to be able to ask).
[0]: https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1203211859366576128
[1]: https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1274782757907030016
[2]: https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1275162732166361088
[3]: https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1275167319157870592
[4]: https://twitter.com/hardmaru/status/1275214381509300224. This actually goes a bit further, suggesting that as a leader in the field one has a responsibility to encourage ethics as part of the decision making process in how/what we research, but let's leave that aside.
So then Yann notes that generic models don't have bias[3]. This is, probably, true. I'd be surprised if on the whole, "CNNs" encoded racial bias. But the specific networks we use, say ResNet, which are optimized to perform well on biased datasets, may themselves encode bias in the model architecture[4]. That is, the models that perform best on a biased dataset may themselves be architecturally biased. In fact, we'd sort of expect it.
And that all ignores one of the major issues which Yann entirely skips, but which Timnit covers in some of her work: training on data, even "representative data" encodes the biases that are present in the world today.
You see this come up often with questions about tools like "crime predictors based on faces". In that context it's blatantly obvious that no, what the model learns will not be how criminal someone is, but how they are treated by the justice system today. Those two things might be somewhat correlated, but they're not causally related, and so trying to predict one from the other is a fool's errand and a dangerous fool's errand since the model will serve to encode existing biases behind a facade of legitimacy.
Yann doesn't ever respond to that criticism, seemingly because he hasn't taken the time to actually look at the research in this area.
So insofar as data is the root of the problem, yes. Insofar as the solution is to just use more representative data in the same systems, no. That doesn't fix things. You have to go further and use different systems or even ask different questions (or rule out certain questions as too fraught with problems to be able to ask).
[0]: https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1203211859366576128
[1]: https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1274782757907030016
[2]: https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1275162732166361088
[3]: https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1275167319157870592
[4]: https://twitter.com/hardmaru/status/1275214381509300224. This actually goes a bit further, suggesting that as a leader in the field one has a responsibility to encourage ethics as part of the decision making process in how/what we research, but let's leave that aside.
> Yann doesn't ever respond to that criticism, seemingly because he hasn't taken the time to actually look at the research in this area.
No, that's still a problem with data in a broader sense. The issue is that "how X will be treated by the justice system" is not modeled by the data, so there's no possible pathway for a ML model to become aware of it as something separate from "crime". People who ignore this are expecting ML to do things it cannot possibly do - and that's not even a fact about "bias"; it's a fact about the fundamentals of any data-based inquiry whatsoever.
No, that's still a problem with data in a broader sense. The issue is that "how X will be treated by the justice system" is not modeled by the data, so there's no possible pathway for a ML model to become aware of it as something separate from "crime". People who ignore this are expecting ML to do things it cannot possibly do - and that's not even a fact about "bias"; it's a fact about the fundamentals of any data-based inquiry whatsoever.
I hope you read to the end of my post where I address that:
> So insofar as data is the root of the problem, yes. Insofar as the solution is to just use more representative data in the same systems, no. That doesn't fix things.
Ultimately Yann's proposals are still to use "better data" whereas all the ethics people are (and have been) screaming no, you can't use better data because it doesn't exist. He doesn't acknowledge that.
And the hairs Yann is trying to split here are ultimately irrelevant[1] and probably harmful[2]. And as someone with a large platform, addressing those issues in a straightforward way is far, far superior to trying to split those hairs over twitter.
From a meta perspective, his tweetstorm didn't add anything to the conversation that Dr. Gebru and her collaborators aren't already aware of. Nor did Yann's overall take away help to inform the average twitter user on these issues. In fact, they're more likely to take away the opposite conclusion: that with good enough data we can ask these questions in a fair way.
But as you rightly conclude there are flaws in any data based inquiry. Yann doesn't concede that.
[1]: https://twitter.com/isbellHFh/status/1275184863159685121
[2]: https://twitter.com/hardmaru/status/1275088134238162944
> So insofar as data is the root of the problem, yes. Insofar as the solution is to just use more representative data in the same systems, no. That doesn't fix things.
Ultimately Yann's proposals are still to use "better data" whereas all the ethics people are (and have been) screaming no, you can't use better data because it doesn't exist. He doesn't acknowledge that.
And the hairs Yann is trying to split here are ultimately irrelevant[1] and probably harmful[2]. And as someone with a large platform, addressing those issues in a straightforward way is far, far superior to trying to split those hairs over twitter.
From a meta perspective, his tweetstorm didn't add anything to the conversation that Dr. Gebru and her collaborators aren't already aware of. Nor did Yann's overall take away help to inform the average twitter user on these issues. In fact, they're more likely to take away the opposite conclusion: that with good enough data we can ask these questions in a fair way.
But as you rightly conclude there are flaws in any data based inquiry. Yann doesn't concede that.
[1]: https://twitter.com/isbellHFh/status/1275184863159685121
[2]: https://twitter.com/hardmaru/status/1275088134238162944
I'm not sure that Yann was trying to split hairs there. He was reasoning about the issue from first principles (e.g. the problem-domain vs. architecture vs. data distinction) and then failing to carry his reasoning thru to the reasonable conclusion that you mention re: the inherent flaws of any data-based modeling. Criticizing his take wrt. these issues is constructive; being careless about what his actual views are is not.
> Those two things might be somewhat correlated, but they're not causally related,
That's kinda bold claim. Are you arguing that current justice system just picks up people at random, and assigns them crimes at random, with no correlation with their actions? I mean, not some bias towards here or there, but no causal relationship between person's actions and justice system's reactions at all? That's... bold.
But if this is the case, then the whole discussion is pointless. If justice system is not related to people's action then there's no possible improvement to it, since if the actions are not present as an input, then no change in the models would change anything - you can change how exactly random it is, but you can't change the basic fact it is random. What's the point of discussing any change at all?
> Insofar as the solution is to just use more representative data in the same systems, no.
If by "same systems" you mean systems pre-trained on biased data, then of course adding representative data won't fix them. And of course if the choice of model is done on the basis of biased data then this choice propagates the bias of the data, so it should be accounted for. But I still don't see where the disagreement is, and yet less basis for claims like "harmful".
That's kinda bold claim. Are you arguing that current justice system just picks up people at random, and assigns them crimes at random, with no correlation with their actions? I mean, not some bias towards here or there, but no causal relationship between person's actions and justice system's reactions at all? That's... bold.
But if this is the case, then the whole discussion is pointless. If justice system is not related to people's action then there's no possible improvement to it, since if the actions are not present as an input, then no change in the models would change anything - you can change how exactly random it is, but you can't change the basic fact it is random. What's the point of discussing any change at all?
> Insofar as the solution is to just use more representative data in the same systems, no.
If by "same systems" you mean systems pre-trained on biased data, then of course adding representative data won't fix them. And of course if the choice of model is done on the basis of biased data then this choice propagates the bias of the data, so it should be accounted for. But I still don't see where the disagreement is, and yet less basis for claims like "harmful".
> I mean, not some bias towards here or there, but no causal relationship between person's actions and justice system's reactions at all?
It depends on what you mean by causal. Does criminal behavior cause interactions with the justice system? Yes. But not engaging in criminal behavior doesn't prevent interactions with the justice system (for specific vulnerable subpopulations). So would you say that ReLU shows a causal relationship between criminality on the X axis and how the justice system treats you on the Y? I don't think I would.
In some sense btw this is what Timnit's "Gender Shades" paper looks at, which is that even if a classifier is "good" in general, it can be terrible on specific subpopulations. Similarly, even if there is a causal relationship across the entire population, that relationship may not be causal on specific subpopulations.
And of course, that ignores broader problems around our justice system being constructed to cause recidivism in certain cases. In such situations, interactions with the justice system cause criminal behavior later on. So clearly, in general since Y is causal on X, X can't be causal on Y.
> But if this is the case, then the whole discussion is pointless.
No! Because people trust computers more than they trust people. Computers have a veil of legitimacy and impartiality that people do not. (no really, there's a few studies that show that people will trust machines more than people in similar circumstances). Adding legitimacy through a fake impartiality to a broken system is bad because it raises the activation energy to reform the system.
At it's core, that's probably the biggest issue that Yann is missing. Even in cases where an AI model can perfectly recreate the existing biases we have in society and do no worse, we've still made things worse by further entrenching those biases.
> But I still don't see where the disagreement is, and yet less basis for claims like "harmful".
So I think an important precursor question here is if you believe the pursuit of truth for truth's sake is worthwhile, even when you have reason to believe the pursuit of truth will cause net harm? Imagine you have a magic 8 ball that when given a question about the universe will tell you whether or not your pursuit of the answer to that question will ultimately be good or bad (in your ethical framework, it's a very fancy 8-ball). It doesn't tell you what the answer is, or even if you'll be able to find the answer, only what the impact of your epistemological endeavor will be on the wider world.
If, given a negative outcome, you'd still pursue the question, I don't think we have common ground here. But assuming you don't agree that knowledge is valuable for knowledges sake, and instead that it's only valuable for the good it has on society, we have common ground.
In that case, you have an ethical obligation to consider how your research may be used. If you build a model, even an impossibly fair one, to do something, and it's put in the hands of biased users, that will harm people. This is very similar to the common research ethics question of asking how your research will be used. But applied ML (even research-y applied ML) is in a weird space because applied ML is all about, at a meta level, taking observations about the world, training a box on those observations, and then sticking that box into the world where it will now influence things, so you have effects on both ends, how the box is trained and how the box will influence.
Like, in many contexts "representative" or "fair" is contextual. Or at least the tradeoffs between cost and representativity make it contextual. Yann rightly notes that the same model trained on "representative" datasets in Senegal and the US will behave differently. So how do you define "representative"? How do you, as a researcher, even know that the model architecture you come up with that performs well on a representative US dataset will perform equally well on a representative Senegalese dataset (remember how we agreed that model architecture itself could encode certain biases)? Will it be fair if you use the pretrained US model but tune it on Senegalese data, or will Senegalese users need to retrain from scratch, while European users could tune?
Data engineers will of course need to make the decisions on a per-case basis, but they're less familiar with the model and its peculiarities than the model architects are, so how can the data engineers hope to make the right decisions without guidance? This is where "Model Cards for Model Reporting" comes in. And in some cases this goes further to "well we can't really see ethical uses for this tool, so we'll limit research in this direction" which can be seen in some circles of the CV community at the moment, especially w.r.t. facial recognition and the unavoidable issues of police, state, and discriminatory uses that will continue to embed existing societal biases.
And as a semi aside statements like this[0] read as incredibly condescending, which doesn't help.
[0]: https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1275162732166361088
It depends on what you mean by causal. Does criminal behavior cause interactions with the justice system? Yes. But not engaging in criminal behavior doesn't prevent interactions with the justice system (for specific vulnerable subpopulations). So would you say that ReLU shows a causal relationship between criminality on the X axis and how the justice system treats you on the Y? I don't think I would.
In some sense btw this is what Timnit's "Gender Shades" paper looks at, which is that even if a classifier is "good" in general, it can be terrible on specific subpopulations. Similarly, even if there is a causal relationship across the entire population, that relationship may not be causal on specific subpopulations.
And of course, that ignores broader problems around our justice system being constructed to cause recidivism in certain cases. In such situations, interactions with the justice system cause criminal behavior later on. So clearly, in general since Y is causal on X, X can't be causal on Y.
> But if this is the case, then the whole discussion is pointless.
No! Because people trust computers more than they trust people. Computers have a veil of legitimacy and impartiality that people do not. (no really, there's a few studies that show that people will trust machines more than people in similar circumstances). Adding legitimacy through a fake impartiality to a broken system is bad because it raises the activation energy to reform the system.
At it's core, that's probably the biggest issue that Yann is missing. Even in cases where an AI model can perfectly recreate the existing biases we have in society and do no worse, we've still made things worse by further entrenching those biases.
> But I still don't see where the disagreement is, and yet less basis for claims like "harmful".
So I think an important precursor question here is if you believe the pursuit of truth for truth's sake is worthwhile, even when you have reason to believe the pursuit of truth will cause net harm? Imagine you have a magic 8 ball that when given a question about the universe will tell you whether or not your pursuit of the answer to that question will ultimately be good or bad (in your ethical framework, it's a very fancy 8-ball). It doesn't tell you what the answer is, or even if you'll be able to find the answer, only what the impact of your epistemological endeavor will be on the wider world.
If, given a negative outcome, you'd still pursue the question, I don't think we have common ground here. But assuming you don't agree that knowledge is valuable for knowledges sake, and instead that it's only valuable for the good it has on society, we have common ground.
In that case, you have an ethical obligation to consider how your research may be used. If you build a model, even an impossibly fair one, to do something, and it's put in the hands of biased users, that will harm people. This is very similar to the common research ethics question of asking how your research will be used. But applied ML (even research-y applied ML) is in a weird space because applied ML is all about, at a meta level, taking observations about the world, training a box on those observations, and then sticking that box into the world where it will now influence things, so you have effects on both ends, how the box is trained and how the box will influence.
Like, in many contexts "representative" or "fair" is contextual. Or at least the tradeoffs between cost and representativity make it contextual. Yann rightly notes that the same model trained on "representative" datasets in Senegal and the US will behave differently. So how do you define "representative"? How do you, as a researcher, even know that the model architecture you come up with that performs well on a representative US dataset will perform equally well on a representative Senegalese dataset (remember how we agreed that model architecture itself could encode certain biases)? Will it be fair if you use the pretrained US model but tune it on Senegalese data, or will Senegalese users need to retrain from scratch, while European users could tune?
Data engineers will of course need to make the decisions on a per-case basis, but they're less familiar with the model and its peculiarities than the model architects are, so how can the data engineers hope to make the right decisions without guidance? This is where "Model Cards for Model Reporting" comes in. And in some cases this goes further to "well we can't really see ethical uses for this tool, so we'll limit research in this direction" which can be seen in some circles of the CV community at the moment, especially w.r.t. facial recognition and the unavoidable issues of police, state, and discriminatory uses that will continue to embed existing societal biases.
And as a semi aside statements like this[0] read as incredibly condescending, which doesn't help.
[0]: https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1275162732166361088
> It depends on what you mean by causal.
I mean P(being in justice system|being actual criminal) > P(being in justice system), and substrantially so. Moreover, P(being criminal|being in justice system) > P(being criminal). In plain words, if you sit in jail, you're substantially more like to be an actual criminal than a random person on the street, and if you're a criminal, you're substantially more like to end up in jail than a random person on the street. That's what I see as causal relationship. Of course it's not binary - not every criminal ends up in jail, and innocent people do. But the system is very substantially biased towards punishing criminals, thus establishing causal relationship.
There are some caveats to this, as our justice system defines some things that definitely should not be a crime (like consuming substances the goverment does not approve of for random reasons) as a crime. But I think the above conslusion still holds regardless of this, even though becoming somewhat weaker if you not call such people criminals. It is, of course, dependant on societal norms, but no data models would change those.
> If you build a model, even an impossibly fair one, to do something, and it's put in the hands of biased users, that will harm people.
That is certainly possible. But if you build a shovel, somebody might use it to hit other person over the head. You can't prevent misuse of any technology. According to the Bible, the first murder happened in the first generation of people that were born - and while not many believe in this as literal truth now, there's a valid point here. People are inherently capable of evil, and denying technology won't help it. You can't make the word better by suppressing all research that can be abused (i.e. all research at all). You can mitigate potential abuse, of course, but I don't think "never use models because they could be biased and abused" is a good answer. "Know how models can be biased and explicitly account for that in the decisions" would be better one.
> his[0] read as incredibly condescending, which doesn't help.
Didn't read condescending to me. Maybe I do miss some context but it looks like he's saying he's not making generic claim but only a specific claim about a very specific narrow situation. Mixing these two is all too common nowdays - somebody claims "X can be Y if conditions A and B are true" and people start reading it as "all X are always Y" and make far-reaching conclusions from it and jump into personal shaming campaign.
I mean P(being in justice system|being actual criminal) > P(being in justice system), and substrantially so. Moreover, P(being criminal|being in justice system) > P(being criminal). In plain words, if you sit in jail, you're substantially more like to be an actual criminal than a random person on the street, and if you're a criminal, you're substantially more like to end up in jail than a random person on the street. That's what I see as causal relationship. Of course it's not binary - not every criminal ends up in jail, and innocent people do. But the system is very substantially biased towards punishing criminals, thus establishing causal relationship.
There are some caveats to this, as our justice system defines some things that definitely should not be a crime (like consuming substances the goverment does not approve of for random reasons) as a crime. But I think the above conslusion still holds regardless of this, even though becoming somewhat weaker if you not call such people criminals. It is, of course, dependant on societal norms, but no data models would change those.
> If you build a model, even an impossibly fair one, to do something, and it's put in the hands of biased users, that will harm people.
That is certainly possible. But if you build a shovel, somebody might use it to hit other person over the head. You can't prevent misuse of any technology. According to the Bible, the first murder happened in the first generation of people that were born - and while not many believe in this as literal truth now, there's a valid point here. People are inherently capable of evil, and denying technology won't help it. You can't make the word better by suppressing all research that can be abused (i.e. all research at all). You can mitigate potential abuse, of course, but I don't think "never use models because they could be biased and abused" is a good answer. "Know how models can be biased and explicitly account for that in the decisions" would be better one.
> his[0] read as incredibly condescending, which doesn't help.
Didn't read condescending to me. Maybe I do miss some context but it looks like he's saying he's not making generic claim but only a specific claim about a very specific narrow situation. Mixing these two is all too common nowdays - somebody claims "X can be Y if conditions A and B are true" and people start reading it as "all X are always Y" and make far-reaching conclusions from it and jump into personal shaming campaign.
[deleted]
It has been this way for a while. Outrage/cancel culture is an absolute pox upon our population that really needs to stop.
Isn't a large part of this down to the forum of communication vs. the level of discourse? I mean, if you want to have a nuanced, balanced discussion about a potentially sensitive topic you just can't do that on twtter, SMS, message board, etc.
Even on HN you see issues and that's will pretty tight tribal norms, moderation and topics where commenters aren't usually deeply or emotionally involved.
I agree with your overall opinion, but i think that change actually starts with people reflecting on the impact of the chosen medium on their message. Not self-censorship but "positioning"
Even on HN you see issues and that's will pretty tight tribal norms, moderation and topics where commenters aren't usually deeply or emotionally involved.
I agree with your overall opinion, but i think that change actually starts with people reflecting on the impact of the chosen medium on their message. Not self-censorship but "positioning"
> I mean, if you want to have a nuanced, balanced discussion about a potentially sensitive topic you just can't do that on twtter, SMS, message board, etc.
Lots of people are canceled because they said or did something in the real world that was dragged onto Twitter, the New York Times, Reddit, or some other cesspool. It's not as easy as "don't expect substantial debate from toxic platforms".
Further, you absolutely touch on sensitive issues provided you espouse a certain position, and it needn't even be a majority opinion nor an opinion that is shared by a majority of the people you purport to defend. It needn't be supported by evidence, and in fact citing the evidence is a damnable offense.
Lastly, I don't think the problem is just "nuanced debate on social media platforms is just too hard". It's certainly difficult, but if canceling were down to that, it would look like everyone canceling everyone else. Instead it looks like one relatively small, well-defined group (or as well-defined as groups tend to get) cancelling everyone else. Social media debate is certainly messy and hard to make productive, but this doesn't explain cancel culture. I posit if you simply weaken this group by reinforcing free speech norms, debate on social media would be much less toxic (not perfect--we're still dealing with humans, after all, but much better than it is presently).
Lots of people are canceled because they said or did something in the real world that was dragged onto Twitter, the New York Times, Reddit, or some other cesspool. It's not as easy as "don't expect substantial debate from toxic platforms".
Further, you absolutely touch on sensitive issues provided you espouse a certain position, and it needn't even be a majority opinion nor an opinion that is shared by a majority of the people you purport to defend. It needn't be supported by evidence, and in fact citing the evidence is a damnable offense.
Lastly, I don't think the problem is just "nuanced debate on social media platforms is just too hard". It's certainly difficult, but if canceling were down to that, it would look like everyone canceling everyone else. Instead it looks like one relatively small, well-defined group (or as well-defined as groups tend to get) cancelling everyone else. Social media debate is certainly messy and hard to make productive, but this doesn't explain cancel culture. I posit if you simply weaken this group by reinforcing free speech norms, debate on social media would be much less toxic (not perfect--we're still dealing with humans, after all, but much better than it is presently).
that is a fair statement. I don't think you're wrong about it, by any means. I do think that we can't lay the entire blame on the medium of communication, though, either. People really need to take a step back when they find themselves falling into this mindset and reset. Part of the issue, I believe, is a genuine lack of critical thinking and compassion on most online platforms that spills over into everyday communication. Instead of getting angry about what you may think someone is trying to say, maybe make sure they said what you think they said before being outraged about it. Also, this whole 'staying silent is the same as being against us' notion is toxic as hell. I've seen many who have a decent platform on twitter or youtube get attacked for simply remaining quiet about some of the more visible topics lately.
I think if by some divine miracle Twitter disappeared and some mysterious supernatural force prevented re-creating it by any means - our culture probably would be much better off. There are some excellent people on Twitter but by now they're just giving legitimacy to the cesspool. Twitter adds nothing to them and they'd be as well - probably much better - on a different platform.
I am very likely naive in these circumstances, but I honestly don't understand how cancel culture can work at all. So there are some voices on twitter who loudly express their immature mob mentality. Why don't all the sane people just block them and ignore them, and then go on with their lives as if nothing happened?
If it was just a few voices on Twitter, it would be less of a problem. But it's also journalists, academics, grievance entrepreneurs of various stripes — all of whom exert an influence on the general public. It's businesses that don't want to get on the wrong side of those people. And it's employees of those businesses who don't want to get fired.
"Cancel culture" is just a new spin on scapegoating, behavioral contagion, and public shaming, all of which have a very long history.
"Cancel culture" is just a new spin on scapegoating, behavioral contagion, and public shaming, all of which have a very long history.
> Why don't all the sane people just block them and ignore them, and then go on with their lives
Because ‘sane people’ does not include your employer, who will throw you to the mob to appease them. In the US that also means losing your health insurance, so it can be a death sentence for you or your loved ones.
(I'll regret posting this when I'm starving in a gutter.)
Because ‘sane people’ does not include your employer, who will throw you to the mob to appease them. In the US that also means losing your health insurance, so it can be a death sentence for you or your loved ones.
(I'll regret posting this when I'm starving in a gutter.)
> Why don't all the sane people just block them and ignore them, and then go on with their lives as if nothing happened?
They can't afford to do that, because this "mob" is actively dangerous. They will slander their enemies with all sorts of baseless accusations, call their workplaces to try and get them fired, manufacture false flag harrassment/cyberbulling and try to attribute it to them, etc. It's no different from the 8chan trolls - in fact they come from adjacent Internet subcultures, quite literally.
They can't afford to do that, because this "mob" is actively dangerous. They will slander their enemies with all sorts of baseless accusations, call their workplaces to try and get them fired, manufacture false flag harrassment/cyberbulling and try to attribute it to them, etc. It's no different from the 8chan trolls - in fact they come from adjacent Internet subcultures, quite literally.
I don't see why would you not include the 8channers who do the exact same thing to prominent women in games or anti-vaxxers trying to destroy the lives of doctors/researchers. There's no difference in tactics or goals.
Probably because 8channers and anti-vaxxers aren't successful in getting people fired, because they don't wield any power among legitimate institutions.
They are successful at making people's lives miserable through harassment like death threats and swatting, and unsurprisingly, those tactics are universally reviled.
They are successful at making people's lives miserable through harassment like death threats and swatting, and unsurprisingly, those tactics are universally reviled.
> Probably because 8channers and anti-vaxxers aren't successful in getting people fired, because they don't wield any power among legitimate institutions.
Notable exception: Donglegate; a person was cancelled, then the person cancelling got cancelled - her company was DDoSed until she was gone*
Hilarious.
* well, that's what I want to believe because it's more interesting; it's possible backlash of people against first cancellation had it's part in that.
Notable exception: Donglegate; a person was cancelled, then the person cancelling got cancelled - her company was DDoSed until she was gone*
Hilarious.
* well, that's what I want to believe because it's more interesting; it's possible backlash of people against first cancellation had it's part in that.
Yea, I didn't remember anything about a DDoS being the reason Richards was fired, as opposed to just a PR person making a splash and bringing unwanted attention to her company. A non-central case of cancellation, and I have no real sympathy for Richards as a person, but it still sucks that it happened.
Because it gets very scary once the handful of truly unhinged people start doxxing and posting graphic and detailed threats and showing up at your house.
Just look at the death threats someone like Fauci is getting for doing his job and informing the public. Not that many people want to deal with being a public target to the worst actors in society.
Just look at the death threats someone like Fauci is getting for doing his job and informing the public. Not that many people want to deal with being a public target to the worst actors in society.
If silence is violence, then destroying a person's ability to maintain employment is also violence. And should be treated as such by the courts.
It reminds me of the (nearly cliche, but timeless) quote from MLK about riots:
Please note that I have specifically used the term "understandably" above as opposed to, say, "justly." You may feel a particular instance is or isn't just, but even if one vehemently disagrees with the practice it is typically understandable.
Consider that "cancelling" is often invoked in response to acts (sexual assault, racism) that have been regarded as wrong and/or illegal for millennia. And yet, those acts persist. Clearly the current system doesn't do enough to prevent them. So folks feel the need to go outside the system. "Cancel culture" is best understood as a symptom and not the problem.
"I think that we’ve got to see that a riot is the
language of the unheard"
Please note that I have specifically used the term "understandably" above as opposed to, say, "justly." You may feel a particular instance is or isn't just, but even if one vehemently disagrees with the practice it is typically understandable.
Consider that "cancelling" is often invoked in response to acts (sexual assault, racism) that have been regarded as wrong and/or illegal for millennia. And yet, those acts persist. Clearly the current system doesn't do enough to prevent them. So folks feel the need to go outside the system. "Cancel culture" is best understood as a symptom and not the problem.
Sure, but it's also got a great deal to do with political identity and group signalling.
In the modern age (and forever, probably, but more quietly / less permanently), we are defined by what we're outraged by.
So we've ended up in a situation where both ends of the spectrum have each individually out-outraged themselves into two very different but (probably) equally irrational corners, where to try bring some nuance and depth back in is to become a social pariah. To do anything less than express equal outrage about the issue du jour is to become a social pariah.
Obviously most of the issues themselves are valid points of conversation at their root, and I certainly don't think that all of the people using science or rationalist labels are doing so genuinely and not as a cover for their own identity bullshit or actual bigotry.
But that's orthogonal to the observation that it seems true that we simply can't have a conversation anymore about certain trigger topics. Even my stating this very observation should probably (due to the current state of our collective discourse) invoke some thoughts about my motivations: which minority group/s does jddj take issue with? Is he transphobic? He mustn't realise how much of the repression of women has simply been normalised for him.
Whether it's a symptom or a standalone issue isn't really important. The point is that it's not useful as a tool for beneficial societal change, instead it's a tool for gesturing vaguely and it's a crutch that we lean on so as to not need to truly engage with or wade into the uncomfortably nuanced grey areas which naturally surround every issue.
But on the left we've absolutely embraced it, to a fault. Unfortunately, and not that I could do any better in their situation, those on the left who have had a brush with it often go on to make cancel culture an identity issue of their own, and discourse suffers further for it (looking at you Sam Harris).
Agreed that it's a symptom (not necessarily of repression, but more of polarisation). I don't agree that that characterisation is enough to get it a free pass.
In the modern age (and forever, probably, but more quietly / less permanently), we are defined by what we're outraged by.
So we've ended up in a situation where both ends of the spectrum have each individually out-outraged themselves into two very different but (probably) equally irrational corners, where to try bring some nuance and depth back in is to become a social pariah. To do anything less than express equal outrage about the issue du jour is to become a social pariah.
Obviously most of the issues themselves are valid points of conversation at their root, and I certainly don't think that all of the people using science or rationalist labels are doing so genuinely and not as a cover for their own identity bullshit or actual bigotry.
But that's orthogonal to the observation that it seems true that we simply can't have a conversation anymore about certain trigger topics. Even my stating this very observation should probably (due to the current state of our collective discourse) invoke some thoughts about my motivations: which minority group/s does jddj take issue with? Is he transphobic? He mustn't realise how much of the repression of women has simply been normalised for him.
Whether it's a symptom or a standalone issue isn't really important. The point is that it's not useful as a tool for beneficial societal change, instead it's a tool for gesturing vaguely and it's a crutch that we lean on so as to not need to truly engage with or wade into the uncomfortably nuanced grey areas which naturally surround every issue.
But on the left we've absolutely embraced it, to a fault. Unfortunately, and not that I could do any better in their situation, those on the left who have had a brush with it often go on to make cancel culture an identity issue of their own, and discourse suffers further for it (looking at you Sam Harris).
Agreed that it's a symptom (not necessarily of repression, but more of polarisation). I don't agree that that characterisation is enough to get it a free pass.
In the modern age (and forever, probably, but more quietly /
less permanently), we are defined by what we're outraged by.
There's a unfortunate implication in your words, though, regarding "outrage."
Nobody would ever begrudge a fellow human being a sense of outrage regarding something they feel is legitimate. If your neighbor child was kidnapped, you would never criticize them for feeling outraged (among other emotions) because naturally, that would be a perfectly reasonable way for them to feel.
So when you criticize people for feeling outraged, you are clearly dismissing the validity of their claims, and/or insinuating an ad hominum attack against them.
Instead of policing their tone, why not just discuss the thing they're angry about?
Not all outrage is justified, but there are a lot of things in the world worth making noise about. Some are life and death.
But that's orthogonal to the observation that it seems true that
we simply can't have a conversation anymore about certain trigger topics.
One, I'm a fan of conversation, but some topics don't deserve conversation, especially if conversation hasn't solved the problem in the past. With the benefit of hindsight, we can look back through history and spot plenty of these. There were plenty of people who said, "hey! let's not get all uppity about slavery! let's really think hard about this!" and history does not look kindly upon them. There is no middle ground there and no compromise possible. Most issues are not so clear-cut, but some are.
Two, there is a lot of inequality in the world, and "conversation" often (in effect) means that the oppressing class is once again passing the burden off to the oppressed class. As a white person in America, it is my job to understand things regarding inequality. It is not black folks' job to explain it to me. Though, of course, there are no shortage of black voices from which to learn. In general, frankly, a lot of "conversation" ought to be replaced by listening.
He mustn't realise how much of the repression of women has simply
been normalised for him.
But yes, an awful lot of bad things have been normalized within us.
There are really two ways we can react to that. We can view those realizations as attacks and attempts to "guilt" us. Or we can see those as opportunities to get better.
Like literally everybody, I'm far from perfect, but I do like to use my engineer's mindset to try and improve the things I can.
Whether it's a symptom or a standalone issue isn't really important.
The point is that it's not useful as a tool for beneficial societal change,
instead it's a tool for gesturing vaguely and it's a crutch that we lean on
so as to not need to truly engage with or wade into the uncomfortably
nuanced grey areas which naturally surround every issue.
Here's the thing: there's nothing wrong with bumper stickers or maybe even a little rabble-rousing on social media in favor of $YOUR_CAUSE unless that's all you're doing and you've fooled yourself into thinking that's enough.
Again, this is kind of an ad-hominum attack where you assume the people doing those things aren't doing useful things, haven't thought deeply about those "grey areas", etc.
Some of these missed the mark a bit, but broadly speaking I agree with most of these points.
There are definitely, for instance, topics which the typical Free Speech proponents get most vocal about which I think simply aren't worth talking about because either they are clearly just bait, or the harms obviously outweigh the possible benefits. These include that bullshit about the IQ differences between ethnicities, a lot of gender stuff, what flags/foods/songs/whatever children are exposed to at school, and other things of that nature.
Similarly, I'm not proposing that conversation be used in lieu of real change. Conversation hasn't worked and is unlikely to work to reduce police brutality, for example, and it simply doesn't matter to me whether data can be found which does or doesn't support the idea that black people are unfairly targeted there, the movement seems like a fair one to me based on my life experience -- and my opinion doesn't really matter here either, as someone who has largely been unaffected.
My complaint only holds in the extreme. Unfortunately, a lot of our lives are now lived in that band.
Mostly agreed on the ad hominem stuff.
There are definitely, for instance, topics which the typical Free Speech proponents get most vocal about which I think simply aren't worth talking about because either they are clearly just bait, or the harms obviously outweigh the possible benefits. These include that bullshit about the IQ differences between ethnicities, a lot of gender stuff, what flags/foods/songs/whatever children are exposed to at school, and other things of that nature.
Similarly, I'm not proposing that conversation be used in lieu of real change. Conversation hasn't worked and is unlikely to work to reduce police brutality, for example, and it simply doesn't matter to me whether data can be found which does or doesn't support the idea that black people are unfairly targeted there, the movement seems like a fair one to me based on my life experience -- and my opinion doesn't really matter here either, as someone who has largely been unaffected.
My complaint only holds in the extreme. Unfortunately, a lot of our lives are now lived in that band.
Mostly agreed on the ad hominem stuff.
[deleted]
Really enjoyed reading this level headed discussion, thank you
Is this not victim blaming? If you attempt to ruin someone's life because they said "guacamole nigga penis" I don't think you can use "we live in a society" as justification. Seems like a flimsy excuse. Literal KKK members feel like they need to "go outside the system" to harm black people, does that make lynching okay?
Beyond that, characterizing cancel culture as "going outside the system" is silly. It's literally tattling, how much more sucking up to the system could one be? If "the system" (aka the overall collection of people in positions of power) was a-okay with sexual assault and racism cancel culture wouldn't exist because you wouldn't be able to complain to bosses, schools, etc. about people raping or being racist.
Beyond that, characterizing cancel culture as "going outside the system" is silly. It's literally tattling, how much more sucking up to the system could one be? If "the system" (aka the overall collection of people in positions of power) was a-okay with sexual assault and racism cancel culture wouldn't exist because you wouldn't be able to complain to bosses, schools, etc. about people raping or being racist.
Literal KKK members feel like they need to "go
outside the system" to harm black people, does
that make lynching okay?
My initial post said nothing to indicate that cancel culture was a good thing, or that it always represented a just cause.
Nor did it say that "going outside the system" always represented a just cause, etc.
> But when groups go unheard, feel a system is unjust, and feel unable to change the system they understandably seek to go outside the system.
They're being heard loud and clear. That's the problem. Their incessant whining and searching for the "problematic" behind every issue is crowding out reasonable discourse and discussion.
It's a form of mob rule and it's progressing from tiresome to downright hideous as more and more careers are destroyed by its vindictiveness.
> "cancelling" is often invoked in response to acts (sexual assault, racism) that have been regarded as wrong and/or illegal for millennia
You have it upside down. Cancelling is often the result of applying today's morals on yesterday's actions. People/books/movies/statues weren't "cancelled" before because nobody had a problem before. But now everything's retrospectively a target of the new moral crusaders.
They're being heard loud and clear. That's the problem. Their incessant whining and searching for the "problematic" behind every issue is crowding out reasonable discourse and discussion.
It's a form of mob rule and it's progressing from tiresome to downright hideous as more and more careers are destroyed by its vindictiveness.
> "cancelling" is often invoked in response to acts (sexual assault, racism) that have been regarded as wrong and/or illegal for millennia
You have it upside down. Cancelling is often the result of applying today's morals on yesterday's actions. People/books/movies/statues weren't "cancelled" before because nobody had a problem before. But now everything's retrospectively a target of the new moral crusaders.
People/books/movies/statues weren't "cancelled" before
because nobody had a problem before.
Plenty of people found these things lousy for decades, and in some cases centuries.
But not enough listened. So the voices became louder, and more unruly.
It's like when you try to tell your neighbor nicely that his dog's been pooping on your yard. And he does nothing about it for years. Then one day he wonders why you've left an enormous pile of dog poop on his doorstep.
Gross? Rude? Highly non-ideal? Sure. But he didn't listen to reasonable discourse.
> Plenty of people found these things lousy for decades, and in some cases centuries.
So what? Many more found them worthy. A critique is not the measurement of whether statues should be torn down or books censored. Otherwise no art would be produced.
What has changed is that the mob has become emboldened into thinking that things they don't like deserve to be destroyed. It's juvenile intolerant behavior.
So what? Many more found them worthy. A critique is not the measurement of whether statues should be torn down or books censored. Otherwise no art would be produced.
What has changed is that the mob has become emboldened into thinking that things they don't like deserve to be destroyed. It's juvenile intolerant behavior.
A critique is not the measurement of whether
statues should be torn down or books censored
In many recent cases, we are talking about slavery.
Many monuments glorified military "heroes" of the Confederate Army, a rebel army that sent men to their deaths fighting for the right of white Americans to own black slaves.
In general, I believe the world suffers from a lack of nuanced discussion and understanding. In the case of slavery and monuments to slavery, I find very little need for nuance.
books censored
A statue is not a meaningful source of information.
It essentially yields a single data point that says, "here is something held dear by the society in which this statue exists."
Removal of a statue does not censor information or rewrite history. It merely says, "we're not celebrating this any more." If anything, in the case of the removal of Conferate monuments, it represents a greater awareness of history.
I think some people don't get just how offensive Confederate monuments can be, because most of them are intentionally couched in language that obscured what they represent. This is similar to how, in early US politics, slavery was referred to as "the peculiar institution" or even more vaguely - e.g. the original US Constitution never says "slave", but instead talks of "free persons" and "other persons", or "persons bound to service".
But some of them are just so inherently offensive, the contents overpowers the presentation - e.g. the "faithful slave" monuments and memorials. Perhaps contemplating these might help understand more subtle problems with the rest, so here's a few examples:
https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=42188
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jstephenconn/5136209868
https://docsouth.unc.edu/commland/monument/245/
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Slave_memorial_at_Pr...
But some of them are just so inherently offensive, the contents overpowers the presentation - e.g. the "faithful slave" monuments and memorials. Perhaps contemplating these might help understand more subtle problems with the rest, so here's a few examples:
https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=42188
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jstephenconn/5136209868
https://docsouth.unc.edu/commland/monument/245/
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Slave_memorial_at_Pr...
Yes.
However, it cannot stop as long as a large segment of the people in power do with abandon whatever they feel like, without any repercussion.
This is the only way it is possible for many people to get anything remotely resembling justice (although often it's revenge). As long as we don't fundamentally address inequality and deeply unjust systems, I don't think it will stop.
However, it cannot stop as long as a large segment of the people in power do with abandon whatever they feel like, without any repercussion.
This is the only way it is possible for many people to get anything remotely resembling justice (although often it's revenge). As long as we don't fundamentally address inequality and deeply unjust systems, I don't think it will stop.
Is that request not a call to cancel cancel-culture?
No, that would be if we called cancel-culture racist and anyone who perpetuated it a white supremacist.
By assigning moral outrage to one side of the debate, we remove the pretense of a debate. It's no longer about evidence and facts but vilifying one side. It's ad hominem 2.0 if you will, and it works because we as a society have a visceral negative reaction to some labels.
The problem is that pavlovian-esque training can be untrained. If you call everyone who does something you don't like a nazi, then pretty soon it doesn't seem like being a nazi is all that big of a deal. That in itself is bad because by abusing the term you buy cover for actual, literal nazis. The same issue applies when you label everything racist or sexist or otherwise.
Words have power, but that power can fade if misused.
By assigning moral outrage to one side of the debate, we remove the pretense of a debate. It's no longer about evidence and facts but vilifying one side. It's ad hominem 2.0 if you will, and it works because we as a society have a visceral negative reaction to some labels.
The problem is that pavlovian-esque training can be untrained. If you call everyone who does something you don't like a nazi, then pretty soon it doesn't seem like being a nazi is all that big of a deal. That in itself is bad because by abusing the term you buy cover for actual, literal nazis. The same issue applies when you label everything racist or sexist or otherwise.
Words have power, but that power can fade if misused.
> it works because we as a society have a visceral negative reaction to some labels.
Do you know why we have that reaction? Because of millions upon millions of dead, innocent humans. That is what those ideologies lead to. We learned this lesson once, and we learned it very well. We don't want that to happen again. We don't want to let those ideas spread again. We don't want to see the mass graves again they lead to again. We learned that.
Some people have forgotten, though.
Do you know why we have that reaction? Because of millions upon millions of dead, innocent humans. That is what those ideologies lead to. We learned this lesson once, and we learned it very well. We don't want that to happen again. We don't want to let those ideas spread again. We don't want to see the mass graves again they lead to again. We learned that.
Some people have forgotten, though.
IDK, I'd say people calling everyone they don't like a Nazi seem like a party which doesn't get it.
Some people remember the horror of Nazi Germany as well as the horror of the Red Terror, Stalinist Russia, and the Cultural Revolution.
All that, and the horrors of McCarthyism too.
You're comparing McCarthyism to the Nazi genocide, the Red Terror, the horror of Stalinism and the Cultural Revolution?
I'm saying it's another authoritarian impulse to squash dissent, yes. Smaller magnitude, sure. But that's exactly why you compare things -- to see what's better or worse.
Calling them dangerous and a pox on society seems in the same ballpark of moral outrage as calling someone racist.
More the pox on society than dangerous per se. Dangerous is a big category with nuance while always advising caution. A car which works perfectly can be dangerous but a car which randomly catches on fire without warning is also dangerous.
That nuance allows for far more room for debate.
That nuance allows for far more room for debate.
Apologies for the somewhat pedantic aside, but I want to point out: "literal Nazi" is a borderline oxymoron. There is no Nazi party, nor is Nazism a coherent political ideology to which one can seriously ascribe. I suppose people who were active members when it still existed can still be considered "literal Nazis", in which case there's probably less than 50 left on earth. But saying that anyone else who claims adherence to Nazism or allegiance to the (completely defunct) Nazi party makes them a literal Nazi actually elevates their status from what it is, which is just a pathetic racist cosplayer.
> There is no Nazi party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Nazi_Party
> nor is Nazism a coherent political ideology to which one can seriously ascribe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Fascist_Party
I'm not going to link to it, but there is a self described National Socialist Movement party still alive today.
> But saying that anyone else who claims adherence to Nazism or allegiance to the (completely defunct) Nazi party makes them a literal Nazi actually elevates their status from what it is, which is just a pathetic racist cosplayer.
“The tragic aspect of the situation is that the Tsar is living in an utter fool’s paradise, thinking that He is as strong and all-powerful as before.” - Sergei Witte in 1905
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Nazi_Party
> nor is Nazism a coherent political ideology to which one can seriously ascribe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Fascist_Party
I'm not going to link to it, but there is a self described National Socialist Movement party still alive today.
> But saying that anyone else who claims adherence to Nazism or allegiance to the (completely defunct) Nazi party makes them a literal Nazi actually elevates their status from what it is, which is just a pathetic racist cosplayer.
“The tragic aspect of the situation is that the Tsar is living in an utter fool’s paradise, thinking that He is as strong and all-powerful as before.” - Sergei Witte in 1905
Tolerant of everything except intolerance et-all.
i see we are in a conundrum.
Understanding apparent paradoxes seems like an important place to start.
The best history/government teacher I had in school had a recurring throughline for our classes. Paraphrasing: "It is better, in the long run, to be for something than against something."
To be against something is to highlight a problem. To be for something is to offer a possible direction for the future.
The best history/government teacher I had in school had a recurring throughline for our classes. Paraphrasing: "It is better, in the long run, to be for something than against something."
To be against something is to highlight a problem. To be for something is to offer a possible direction for the future.
That belief is directly hostile to critical thinking.
Critical thinking is the ability to critique - specifically, to explain what is wrong or bad about a particular system.
Critical thinking is the ability to critique - specifically, to explain what is wrong or bad about a particular system.
Critical thinking is supposed to be just one tool, everyone should have more than that in their mental toolbox. It's useless on its own, we need the capacity to build systems more than we need the ability to tear them down. It's also even harmful when only applied selectively (e.g. never to one's own, or to popular, positions(s)).
I see it more as acknowledging limitations. Critical thinking is a filter as opposed to a source.
Besides because something isn't as good as another doesn't make something bad. A good new idea or appeoach and critical thinking is better than just a good new idea and can guide the approach. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Besides because something isn't as good as another doesn't make something bad. A good new idea or appeoach and critical thinking is better than just a good new idea and can guide the approach. They aren't mutually exclusive.
>>"Here is a story I heard from a friend, which I will alter slightly to protect the innocent. A prestigious psychology professor signed an open letter in which psychologists condemned belief in innate sex differences. My friend knew that this professor believed such differences existed, and asked him why he signed the letter. He said that he expected everyone else in his department would sign it, so it would look really bad if he didn’t. My friend asked why he expected everyone else in his department to sign it, and he said “Probably for the same reason I did”.
this post is no longer available, of course
this post is no longer available, of course
I don't even think he said "model's don't cause bias," he just said "ML systems are biased when data is biased."
I don't understand how people can defend his detractors in this particular case. Are you telling me that an image upsampling model that does not contain hard coded bias, and trained on unbiased data will produced biased result? Especially the kind of biased result represented by the error made by the original tweeter who fucked up?
Just curious, but what "error" did the original tweeter make? Did anyone really expect the model to accurately reconstruct the original photo starting from a pixelated mess? That makes no sense to anyone with even a passing knowledge of ML. You're always going to get craploads of bias and variance (i.e. blatant inaccuracy, over and above the bias) in such a setting, even starting from "ideal, unbiased" data. The problem domain is at issue here.
Yeah I get your point. But I guess for this model you can kinda have a concept of the "ideal" training set, where all high frequency features appear at the same rate as in real world.
>will request FB to fire him... (which thankfully won't happen)
Corporations don't fire this fast, give it couple weeks and he will move to other position "for personal reasons", where he will rest-and-vest for the few months, before finally being let go.
Corporations don't fire this fast, give it couple weeks and he will move to other position "for personal reasons", where he will rest-and-vest for the few months, before finally being let go.
[deleted]
That made me think of an essay I often revisit, Emerson's Self-Reliance (1841):
Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist. ... For nonconformity the world whips you with its displeasure. And therefore a man must know how to estimate a sour face. The by-standers look askance on him in the public street or in the friend's parlour. If this aversation had its origin in contempt and resistance like his own, he might well go home with a sad countenance; but the sour faces of the multitude, like their sweet faces, have no deep cause, but are put on and off as the wind blows and a newspaper directs. Yet is the discontent of the multitude more formidable than that of the senate and the college. It is easy enough for a firm man who knows the world to brook the rage of the cultivated classes. Their rage is decorous and prudent, for they are timid as being very vulnerable themselves. But when to their feminine rage the indignation of the people is added, when the ignorant and the poor are aroused, when the unintelligent brute force that lies at the bottom of society is made to growl and mow, it needs the habit of magnanimity and religion to treat it godlike as a trifle of no concernment. ...
The other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency... Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.—'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.'—Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.
Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist. ... For nonconformity the world whips you with its displeasure. And therefore a man must know how to estimate a sour face. The by-standers look askance on him in the public street or in the friend's parlour. If this aversation had its origin in contempt and resistance like his own, he might well go home with a sad countenance; but the sour faces of the multitude, like their sweet faces, have no deep cause, but are put on and off as the wind blows and a newspaper directs. Yet is the discontent of the multitude more formidable than that of the senate and the college. It is easy enough for a firm man who knows the world to brook the rage of the cultivated classes. Their rage is decorous and prudent, for they are timid as being very vulnerable themselves. But when to their feminine rage the indignation of the people is added, when the ignorant and the poor are aroused, when the unintelligent brute force that lies at the bottom of society is made to growl and mow, it needs the habit of magnanimity and religion to treat it godlike as a trifle of no concernment. ...
The other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency... Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.—'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.'—Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.
> To be great is to be misunderstood.
I would be content with being ordinary—permission to ask obvious questions about the narrative handed down from on high—without fear of defamation that costs me my livelihood.
I would be content with being ordinary—permission to ask obvious questions about the narrative handed down from on high—without fear of defamation that costs me my livelihood.
> permission to ask obvious questions about the narrative handed down from on high—without fear of defamation that costs me my livelihood.
Sure, that's not much to ask for. The rights people fight and have fought for are mostly the freedom to do basic, everyday things like that. Wishing, hoping for it is easy. To actually do something about it, to fight for it and achieve it, to give everyone freedom from that fear – that would be greatness.
Sure, that's not much to ask for. The rights people fight and have fought for are mostly the freedom to do basic, everyday things like that. Wishing, hoping for it is easy. To actually do something about it, to fight for it and achieve it, to give everyone freedom from that fear – that would be greatness.
The events of the last 4 years, make it clear to me that we are rapidly heading towards totalitarianism.
I finally understand the answer to the childhood question of "But, how could this every happen here?" that used to be an automatic response to being taught about awful events in history.
When there is extreme moral certainty about societal problems, people can feel that for the problems to be dealt with they will need to do away with reason, due process, and free speech. It becomes the prevailing wisdom. Everybody that confronts these beliefs in a critical manner is either deplatformed or too scared to speak.
By this point, the institutions and citizens are almost all in on it.
Whether or not you see this in the same way that I do, probably depends on whether you think that the NYT is doing this from ignorance or because they consider Scott's manner of confronting topical issues to be competing with their own narratives. I personally think that they are willfully trying to identify a dissenting voice, and that we are right at the beginning of western politics becoming extremely harsh with dissenting voices.
I finally understand the answer to the childhood question of "But, how could this every happen here?" that used to be an automatic response to being taught about awful events in history.
When there is extreme moral certainty about societal problems, people can feel that for the problems to be dealt with they will need to do away with reason, due process, and free speech. It becomes the prevailing wisdom. Everybody that confronts these beliefs in a critical manner is either deplatformed or too scared to speak.
By this point, the institutions and citizens are almost all in on it.
Whether or not you see this in the same way that I do, probably depends on whether you think that the NYT is doing this from ignorance or because they consider Scott's manner of confronting topical issues to be competing with their own narratives. I personally think that they are willfully trying to identify a dissenting voice, and that we are right at the beginning of western politics becoming extremely harsh with dissenting voices.
If you are a history nerd, reading what people wrote 90 years ago you will realize that we are exactly the same species, and our attitudes have not changed a bit. One of my favorite readings are the essays of french philosopher Simone Weil after two visits to germany in the thirties. She was concerned with the rise of the nazis, while at the same time describing the natural and understandable forces that were making them gain support.
I do not think that there is an analogy between the groups of then and the groups of today. Still, the "outrage" mechanisms that steer our will seem to be identical.
I do not think that there is an analogy between the groups of then and the groups of today. Still, the "outrage" mechanisms that steer our will seem to be identical.
I've been heavily downvoted for suggesting that we're witnessing something dangerous.
It's not that I think I can predict the future, but even if it continues as-is we're witnessing a loss of fauna, and this could easily mutate to something truly terrible in the next decade.
The fact is Scott Alexander was my canary. If a compassionate, liberal-minded intellectual that carefully understands both sides of every issue doesn't find it safe to write online it's not safe for anybody outside of the dominant culture.
I really do hope that everything turns out alright, and thank you for the essay recommendation.
It's not that I think I can predict the future, but even if it continues as-is we're witnessing a loss of fauna, and this could easily mutate to something truly terrible in the next decade.
The fact is Scott Alexander was my canary. If a compassionate, liberal-minded intellectual that carefully understands both sides of every issue doesn't find it safe to write online it's not safe for anybody outside of the dominant culture.
I really do hope that everything turns out alright, and thank you for the essay recommendation.
>The fact is Scott Alexander was my canary. If a compassionate, liberal-minded intellectual that carefully understands both sides of every issue doesn't find it safe to write online it's not safe for anybody outside of the dominant culture.
By that measure, it hasn't been safe since he started his blog. In the article, he explains why he's always used a name he hopes people cannot trace to him.
"Cancel culture" is worth discussing, but it's not the topic of the article. He gives one example of it in a long list of things peoplr have done when they dislike him for the blog and discovered his identity.
By that measure, it hasn't been safe since he started his blog. In the article, he explains why he's always used a name he hopes people cannot trace to him.
"Cancel culture" is worth discussing, but it's not the topic of the article. He gives one example of it in a long list of things peoplr have done when they dislike him for the blog and discovered his identity.
> By that measure, it hasn't been safe since he
> started his blog. In the article, he explains
> why he's always used a name he hopes people
> cannot trace to him.
I believe that the journalists unstated reason for wanting to demask him, is to coerce him into silence and to make it easier for mobs to form against him in future.
Basically, they are too smart to attack him directly, but have decided to paint a target on his back, and to leave the job to bloodier hands.
I thought of a different and, in my view, more likely cause behind this story:
He was interviewed by a junior reporter (who else would be assigned an article about a blogger). This junior reporter is too scared or naive to break the NYT policy of "always use names." Maybe NYT's orientation sessions stressed this a lot, or maybe the reporter got chewed out for not using names before.
It is weird they weren't willing to leave out his name after Scott brought it up. But we do only have one side of the story right now, and it's only been a day. A secret vendetta is too far a leap for me right now.
He was interviewed by a junior reporter (who else would be assigned an article about a blogger). This junior reporter is too scared or naive to break the NYT policy of "always use names." Maybe NYT's orientation sessions stressed this a lot, or maybe the reporter got chewed out for not using names before.
It is weird they weren't willing to leave out his name after Scott brought it up. But we do only have one side of the story right now, and it's only been a day. A secret vendetta is too far a leap for me right now.
Cade Metz is not a junior reporter. He's done great work at Wired and this isn't his first rodeo.
I don't think the article itself is the problem. The decision to write an article about the blog could have been made by someone else who intended to dox Scott Alexander and that person is insisting on the real name policy.
A canary indeed. Except that instead of being the early warning, what we see here is the last person you would hope to succumb.
> One of my favorite readings are the essays of french philosopher Simone Weil after two visits to germany in the thirties. She was concerned with the rise of the nazis, while at the same time describing the natural and understandable forces that were making them gain support.
Could you point me to those essays? Would like to examine those!
Could you point me to those essays? Would like to examine those!
If you can read in French, they were published on 2015 on a book "Écrits sur l’Allemagne 1932-1933". It is a loose collection of articles and letters that were put together for this book. There are some translations to English of slightly different collections. The most prominent articles that you want to read are
* "The situation in Germany"
* "Germany waiting"
* "Are We Really Heading Towards a Revolution of the Proletariat?"
They have been translated into English and edited several times. For example they appear on the collection "Simone Weil, Formative writings 1929-1941".
They offer a rare insight written by a "leftie" germanophile french jew, and her dismay at the two-pronged attack that the German working class (whom she admiringly describes as the most cultured working class in the world), who were at the same time being destroyed and being seduced by the nazis. Somewhat naively she insists that no matter what atrocious things the nazis do, if they end up conquering Europe they will be seen forever as the good guys. She says that this is the normal course in history, and that the "good guys" in Europe's past were no worse than the nazis of today. She also draws parallelism between the German and the Soviet states, that caused her starch criticism in left-wing french circles. Since all of this was written well before the war, there is an ominous prescience to these texts that makes them extremely interesting to read. Curiously enough, there is no mention to the nazi hatred of the jews, she is mostly concerned with their hatred and exploitation of the working class.
* "The situation in Germany"
* "Germany waiting"
* "Are We Really Heading Towards a Revolution of the Proletariat?"
They have been translated into English and edited several times. For example they appear on the collection "Simone Weil, Formative writings 1929-1941".
They offer a rare insight written by a "leftie" germanophile french jew, and her dismay at the two-pronged attack that the German working class (whom she admiringly describes as the most cultured working class in the world), who were at the same time being destroyed and being seduced by the nazis. Somewhat naively she insists that no matter what atrocious things the nazis do, if they end up conquering Europe they will be seen forever as the good guys. She says that this is the normal course in history, and that the "good guys" in Europe's past were no worse than the nazis of today. She also draws parallelism between the German and the Soviet states, that caused her starch criticism in left-wing french circles. Since all of this was written well before the war, there is an ominous prescience to these texts that makes them extremely interesting to read. Curiously enough, there is no mention to the nazi hatred of the jews, she is mostly concerned with their hatred and exploitation of the working class.
Thank you for this. Will be going through them!
> Since all of this was written well before the war, there is an ominous prescience to these texts that makes them extremely interesting to read.
This is the part struck me as fascinating from your earlier post and my googling on her writings. Excited to read the essays. Sadly I will have to resort to the English translations since je ne parle pas francais.
> Since all of this was written well before the war, there is an ominous prescience to these texts that makes them extremely interesting to read.
This is the part struck me as fascinating from your earlier post and my googling on her writings. Excited to read the essays. Sadly I will have to resort to the English translations since je ne parle pas francais.
You can find many of her writings online (and all of them on Library Genesis), while you wait for the dead trees to arrive.
... but there was a reason, sort-of, for the rise of Nazism. Maybe I understand it badly, but things weren't great then. Now, there aren't really... problems on a comparable scale.
> things weren't great then. Now, there aren't really... problems on a comparable scale.
That was exactly the attitude back then. "Of course, there are problems right now, but nothing of the sort that happened before the Great War. Nobody wants another war, there's no way that it can happen again." If you read what the people wrote in the thirties, it is disturbingly chilling.
That was exactly the attitude back then. "Of course, there are problems right now, but nothing of the sort that happened before the Great War. Nobody wants another war, there's no way that it can happen again." If you read what the people wrote in the thirties, it is disturbingly chilling.
Specifically, from Écrits historiques et politiques (La situation en Allemagne/LE MOUVEMENT HITLÉRIEN):
> Their propaganda is no less coherent. ... the hitlerites have the fundamental aims of anti-communism, the elimination of workers' rights; they say they are the defenders of private property, of the family, of religion, and hard liners against class warfare. But they find themselves at odds with old money conservatives, by the demographic profile of their movement, by the demagoguery which results, and by the personal ambitions of their leaders.
====
La propagande n'est pas moins incohérente. On attire les jeunes garçons romanesques, par des perspectives de luttes héroïques, de dévouement, et les brutes par la promesse implicite qu'ils pourront un jour frapper et massacrer à tort et à travers. On promet aux campagnes de hauts prix de vente, aux villes la vie à bon marché. Mais l'incohérence de la politique hitlérienne apparaît surtout dans les rapports entre le parti national-socialiste et les autres partis. Le parti avec lequel les hitlériens ont un lien essentiel, c'est le parti national- allemand, celui de la grande bourgeoisie, celui qui soutient les « barons »; comme les « barons » , les hitlériens ont pour but fondamental la lutte à mort contre le mouvement communiste, l'écrasement de toute résistance ouvrière ; ils se proclament défenseurs de la propriété privée, de la famille, de la religion, et adversaires irréductibles de la lutte des classes. Mais ils se trouvent séparés des partis de la grande bourgeoisie par la composition sociale du mouvement, par la démagogie qui en résulte, et par les ambitions personnelles des chefs. Et, d'autre part, il se trouve, si surprenant que cela puisse sembler, entre le mouvement hitlérien et le mouvement communiste, des ressemblances si frappantes qu'après les élections la presse hitlérienne a dû consacrer un long article à démentir le bruit de pourparlers entre hitlériens et communistes en vue d'un gouvernement de coalition. C'est que, du mois d'août au 6 novembre, les mots d'ordre des deux partis ont été presque identiques.
> Their propaganda is no less coherent. ... the hitlerites have the fundamental aims of anti-communism, the elimination of workers' rights; they say they are the defenders of private property, of the family, of religion, and hard liners against class warfare. But they find themselves at odds with old money conservatives, by the demographic profile of their movement, by the demagoguery which results, and by the personal ambitions of their leaders.
====
La propagande n'est pas moins incohérente. On attire les jeunes garçons romanesques, par des perspectives de luttes héroïques, de dévouement, et les brutes par la promesse implicite qu'ils pourront un jour frapper et massacrer à tort et à travers. On promet aux campagnes de hauts prix de vente, aux villes la vie à bon marché. Mais l'incohérence de la politique hitlérienne apparaît surtout dans les rapports entre le parti national-socialiste et les autres partis. Le parti avec lequel les hitlériens ont un lien essentiel, c'est le parti national- allemand, celui de la grande bourgeoisie, celui qui soutient les « barons »; comme les « barons » , les hitlériens ont pour but fondamental la lutte à mort contre le mouvement communiste, l'écrasement de toute résistance ouvrière ; ils se proclament défenseurs de la propriété privée, de la famille, de la religion, et adversaires irréductibles de la lutte des classes. Mais ils se trouvent séparés des partis de la grande bourgeoisie par la composition sociale du mouvement, par la démagogie qui en résulte, et par les ambitions personnelles des chefs. Et, d'autre part, il se trouve, si surprenant que cela puisse sembler, entre le mouvement hitlérien et le mouvement communiste, des ressemblances si frappantes qu'après les élections la presse hitlérienne a dû consacrer un long article à démentir le bruit de pourparlers entre hitlériens et communistes en vue d'un gouvernement de coalition. C'est que, du mois d'août au 6 novembre, les mots d'ordre des deux partis ont été presque identiques.
> The events of the last 4 years, make it clear to me that we are rapidly heading towards totalitarianism.
Question is, what totalitarianism do you think we're headed towards? Trump/MAGA totalitarianism or Left/Cancel culture totalitarianism?
Question is, what totalitarianism do you think we're headed towards? Trump/MAGA totalitarianism or Left/Cancel culture totalitarianism?
Does it mattter which one?
Once we're there, power will be wielded fully by whatever popular sociopath has the rungs on any given day.
That can change day-to-day, year-to-year or election-to-election, and different organisations will have their own all-powerful sociopaths, with their own particular preferences for abuses of power.
Once people have power, they don't merely act ideologically, they act selfishly.
Once we're there, power will be wielded fully by whatever popular sociopath has the rungs on any given day.
That can change day-to-day, year-to-year or election-to-election, and different organisations will have their own all-powerful sociopaths, with their own particular preferences for abuses of power.
Once people have power, they don't merely act ideologically, they act selfishly.
I've seen moral fashions. What's happening now is bigger, rarer and worse. It's known as a "purity spiral" (Haynes), "mass movement" (Hoffer), "political religion" (Voegelin).
Living outside the US and watching what's going on (ok, it's not just the US, but it is just a few countries) is like watching a friend's slow motion descent into madness. It's pitiful and sad, and I feel powerless to do anything about it.
At the same time, so long as I stay away from news and social media, I'm pretty much unaffected. Society in the various countries I've spent time in over the last few years (Ireland, Spain, Germany, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia are the main ones) seems much the same as ever.
At the same time, so long as I stay away from news and social media, I'm pretty much unaffected. Society in the various countries I've spent time in over the last few years (Ireland, Spain, Germany, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia are the main ones) seems much the same as ever.
Well if you ignore the change that is reflected in what we call the news and social media of course society would seem the same, but that doesn't mean it's not changing. I agree that face-to-face interactions haven't deteriorated and may even be better than in the past, but the challenge is their share of communication and social interaction has dramatically shrunk.
I mean the overall health of society seems pretty much normal (corona excepted). Sure, people are talking more on social media than ten years ago. That doesn't seem to be a problem in an otherwise healthy society.
Most of the discourse motivating what's going on is in the English language, so perhaps that's a factor.
Is it a power-grab or an attempt by individuals to gain social status?
I think that it has all those trappings, but underneath is a deep addiction to anger, outrage and the rush of adrenaline that accompanies it.
There is also a sort of religiosity that your comment alludes to.
>Various thinkers have pointed out that leftism is a kind of religion. Leftism is not a religion in the strict sense because leftist doctrine does not postulate the existence of any supernatural being. But, for the leftist, leftism plays a psychological role much like that which religion plays for some people. The leftist NEEDS to believe in leftism; it plays a vital role in his psychological economy. His beliefs are not easily modified by logic or facts. He has a deep conviction that leftism is morally Right with a capital R, and that he has not only a right but a duty to impose leftist morality on everyone.
I think that it has all those trappings, but underneath is a deep addiction to anger, outrage and the rush of adrenaline that accompanies it.
There is also a sort of religiosity that your comment alludes to.
>Various thinkers have pointed out that leftism is a kind of religion. Leftism is not a religion in the strict sense because leftist doctrine does not postulate the existence of any supernatural being. But, for the leftist, leftism plays a psychological role much like that which religion plays for some people. The leftist NEEDS to believe in leftism; it plays a vital role in his psychological economy. His beliefs are not easily modified by logic or facts. He has a deep conviction that leftism is morally Right with a capital R, and that he has not only a right but a duty to impose leftist morality on everyone.
The Unabomber, really? There's something disturbingly smug about thinking that one side is emotional to the point of religious and another side is logical and factual. Maybe it's time for some humbling introspection.
If you're quoting that you should maybe note that "Leftism" there means effectively anything that the author dislikes (or fits with their current PC bugbears) regardless of whether it's driven from the left side of the political spectrum of not.
It's unclear which country and which side of the spectrum you're referring to.
This is why I like to use science as a guide (not a decision point), for then there is a chance to be self-correcting.
This is why I like to use science as a guide (not a decision point), for then there is a chance to be self-correcting.
[deleted]
Yes science can be a good guide. The trouble is that some left-wing social movements explicitly reject science (and Enlightenment values in general) as a tool of the oppressor. There are certain things you're not allowed to say regardless of scientific evidence. For one example, look what happened to scientific critics of Lysenkoism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism#Effects
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism#Effects
> left-wing social movements explicitly reject science (and Enlightenment values in general) as a tool of the oppressor
I have not seen this, at least on a large scale. Are there specific events you are referencing?
I have not seen this, at least on a large scale. Are there specific events you are referencing?
I don't think "not on a large scale" is a good argument. Small groups of people can be incredibly powerful. The people who founded our country could all fit in the same room together.
Yeah but the people who found the United States were in much more powerful positions than some college students, for example.
That argument is outdated by a decade or so. Sure, there's still some college students, but the ones from a decade ago now work in the big tech firms, NYT, etc.
e.g. basically all social science that investigates differences in ability/outcomes between genders or races is explicitly rejected by the left on the grounds that it's sexist/racist.
Like?
I think it's currently more the right wing rejecting science (climate research, epidemiology etc.) as a tool of the "deep state"...
Could be both. Both sides reject science wherever fits their goals :)
The left is certainly guilty of ignoring gun or crime statistics they don't want to hear, but it's totally disingenuous to compare them to folks in the hard right-wing camp, such as fundamentalist Christians or the hardcore climate deniers.
All I know is that both of them are perfectly willing to discredit and throw science to the wind if it doesn't fit their needs. I hope the science community realizes this before they let themselves be used as pawns by politicians.
That is also a problem, but stems from a different cause. The right wing accepts the validity of the scientific method, but claims that biased left-wing scientists have intentionally published skewed results in a few limited areas like anthropomorphic global climate change. I don't agree with this interpretation and I think that climate change is the most serious threat to human civilization. But in countering destructive extremist movements from both sides it's important to understand the basis of their ideologies rather than just labeling them as "anti-science".
I agree with your general point as to why some people are against science, but using an example from before the second world war to call out the left specifically is pretty off-base. An example from 1935-1940 in Soviet Russia has very little relevance to 2020 on an English-speaking forum.
Both sides of the spectrum have anti-scientific factions which are current: on the left there are deniers of gender differences and people who overstate the role of genetics in mental illness, on the right there are climate denyers, evolution deniers, people who think crime is prevented by more aggressive policing. Anti-vaxxers are fairly uniformly distributed across the political spectrum.
Both sides of the spectrum have anti-scientific factions which are current: on the left there are deniers of gender differences and people who overstate the role of genetics in mental illness, on the right there are climate denyers, evolution deniers, people who think crime is prevented by more aggressive policing. Anti-vaxxers are fairly uniformly distributed across the political spectrum.
Why is this comment being downvoted?
It seems rather tangential and doesn't contribute anything. It is pretty clear which country is being referred to if we're staying on topic, just saying "I like to use science as a guide" is an almost empty statement. Which science? Psychology, sociology, physics? The scientific method? How? Do you mean reading the current literature? How are you applying it as a guide to the current topic under discussion? The comment they were replying to cited authors and relevant terminology which is a great contribution for people that want to read more on the subject. This comment just blurts out an opinion and then follows it up with what could be considered a thinly disguised jab. Hence the downvotes.
I think it is because I attempted to be neutral and post the mental model I like to use (other commenter asked if scientific method and recent research and understanding. Answer to both is yes.).
Great post. I wish more people would genuinely listen to those they disagree with. When we shut people down or make them feel uncomfortable/threatened to the point that they won't speak, what have we gained?
The problem is that it's a vicious circle. You can't attempt to understand/reason with someone going against societal norms otherwise you will be seen by your peers as agreeing with that person and thus ostracized because they themselves do not want to be seen as understanding/reasoning with someone (you) that now appears to be going against societal norms.
this forum literally hides opinions people disagree with.
The up and down arrow are really bad icons for UX.
The up and down arrow are really bad icons for UX.
I think the up and down arrows are perfect representations for what they do: "I want people to see this" vs "I don't want people to see this".
The problem is when someone believes that people shouldn't see any opinions that they disagree with. How do you stop them from downvoting substantive content? Personally I don't think changing the icons will help
The problem is when someone believes that people shouldn't see any opinions that they disagree with. How do you stop them from downvoting substantive content? Personally I don't think changing the icons will help
I don't entirely agree. I think that upvote and a flag, placed elsewhere, would have a substantial difference.
That implies to me that it is meant to be used for when the rules are broken (like the flag feature as it exists currently). But non-substantive content isn't necessarily rule-breaking
HN/reddit moderation is extremely basic compared to the stuff Slashdot had 20 years ago.
We desperately need forum software with better forms of moderation.
We desperately need forum software with better forms of moderation.
"Basic" isn't necessarily "worse". I always found the voting/moderation on Slashdot to be very confusing and it made me not want to participate on the site.
That's interesting. I was a /. power user back in the day. Sometimes I think about implementing a modern take on slashcode. What about it did you find most confusing?
In my experience on HN, downvoted comments are almost exclusively low-effort, spammy, immature, etc. I'm not sure I've ever noticed an insightful dissenting comment downvoted here.
The [-] allows you to hide the most popular threads and dig for hidden gold. I do this often.
> I wish more people would genuinely listen to those they disagree with.
I had a bit of this discussion on HN not long ago. I love to debate and hear ideas from those I disagree with. But, that's not what people are often doing today. They are using your statement to appeal to others to listen and accept their clearly racist ideas or provable wrong, anti-science ideas.
IMO, it's intellectually dishonest and a debate I have a hard time continuing.
I had a bit of this discussion on HN not long ago. I love to debate and hear ideas from those I disagree with. But, that's not what people are often doing today. They are using your statement to appeal to others to listen and accept their clearly racist ideas or provable wrong, anti-science ideas.
IMO, it's intellectually dishonest and a debate I have a hard time continuing.
> I love to debate and hear ideas from those I disagree with
The right may take the cake as far as hypocrisy goes in general, but the one thing that pisses me off the most about the left is their lip service to open-mindedness. I often wonder if they do in fact believe it themselves.
> They are using your statement to appeal to others to listen and accept their clearly racist ideas or provable wrong, anti-science ideas
With the continuously widening scope of what could be considered "racist" or "anti-science", I suppose there won't be much left to debate soon enough.
The right may take the cake as far as hypocrisy goes in general, but the one thing that pisses me off the most about the left is their lip service to open-mindedness. I often wonder if they do in fact believe it themselves.
> They are using your statement to appeal to others to listen and accept their clearly racist ideas or provable wrong, anti-science ideas
With the continuously widening scope of what could be considered "racist" or "anti-science", I suppose there won't be much left to debate soon enough.
I don't know if you are implying that I'm from the left. I'm not either left or right, although as the right has moved righter I guess I have become relatively more left by staying in the middle :)
> With the continuously widening scope of what could be considered "racist" or "anti-science"
I agree this is a danger. But in my original comment, I'm referring to basics. Evidence has mounted that masks work, yet people still physically fight over wearing one. Evidence has mounted (IMO overwhelmingly) that HCQ does not work and is even dangerous, yet people keep saying that's all they need to survive COVID. Then there are the anti-vaxxers. It's a concern that even after a vaccine is found, it's possible not enough people will even get the vaccine to reach herd immunity[1].
[1] https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/05/04/a-majority-of-vaccine...
> With the continuously widening scope of what could be considered "racist" or "anti-science"
I agree this is a danger. But in my original comment, I'm referring to basics. Evidence has mounted that masks work, yet people still physically fight over wearing one. Evidence has mounted (IMO overwhelmingly) that HCQ does not work and is even dangerous, yet people keep saying that's all they need to survive COVID. Then there are the anti-vaxxers. It's a concern that even after a vaccine is found, it's possible not enough people will even get the vaccine to reach herd immunity[1].
[1] https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/05/04/a-majority-of-vaccine...
IMHO, the left has moved at least as far left as the right has moved to the right. The polarization has increased markedly. The other change is the vast increase in the speed of interaction and the number of vocal, anonymous individuals involved. There’s no time for reflection anymore.
Regarding HCQ, it’s only useful in combination with zinc, and only useful before hospitalization. The studies often cited seem to studiously ignore this. Given those caveats, there have been many successes.
Successful valid studies? This summarizes the issues with all the earlier studies, even ones with zinc [1].
The problem with all the success anecdotes is correlation does not mean causation. The odds are low that I'm going to walk outside and die. If I walk outside while picking my nose and don't die, it doesn't mean picking my nose is stopping my death. The large majority of people recover from COVID doing nothing at all. Finding efficacy of any drug requires controlled studies.
[1] https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/miracle-cure-testimonials-a...
The problem with all the success anecdotes is correlation does not mean causation. The odds are low that I'm going to walk outside and die. If I walk outside while picking my nose and don't die, it doesn't mean picking my nose is stopping my death. The large majority of people recover from COVID doing nothing at all. Finding efficacy of any drug requires controlled studies.
[1] https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/miracle-cure-testimonials-a...
Well, looking at that article, it appears the author is out to debunk HCQ. The language is hyperbolic - when I see something like that, I don't give it much credence.
For an alternate take from the blogosphere,
https://scienceblog.com/516960/suppression-of-chloroquine-is...
I've been following HCQ/Zinc long before it got politicized.
It's well known that covid is a disaster in nursing homes, often resulting in 30% deaths. Here's some anecdotal evidence of early treatment with HCQ in that setting:
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/texas-e...
Here's a journal article claiming positive results. It's had over 300 citations, so there's probably some interesting reading there:
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bst/14/1/14_2020.01047/...
Causation generally requires some theory to support it:
https://www.jewishpress.com/news/us-news/ny/scientists-study...
I'm 78, so I'm paying attention. Here's the best guidance I've seen so far. (They have backed off on HCQ because of all the political flap.)
https://www.evms.edu/covid-19/covid_care_for_clinicians/#cov...
For an alternate take from the blogosphere,
https://scienceblog.com/516960/suppression-of-chloroquine-is...
I've been following HCQ/Zinc long before it got politicized.
It's well known that covid is a disaster in nursing homes, often resulting in 30% deaths. Here's some anecdotal evidence of early treatment with HCQ in that setting:
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/texas-e...
Here's a journal article claiming positive results. It's had over 300 citations, so there's probably some interesting reading there:
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bst/14/1/14_2020.01047/...
Causation generally requires some theory to support it:
https://www.jewishpress.com/news/us-news/ny/scientists-study...
I'm 78, so I'm paying attention. Here's the best guidance I've seen so far. (They have backed off on HCQ because of all the political flap.)
https://www.evms.edu/covid-19/covid_care_for_clinicians/#cov...
> They are using your statement to appeal to others to listen and accept their clearly racist ideas or provable wrong, anti-science ideas.
“Yes clearly other people are stupid. The only ideas that should be exposed to the public are my own ideas. People other than myself apparently don’t have functioning brains, or they would all think what I think. So instead I must fight to have all opposing ideas erased.”
“Yes clearly other people are stupid. The only ideas that should be exposed to the public are my own ideas. People other than myself apparently don’t have functioning brains, or they would all think what I think. So instead I must fight to have all opposing ideas erased.”
Not even close. People have to start with a shared foundation to have a discussion. Agreeing that 1+1=2 is a start. How about agreeing that the earth is round? Agreeing that critiquing research, and gasp changing our minds when the evidence mounts is the goal. Let's pick a weirdly controversial topic - masks. Evidence is mounting/has mounted that masks work, yet people want to fight over wearing one.
They want to fight over wearing one because they don't want to bow to their tribal enemies. It doesn't actually matter whether the masks work or not.
That's what it means to truly disagree with someone- to hate them.
Your policy is still the one that brought us down this path, and will (or has) plunge the western public into a debilitating purity spiral, as the overton windows shrinks and more and more viewpoints become 'clearly x-ist' or 'provably wrong', according to the crowd.
Good! Let it all burn.
Your policy is still the one that brought us down this path, and will (or has) plunge the western public into a debilitating purity spiral, as the overton windows shrinks and more and more viewpoints become 'clearly x-ist' or 'provably wrong', according to the crowd.
Good! Let it all burn.
Could you explain what you mean by true disagreement with someone is equivalent to hating them?
From the gp comment:
>They are using your statement to appeal to others to listen and accept their clearly racist ideas or provable wrong, anti-science ideas.
The people he's talking about are beyond the pale. He's fine disagreeing with people, he even likes to have his point of view challenged- it's just that these people are a step too far; they're not just wrong- they're evil.
An answer is: I've found the people you ACTUALLY disagree with. Insofar as you can be said to hate anyone, it's the people you would gladly exterminate- and feel good doing so. Disagreement with someone on a matter of import automatically causes some small amount of dislike for them. You can still like someone overall! But if they're a great person, except e.g. they think abortion should be illegal, you'll still think less of them than you would have otherwise. My argument is that this dislike scales with how much you disagree with someone; and so, all else being equal, the people you hate most are the ones you disagree with the most strongly- to the point that a will awakes in you to engage against them in righteous wrath.
You see it in the twitter mobs and the witch hunts of old: If people decided to crucify someone, say by going after their livelihood- if, somehow, they thought that was the best way to improve the world- they should do it with their eyes down, shaking their heads, crying "If only it didn't have to come to this- but if we didn't do this, you would have caused even more pain than we. This course of action is a tragedy; but any other would have been worse. Forgive us, but for the good of the nation, you have to die."
They don't- they go after people with glee. It's fun, it's exhilarating; it's a fox-hunt. You can read it in people's testimonials about being part of a twitter job-lynchmob: Everyone enjoys it till they're the one on the chopping block!
Real Disagreement, as I would call it, is that kind that honestly provokes the aforementioned emotion: the desire to see someone destitute and homeless, if not dead, and the frame of mind where you could look at the result with pride. I'd call that hate.
(You can hate people for other reasons, of course.)
The people he's talking about are beyond the pale. He's fine disagreeing with people, he even likes to have his point of view challenged- it's just that these people are a step too far; they're not just wrong- they're evil.
An answer is: I've found the people you ACTUALLY disagree with. Insofar as you can be said to hate anyone, it's the people you would gladly exterminate- and feel good doing so. Disagreement with someone on a matter of import automatically causes some small amount of dislike for them. You can still like someone overall! But if they're a great person, except e.g. they think abortion should be illegal, you'll still think less of them than you would have otherwise. My argument is that this dislike scales with how much you disagree with someone; and so, all else being equal, the people you hate most are the ones you disagree with the most strongly- to the point that a will awakes in you to engage against them in righteous wrath.
You see it in the twitter mobs and the witch hunts of old: If people decided to crucify someone, say by going after their livelihood- if, somehow, they thought that was the best way to improve the world- they should do it with their eyes down, shaking their heads, crying "If only it didn't have to come to this- but if we didn't do this, you would have caused even more pain than we. This course of action is a tragedy; but any other would have been worse. Forgive us, but for the good of the nation, you have to die."
They don't- they go after people with glee. It's fun, it's exhilarating; it's a fox-hunt. You can read it in people's testimonials about being part of a twitter job-lynchmob: Everyone enjoys it till they're the one on the chopping block!
Real Disagreement, as I would call it, is that kind that honestly provokes the aforementioned emotion: the desire to see someone destitute and homeless, if not dead, and the frame of mind where you could look at the result with pride. I'd call that hate.
(You can hate people for other reasons, of course.)
> They are using your statement to appeal to others to listen and accept their clearly racist ideas or provable wrong, anti-science ideas.
I don’t think anyone is appealing to others to listen to their racist, anti-science ideas so much as demanding that they be accepted and if not a mob may be sent after them. I wish it were only “appeals to listen”.
I don’t think anyone is appealing to others to listen to their racist, anti-science ideas so much as demanding that they be accepted and if not a mob may be sent after them. I wish it were only “appeals to listen”.
Yeah whenever people on here allude to 'what you can't say' it usually boils down to the same few very specific ideas, none of which are particularly secret, original or new. Hell, if you're a tenured professor, billionaire or anyone in a position of power whining about 'what you can't say' I find it hard to take you seriously.
People are getting fired and publicly shamed for statements and actions made one, two decades ago. It’s entirely reasonable to be afraid of speaking something acceptable but unpopular today out of fear that it will be unacceptable tomorrow.
This is a good point. Historical context can be important. You see these issues with people who have been in the public for a very long time (often politicians).
We also saw this with the ok sign where people were digging up pictures of people from years ago and somehow connecting them to using racism through the ok sign. It's challenging for a person who isn't on top of every news story to navigate this time.
We also saw this with the ok sign where people were digging up pictures of people from years ago and somehow connecting them to using racism through the ok sign. It's challenging for a person who isn't on top of every news story to navigate this time.
Even if they're not too afraid for themselves, they might be for other people in more tenuous positions than them.
Ah, I get it. In a way, the Pioneer Fund is more of a charity.
There’s a lot of things I’d like to blog about that I hesitate to do because I realize that no matter what I say, the topics alone will evoke a reaction from people.
For me rather the film Good Night, and Good Luck (2005), we are going through the McCarty years again.
I'd say this forum is exactly this. How often have I self censored because I just don't want the downvotes?
I read somewhere that downvotes are capped to -4 and it made me much less likely to self-censor when I felt like I had a valid point.
I know that the people who disagree with me outnumber those that agree, but the way that the upvotes bounce up and down tells me there are more people out there that agree with me than I would have assumed.
(Plus I think I've only made it down to -4 once or twice)
I know that the people who disagree with me outnumber those that agree, but the way that the upvotes bounce up and down tells me there are more people out there that agree with me than I would have assumed.
(Plus I think I've only made it down to -4 once or twice)
There have been many times when I wanted to use my upvoting ability to unhide a comment that has some merit. To that end, I wish I could see the precise score of downvoted comments. (IIRC, a net score of -1 prevents a majority of HN readers from seeing the comment.)
? -1 score greys out a comment, nothing more
Hmm, I seem to recall comments being entirely suppressed from view on reaching some threshold, thought it was -1...
Definitely not. The only comments that are hidden by default are the [dead] ones, and anyone can see them by turning 'showdead' on in their profile. Outright deletion is possible, but only for a few hours, or if the author specifically asks us to later. There have been a handful of exceptions in obscure cases over the years, mostly for legal reasons.
Btw, for anyone who has trouble reading a faded comment, you can click on its timestamp to go to its page and the text should be readable.
Btw, for anyone who has trouble reading a faded comment, you can click on its timestamp to go to its page and the text should be readable.
you see how much discussion is happening under a 0-point parent?
I've seen some. Usually when the non-positive post is something substantive as opposed to a hot take.
Unfortunately you still get the [flag] abuse. It seems that some members are able to flag posts and you can often find if you say something disagreeable in a thread that every single one of your comments will get flagged regardless of the content of the comment in question. The comments can be well-written, non-confrontational and be a genuine attempt to start a discussion, but they'll get flagged because someone doesn't like what you wrote but (presumably) can't form an argument against it (like Paul Graham said, people only really hate things that could be true).
I self censor for a different reason. What if someone decides to find that one political comment I made few years ago after I am back on my legs again to drown me?
What I have learned from struggling a lot with issues normal people don't face (at least going by majority) is that we are all toxic to each other. Some things are more visible and easily understandable for others while many aren't. It may feel pretty shitty for a disabled person inside a room of normal people complaining about very trivial things and calling for others to become disabled as a joke. Some autism jokes may actually invoke sad memories for others. But there are groups of young people who do all those and don't think it is toxic. Joking about depression is another. There are many examples where line of toxicity isn't so visible for a specific majority.
People have difficulty imagining the scale of time and when that difficulty helps them form a tribalistic decision to justify their own biases, it's much more easier to do that than fight against the urge.
The rise of short attention span only means people are much less empathetic than they seem to think they are by social media.
It's only my opinion but an empathetic person will look beyond that this person has some horrible political opinions and I want to run a witch hunt. A tweet out of 20k tweets in isolation doesn't say much about the person especially if it's old. They might be having a bad day, may want attention and said something controversial to get it. Maybe they do have medical problems (I know I do, I am on meds and my behavior changes a lot). And even if that person is officially shitty, I don't see why would you try to burn their house. It's ok to inform others but what's the point of attacking someone that they think "nobody" cares about them?
If nobody cares about improving those people, then they might as well become too extreme in their opinion. If nobody wants to hear them, they might as well be racist. We all strive for connection and the reason why we don't want discrimination to exist is we don't want to lose our ability to interact with people we care about. If all racists can get are other racist people or no one, why would they change?
Side note, most if not all outrage on social media (esp twitter and youtube) seems to be created by sufficiently motivated individuals. It's as obvious as a bright sky. So I wonder if you can live sharing your opinions while not getting bad side on one of those twitter mob groups.
What I have learned from struggling a lot with issues normal people don't face (at least going by majority) is that we are all toxic to each other. Some things are more visible and easily understandable for others while many aren't. It may feel pretty shitty for a disabled person inside a room of normal people complaining about very trivial things and calling for others to become disabled as a joke. Some autism jokes may actually invoke sad memories for others. But there are groups of young people who do all those and don't think it is toxic. Joking about depression is another. There are many examples where line of toxicity isn't so visible for a specific majority.
People have difficulty imagining the scale of time and when that difficulty helps them form a tribalistic decision to justify their own biases, it's much more easier to do that than fight against the urge.
The rise of short attention span only means people are much less empathetic than they seem to think they are by social media.
It's only my opinion but an empathetic person will look beyond that this person has some horrible political opinions and I want to run a witch hunt. A tweet out of 20k tweets in isolation doesn't say much about the person especially if it's old. They might be having a bad day, may want attention and said something controversial to get it. Maybe they do have medical problems (I know I do, I am on meds and my behavior changes a lot). And even if that person is officially shitty, I don't see why would you try to burn their house. It's ok to inform others but what's the point of attacking someone that they think "nobody" cares about them?
If nobody cares about improving those people, then they might as well become too extreme in their opinion. If nobody wants to hear them, they might as well be racist. We all strive for connection and the reason why we don't want discrimination to exist is we don't want to lose our ability to interact with people we care about. If all racists can get are other racist people or no one, why would they change?
Side note, most if not all outrage on social media (esp twitter and youtube) seems to be created by sufficiently motivated individuals. It's as obvious as a bright sky. So I wonder if you can live sharing your opinions while not getting bad side on one of those twitter mob groups.
This feels like an instance of negativity-bias. If you're willing to self-censor to avoid downvotes shouldn't you also be willing to shill / virtue signal for upvotes?
My problem with downvotes isn't the effect on my score. It's the fact that the font becomes paler. Dissenting opinions are singled out in a way that makes them look bad/wrong. I also don't like how the UX doesn't represent the distribution. A post with no votes will look like a post with 50 upvotes and 50 downvotes.
I am fine with downvotes, and with some UX mechanism to let people know that a post is being downvoted. But I think the current UX engenders groupthink.
My problem with downvotes isn't the effect on my score. It's the fact that the font becomes paler. Dissenting opinions are singled out in a way that makes them look bad/wrong. I also don't like how the UX doesn't represent the distribution. A post with no votes will look like a post with 50 upvotes and 50 downvotes.
I am fine with downvotes, and with some UX mechanism to let people know that a post is being downvoted. But I think the current UX engenders groupthink.
What about if you have say 7 downvoted comments in a row, you might be shadowbanned [forever]?
That seems much worse. As well as not being transparent at all.
That seems much worse. As well as not being transparent at all.
Is that true? I've gotten hella downvotes but still not shadow banned. I think it's because people read my comments in their own voice rather than in my voice and take offence to the words whereas it's just a way of communicating using signals in order to point to an underlying meaning
Do you know a time period where you got more than 2 downvoted comments in a row? I couldn’t find that from quickly going through your comment history. Sure there’s a decent amt of downvoted comments but the non downvoted ones not only are much larger in number, they will happen 5+ times in a row. I threw out a random number. But mostly was saying something like 7 or 10 downvoted greyed out comments in a row over some number of days depending on some factors could get you shadowbanned.
Yes, this is the worst aspect of HN's design in my opinion: the paler font is essentially the equivalent of silencing dissent.
What is worse, it is an entirely silent way of silencing dissent. I would love to experiment with the other end of the spectrum: not only should the number of downvotes be visible, downvoting someone should also require a reason to be given, in the form of a post. And it should be possible to downvote those reasons too, with the algorithm adjusting the original downvote's weight based on the score of the downvote reason.
What is worse, it is an entirely silent way of silencing dissent. I would love to experiment with the other end of the spectrum: not only should the number of downvotes be visible, downvoting someone should also require a reason to be given, in the form of a post. And it should be possible to downvote those reasons too, with the algorithm adjusting the original downvote's weight based on the score of the downvote reason.
I've been saying that too, 'reason for downvote' or 'link to profile page'
What if I told you that you can just click on the comment permlink, and that gets rid of the graying. Nobody's being "silenced" here; it's just a way to quickly assess the level of confidence in a HN comment.
Is it even a good measure though? Is the community more "confident" in a post that has 1 downvote than a post that has 50 upvotes and 52 downvotes?
HN (and many, MANY other sites, including forums, product reviews, search engines) confuses "popularity" with "quality". If there was one thing on the Internet I could fix by waving a magic wand, it would be this idea that more people [liking|linking|upvoting] something means it is better. Crowdsourced curation doesn't work.
Why are you afraid of downvotes? There's little reason to self-censor due to an internet currency.
And I wouldn't say the forum is "exactly this" unless you're saying that downvotes are on par with getting "fired, ostracized, imprisoned, or killed."
And I wouldn't say the forum is "exactly this" unless you're saying that downvotes are on par with getting "fired, ostracized, imprisoned, or killed."
If you get downvoted, you will be rate limited. So your ability to participate in the discussion will be limited.
This is a really interesting question. I know I - and most of us - seem to have a sensitivity to negative social responses, that it's own freestanding emotional response, it's not linked directly to any pragmatic connection to the consequences of that response. Which is why in a mass society, where that avoidance response is not well matched to consequences that sociopathy becomes a superpower.
I often find myself thinking that we either need to create a healthier mechanism for finer grained social consequences at a mass scale, or accept that the future belongs to sociopaths and cancel culture.
I often find myself thinking that we either need to create a healthier mechanism for finer grained social consequences at a mass scale, or accept that the future belongs to sociopaths and cancel culture.
There's a bit of a difference between "not saying things because you may lose a dozen of meaningless internet points" and "not saying things because you can have a mob of haters try to get you and you family fired, you life ruined and maybe send men with guns drawn to your home to get you murdered if they're lucky".
I don’t self-censor. I don’t really pay attention to votes except as a barometer for how HN interpreted the topic or content of my post or comment. I try to post within the guidelines and rules and generally not be divisive. And yet I often get a warning that I’m posting too fast. Seems like a form of HN’s invisible soft mod power that suppresses legitimate comments and posts. I know this because I tried to post something yesterday afternoon, got the posting too fast error, and now the post is made by someone else 12 hours ago or so. How can these kinds of casual censorship be quantified across HN? It’s hard to talk about that which you can’t say.
Why do you care about invisible internet points? Create an alt-account and use it in good faith.
There is a chilling effect happening, and people need to be able to make unpopular arguments -- again, in good faith.
There is a chilling effect happening, and people need to be able to make unpopular arguments -- again, in good faith.
I don't care about invisible internet points, but people do get banned from here if they rock the boat too much.
Exactly, downvotes hurt so much!
Honestly, I once got a gentle slap from dang, and it made me reevaluate my comment. Downvoting is easily ignored.
I find down votes are usually the posts I'm most proud of. Nothing crazy, just means I dared to have an opinion.
Also quite amusing what someone will take time out of their day to down vote sometimes.
Also quite amusing what someone will take time out of their day to down vote sometimes.
I had something similar. My comment actually had a lot of upvotes, but dang rebuked me for being inflammatory. Really made me rethink whether I am writing something to share knowledge or just to anger someone.
do you think dang himself is without bias?
No. But I trust that dang will roll out self references to his old comments circling in an infinite recursion to explain what he means when he is scolding. Most mods online don't even do that. He might be wrong sometimes as all humans will be but you can ask him to clarify.
He has to regularly see multiple sides of the site. HN is pretty diverse depending on what you click and as such, I do think he is less biased in some ways we are and more biased in others as he work as a mod for hn.
He has to regularly see multiple sides of the site. HN is pretty diverse depending on what you click and as such, I do think he is less biased in some ways we are and more biased in others as he work as a mod for hn.
Oh cm'on people are way too sensitive
Downvotes don't hurt, but I wonder how many people here would stick around if HN forced all users to use their real names. How many people would instantly self-censored or completely change the way they share opinion and respond.
A lot of us would. I figure that in 10 years clever AI systems will be pretty good at attaching pseudonymous accounts with lots of posts to real people. That's why I put my Github with my real name in my profile, to remind myself.
I use my real name and censor myself heavily. Pseudonymous speech is much more honest, but I'm not prepared to quietly defy a court order to protect a pseudonym from legal discovery if an employer gets sued. And now apparently journalists might attack your opsec…
What's your point? 'Think before you speak' and 'speech has consequences' isn't exactly a new notion. Under a throwaway account on here I just write whatever pops up in my mind, when I co-author a paper under my and my colleague's real life names that's going to be read and cited, everyone triple checks everything so that as few innacurate or dumb things get published. How is this new or shocking in any way?
The thread of comments started with the mention of 2 papers discussing how people are reluctant to sharing their opinion because the "social cost" may be too high.
A reply comments on how HN is somewhat similar. People censoring themselves due to fear of being downvoted. I pointed out that IMO downvotes are a very mild sanction and truly, people don't need to censor themselves on HN, but the true cost would come if everyone had to comment with their real names.
Sorry it wasn't groundbreaking enough for you.
A reply comments on how HN is somewhat similar. People censoring themselves due to fear of being downvoted. I pointed out that IMO downvotes are a very mild sanction and truly, people don't need to censor themselves on HN, but the true cost would come if everyone had to comment with their real names.
Sorry it wasn't groundbreaking enough for you.
Naw dude your point is not lost -- and all this discussion is happening on a zero-point comment mind you
I'd probably still be around!
The way free speech in my country is being limited currently, I would not post anymore.
Maybe now it's still okay, but in ten years, who knows, I may be "cancelled".
Not that it hasn't already happened to others.
Maybe now it's still okay, but in ten years, who knows, I may be "cancelled".
Not that it hasn't already happened to others.
Dudes, this comment has gone from 0 to 5 votes, I don't even know what to make of it any more.
Why do you care about fake internet points?
Left-wing social movements, while initially well intentioned, tend to eat their own in escalating purity spirals. Total ideological purity is demanded, and valued above competence or actual results. The apotheosis tends to be something like Communist "self-criticism" sessions where people are forced to confess their thought crimes.
https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a...
https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a...
> Left-wing social movements, while initially well intentioned, tend to eat their own in escalating purity spirals.
That's not particularly true of left-wing movements; to the extent it's true of them it's also true of right-wing movements. The relevant factors are orthogonal to the left-right axis.
That's not particularly true of left-wing movements; to the extent it's true of them it's also true of right-wing movements. The relevant factors are orthogonal to the left-right axis.
Except it is, and not because "leftists" are bad or anything. I consider myself a leftist. It is because leftism promotes a resistance and challenging to authority and a prior belief in the goodness of the downtrodden masses. None of those are wrong per se, they are even healthy, but when they are perverted and distorted they can easily led to circuses like the cultural revolution in China. Right-wing ideologies usually promote submission to authority and traditionalism. The problems that come with excesses in that front are of a different kind.
> Except it is,
No, it's not.
> It is because leftism promotes a resistance and challenging to authority and a prior belief in the goodness of the downtrodden masses
I could with as much, justification say it is particularly associated with right-wing movements because the right promotes a rigid adherence to rules and authority, which devolves under pressure into seeking out non-adherence with progressively finer and finer combs.
> Right-wing ideologies usually promote submission to authority and traditionalism. The problems that come with excesses in that front are of a different kind.
Maybe in some other aspects, but a cycle of eating their own under pressure is not a point on which there is a difference. The left perhaps has more contribution from “people that were on the factions side before it gained power become genuinely opposed once it started executing power” and the right perhaps more from genuine intolerance for even the slightest deviation, but they both definitely experience it.
No, it's not.
> It is because leftism promotes a resistance and challenging to authority and a prior belief in the goodness of the downtrodden masses
I could with as much, justification say it is particularly associated with right-wing movements because the right promotes a rigid adherence to rules and authority, which devolves under pressure into seeking out non-adherence with progressively finer and finer combs.
> Right-wing ideologies usually promote submission to authority and traditionalism. The problems that come with excesses in that front are of a different kind.
Maybe in some other aspects, but a cycle of eating their own under pressure is not a point on which there is a difference. The left perhaps has more contribution from “people that were on the factions side before it gained power become genuinely opposed once it started executing power” and the right perhaps more from genuine intolerance for even the slightest deviation, but they both definitely experience it.
The idea of 'right wing ideology' doesn't mean anything, it's actually just mostly pseudo-intellectual nonsense created by the academic left.
Consider that the right are supposedly in favour of free markets and small government but also supposedly in favour of strong submission to authority? These positions are incompatible.
In reality most historical movements labelled as "right wing" were left wing, yes, that means fascism and Nazi-ism too. The latter of course even had "socialist" in the title yet decades of the academic left insisting that against all common sense and obvious observations, Nazis were actually right wing, has left the world hopelessly confused about this so-called spectrum. You can't be both supportive of a dictatorship and state-controlled industry, and a believer in small government, free speech and free markets.
Consider that the right are supposedly in favour of free markets and small government but also supposedly in favour of strong submission to authority? These positions are incompatible.
In reality most historical movements labelled as "right wing" were left wing, yes, that means fascism and Nazi-ism too. The latter of course even had "socialist" in the title yet decades of the academic left insisting that against all common sense and obvious observations, Nazis were actually right wing, has left the world hopelessly confused about this so-called spectrum. You can't be both supportive of a dictatorship and state-controlled industry, and a believer in small government, free speech and free markets.
[deleted]
The difference between left right and right wing movements is that the right has sort of agreed on an outer bound for how far right is too far. It looks something like political/national racial purity. Once people start spouting that, they tend to be removed from polite conversation. There is no similar outer bound on the left. There is nothing you can support that's so far left you will be expunged from polite society.
> The difference between left right and right wing movements is that the right has sort of agreed on an outer bound for how far right is too far.
Heh. Is that a joke?
> It looks something like political/national racial purity. Once people start spouting that, they tend to be removed from polite conversation.
Yeah, the American Right has really marginalized Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, et al.
> There is no similar outer bound on the left
Really? Which of the following statements will get you excluded from public political dialogue in the US)
“Europeans did Africans a favor by bringing them to America as slaves”
Or
“Capitalist ownership of the means of production is a root of injustice and fundamentally incompatible with democracy”
(One of these has been prominently made by prominent voices on one side of the spectrum without repercussion, while people are routinely excluded for statements for more moderate than the other. At least in the US, to the extent anything vaguely resembling your point is true, it's exactly the reverse of the split you've proposed.)
Heh. Is that a joke?
> It looks something like political/national racial purity. Once people start spouting that, they tend to be removed from polite conversation.
Yeah, the American Right has really marginalized Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, et al.
> There is no similar outer bound on the left
Really? Which of the following statements will get you excluded from public political dialogue in the US)
“Europeans did Africans a favor by bringing them to America as slaves”
Or
“Capitalist ownership of the means of production is a root of injustice and fundamentally incompatible with democracy”
(One of these has been prominently made by prominent voices on one side of the spectrum without repercussion, while people are routinely excluded for statements for more moderate than the other. At least in the US, to the extent anything vaguely resembling your point is true, it's exactly the reverse of the split you've proposed.)
The African-American slave statement was recently made on one of the open discussion threads of SSC blog in question. I was fairly shocked by it (I didn’t know it was a common topic), first trying to see if it was meant ironically (no, it seemed to be meant seriously), then expecting the regular “rationalists” to tear the arguments apart. But none did, and the statement stood unchallenged—to be fair, the recent open threads had thousands of comments and so it may have gone unnoticed. I was actually going to see if that thread had any replies when I found the blog was deleted, and I honestly wondered if that wasn’t the reason.
The discussions on SSC were often intellectual and rationality-based, but a lot of the super-commenters were right-leaning. Left-leaning commenters were more scarce, and even benefitted from some affirmative-action less-strict moderation to encourage them to sick around. In fact, after the recent BLM protests, a new user showed up to argue and explain the social justice position, and did so respectfully and was well-received.
But I think a lot of the regulars had their blind spots. So many arguments were essentially: since A is true, B and C are the logical conclusions, but often nobody questioned A, let alone tested it—the rationality was often superficial. A popular format on the open threads (thus I’m characterizing the blog readers and commentariat, not the blog author) was impossible hypotheticals leading to un-provable speculation. Questions like what would’ve happened if Germany in WW2 had such-or-such a weapon. The format was even codified in the format of friendly aliens offering some weird bargain (take a pill to sleep 12hrs a day—or never need sleep but always be tired), then asking people what they would do or how that would change things. Fun thought problems, but so disconnected from reality or practical thought—essentially nerd-sniping (to use an admittedly uncharitable term).
Tl;DR: SSC was a mixed bag, but mostly civil and well-intentioned.
The discussions on SSC were often intellectual and rationality-based, but a lot of the super-commenters were right-leaning. Left-leaning commenters were more scarce, and even benefitted from some affirmative-action less-strict moderation to encourage them to sick around. In fact, after the recent BLM protests, a new user showed up to argue and explain the social justice position, and did so respectfully and was well-received.
But I think a lot of the regulars had their blind spots. So many arguments were essentially: since A is true, B and C are the logical conclusions, but often nobody questioned A, let alone tested it—the rationality was often superficial. A popular format on the open threads (thus I’m characterizing the blog readers and commentariat, not the blog author) was impossible hypotheticals leading to un-provable speculation. Questions like what would’ve happened if Germany in WW2 had such-or-such a weapon. The format was even codified in the format of friendly aliens offering some weird bargain (take a pill to sleep 12hrs a day—or never need sleep but always be tired), then asking people what they would do or how that would change things. Fun thought problems, but so disconnected from reality or practical thought—essentially nerd-sniping (to use an admittedly uncharitable term).
Tl;DR: SSC was a mixed bag, but mostly civil and well-intentioned.
Are you sure that's all there was? I've never heard anyone argue that the slaves themselves benefited from slavery. I want to be clear I'm not making this argument myself, only describing a thing I have heard... I have heard someone argue that modern blacks have received a net benefit compared to if their ancestors had been left alone. And the context is about how to calculate reparations. What you described, slaves themselves benefiting directly, doesn't sound familiar at all.
I remembered slightly wrong, it was more complicated than that. A rather right leaning commenter said that if one were to accept that reparations for historical slavery requested by BLM and SJW were valid, then because African-Americans are claimed to be still better off than any other black populations in other countries, the slavers should be celebrated not torn down. The commenter says because this is “morally repugnant” then BLM and SJW are thus wrong. So it’s a case of false equivalence and setting up a straw man Or something (they love their rhetorical flourishes at SSC). So the slavery issue wasn’t actually claimed, but it was set up as a logical conclusion or the opponent’s perceived position, and this was never countered.
Here is the comment on archive.org:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200622224636/https://slatestar...
Here is the comment on archive.org:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200622224636/https://slatestar...
> Yeah, the American Right has really marginalized Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, et al.
The fact that Trump is what you think passes for an ethno-nationalist these days is all the evidence needed to demonstrate my point.
>“Europeans did Africans a favor by bringing them to America as slaves”
This is a pretty gross thing to say, but it's not ethno-nationalism. Words have meaning for a reason.
>“Capitalist ownership of the means of production is a root of injustice and fundamentally incompatible with democracy”
The most popular politician in our country a couple years ago, and perhaps still today, is the open socialist Bernie Sanders.
The fact that Trump is what you think passes for an ethno-nationalist these days is all the evidence needed to demonstrate my point.
>“Europeans did Africans a favor by bringing them to America as slaves”
This is a pretty gross thing to say, but it's not ethno-nationalism. Words have meaning for a reason.
>“Capitalist ownership of the means of production is a root of injustice and fundamentally incompatible with democracy”
The most popular politician in our country a couple years ago, and perhaps still today, is the open socialist Bernie Sanders.
> has sort of agreed on an outer bound for how far right is too far
You think Stephen Miller wants to stop with border camps? This is an absolute absurd claim to make.
> There is nothing you can support that's so far left you will be expunged from polite society.
Where is the comparable person to Stephen Miller being anywhere close to public policy on the left? We have one barely socdem congressperson. Where are the NYT opeds about third worldism?
You think Stephen Miller wants to stop with border camps? This is an absolute absurd claim to make.
> There is nothing you can support that's so far left you will be expunged from polite society.
Where is the comparable person to Stephen Miller being anywhere close to public policy on the left? We have one barely socdem congressperson. Where are the NYT opeds about third worldism?
Can you give an example?I think this is probably country dependent (I'm from Europe) but in my experience calling yourself "communist" or even just agitating for democratic control over means of production is enough to be "canceled" in the sense that most large employers will be wary to higher you and our mainstream media will lump you in with Stalin. And that is in Europe, on the US I have less experience but I think until Bernie I wasn't aware of any visible socialist in the US.
Meanwhile, from my perspective, we Europeans lookt at North America and see a lot of racists, transphobes and anti-poor agitators complaining about being cancelled on national Media and while giving speeches at universities (e.g. fox news, Jordan Peterson). Which feels...off.
Meanwhile, from my perspective, we Europeans lookt at North America and see a lot of racists, transphobes and anti-poor agitators complaining about being cancelled on national Media and while giving speeches at universities (e.g. fox news, Jordan Peterson). Which feels...off.
>Can you give an example?
Sure, one easy way of gauging this phenomenon is the social response to the swastika compared to the hammer and sickle.
Another is that the biggest ethno-nationalist gathering in decades in the US was a few years ago, tragically someone was run over by a vehicle. There were only hundreds of people there. The next year they tried to hold another rally and only dozens showed up.
>Meanwhile, from my perspective, we Europeans lookt at North America and see a lot of racists, transphobes and anti-poor agitators complaining about being cancelled on national Media and while giving speeches at universities (e.g. fox news, Jordan Peterson). Which feels...off.
The business model of the corporate press is to fill your heart with fear, so that you will watch/click/share/etc. A great example of this phenomenon is the "Fine People Hoax." You might recall there was a major news story claiming that Trump called white nationalists "fine people." Except if you read the transcript he clearly states, in the same breath as the words "fine people," and without prompting, that white nationalists should be condemned totally. These types of things happen over and over again.
Sure, one easy way of gauging this phenomenon is the social response to the swastika compared to the hammer and sickle.
Another is that the biggest ethno-nationalist gathering in decades in the US was a few years ago, tragically someone was run over by a vehicle. There were only hundreds of people there. The next year they tried to hold another rally and only dozens showed up.
>Meanwhile, from my perspective, we Europeans lookt at North America and see a lot of racists, transphobes and anti-poor agitators complaining about being cancelled on national Media and while giving speeches at universities (e.g. fox news, Jordan Peterson). Which feels...off.
The business model of the corporate press is to fill your heart with fear, so that you will watch/click/share/etc. A great example of this phenomenon is the "Fine People Hoax." You might recall there was a major news story claiming that Trump called white nationalists "fine people." Except if you read the transcript he clearly states, in the same breath as the words "fine people," and without prompting, that white nationalists should be condemned totally. These types of things happen over and over again.
Erm, are you you talking about the Charleston rally in which a Neonazi ran over counter protestors? And if yes,are you saying it's a bad thing less people showed up to sing "Jews will not replace us" the year after?
And regarding the symbolism...I can kinda see that example, maybe, but I generally don't see the hammer and sickle used in mainstream politics either. And even then, there is a line between something like the hammer and sickle which was used before and after Lenin/Stalin as a symbol vs. the swastika which was literally designed by Nazis and only ever used by them (the Buddhist one is slightly different)
If anyone directly sympathises with Stalin/Lenin and calling for dekulakhisation, I'd expect that to also remove them from polite conversation. It just seems to happen less ?
And regarding the symbolism...I can kinda see that example, maybe, but I generally don't see the hammer and sickle used in mainstream politics either. And even then, there is a line between something like the hammer and sickle which was used before and after Lenin/Stalin as a symbol vs. the swastika which was literally designed by Nazis and only ever used by them (the Buddhist one is slightly different)
If anyone directly sympathises with Stalin/Lenin and calling for dekulakhisation, I'd expect that to also remove them from polite conversation. It just seems to happen less ?
>Erm, are you you talking about the Charleston rally in which a Neonazi ran over counter protestors? And if yes,are you saying it's a bad thing less people showed up to sing "Jews will not replace us" the year after?
My point is that there is not widespread public support for this tiny group of awful people. The fact that so few people showed up is evidence of that. These people went "too far right" and were abandoned, as they should be.
>If anyone directly sympathises with Stalin/Lenin and calling for dekulakhisation, I'd expect that to also remove them from polite conversation. It just seems to happen less ?
AOC tweeted Marx's Labor Theory of Value. Bernie Sanders, recently the most popular politician in the country is an open Socialist. Michael Moore can openly/publicly support and wish Happy Birthday to Marx. Can you actually name an instance where a person went so far left that they were canceled?
My point is that there is not widespread public support for this tiny group of awful people. The fact that so few people showed up is evidence of that. These people went "too far right" and were abandoned, as they should be.
>If anyone directly sympathises with Stalin/Lenin and calling for dekulakhisation, I'd expect that to also remove them from polite conversation. It just seems to happen less ?
AOC tweeted Marx's Labor Theory of Value. Bernie Sanders, recently the most popular politician in the country is an open Socialist. Michael Moore can openly/publicly support and wish Happy Birthday to Marx. Can you actually name an instance where a person went so far left that they were canceled?
Quoting my other reply
1. People tried to cancel Bernie Sanders, it just didn't work https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/15/bernie-sa...
2. Not a single person who openly advocates Stalinism or similar forceful collectivisation makes it onto the national stage. Meanwhile Richard Spencer was so "cancelled" that he continued to interviewed on national TV
3. In Germany and Europe, most communist parties are under observation by the constitutional secret service, despite being democratic parties
4. In the US, Colin Kapernick was cancelled by the NFL for kneeling to protest police brutality
Leftist positions, as it turns out, are much less inherently tied to authoritarianism than Nazi ideology. Thus, you often see people advocating for democratic socialism on the national stage, but not for Stalinism and a violent revolution. The latter of which immediately gets them cancelled before they become much of a public figure,
1. People tried to cancel Bernie Sanders, it just didn't work https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/15/bernie-sa...
2. Not a single person who openly advocates Stalinism or similar forceful collectivisation makes it onto the national stage. Meanwhile Richard Spencer was so "cancelled" that he continued to interviewed on national TV
3. In Germany and Europe, most communist parties are under observation by the constitutional secret service, despite being democratic parties
4. In the US, Colin Kapernick was cancelled by the NFL for kneeling to protest police brutality
Leftist positions, as it turns out, are much less inherently tied to authoritarianism than Nazi ideology. Thus, you often see people advocating for democratic socialism on the national stage, but not for Stalinism and a violent revolution. The latter of which immediately gets them cancelled before they become much of a public figure,
Far-left ideology has claimed more lives than far-right ideology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_...
> calling yourself "communist" or even just agitating for democratic control over means of production is enough to be "canceled" in the sense that most large employers will be wary to higher you and our mainstream media will lump you in with Stalin.
calling yourself 'nazi' will have the same consequences, so I don't see what is the problem here, communism is every step as bad as nazism (source: born in USSR)
calling yourself 'nazi' will have the same consequences, so I don't see what is the problem here, communism is every step as bad as nazism (source: born in USSR)
There is a difference between communist and Stalinist/Leninist though. Calling yourself a nationalist Vs a Nazi seems to warrant that distinction in most countries
> There is a difference between communist and Stalinist/Leninist though
only to communists, maybe. From where I stand, Leninism/Stalinism/Trotskism/other -ism are all extreme totalitarian ideologies
only to communists, maybe. From where I stand, Leninism/Stalinism/Trotskism/other -ism are all extreme totalitarian ideologies
And would you accept the same grouping of capitalism, American libertarianism and fascism or would you prefer people actually pay attention to nuances?
since all real-world outcomes of communism have been consistently horrible, and since communists killed several of my ancestors - no, I am not going to look for nuances. If nazis should be punched, so should communists.
Maybe if North Korea suddenly turns into actual paradise, I'll reconsider.
Maybe if North Korea suddenly turns into actual paradise, I'll reconsider.
all real world outcomes of communism? Really? China being a dominant super power? I disagree with the regime, yeah, but that's a pretty black and white statement there. The left spectrum stretches as wide as the right-wing one, and communism has influenced all of them ideologically via socialism and social democracy or directly via unions. MLK was a socialist. So was Einstein. Would you stick to your statement?
Love your China example! Germany under Hitler also was a dominant superpower, if you forgot. So you just reinforced my point that communism is a totalitarian aggressive ideology, pretty similar to Nazism.
So yeah, _all_ real world outcomes, definitely
So yeah, _all_ real world outcomes, definitely
It's simply not true that communists are canceled. The media regularly openly supports the CCP. The most popular politician in our country as of a couple years ago was open socialist Bernie Sanders. Wearing a swastika is an insta-cancel. Wearing a hammer and sickle gets you a "I wouldn't vote for that guy... maybe."
It's simply not true that communists are canceled.
The media regularly openly supports the CCP. The
most popular politician in our country as of a
couple years ago was open socialist Bernie Sanders
Communism != Socialism
Each of these terms have been applied to a wide variety of beliefs and practices. Nobody owns these terms, but even Marx himself drew a sharp distinction between the two.
"Communism" is a system in which the state owns everything and resources are, theoretically, fairly and equally distributed to the people. In practice, this has never worked out well, and very few folks view communism as a realistic solution today.
"Socialism" refers to a much wider range of ideas. Broadly speaking, any redistribution of wealth is "socialism" and this would include collecting taxes and using them to build a public library, roads, or fund schooling for children.
In practice, just about every nation on Earth is a blend of socialism and capitalism. In a truly free-market/capitalist society with zero traces of socialism, the government would provide almost literally nothing except for perhaps border defense.
Canada and the UK are capitalist, but lean farther toward socialism (with their nationalized healthcare, etc) than the USA. When a modern American politician like Sanders or AOC advocates for "socialism", this is what they mean.
Unlike communism, socialism works. It's just a question of how much of it you want. Even your most "socialist" politicians in the USA don't advocate the abolition of private property, and even the most libertarian politicians don't advocate the total dismantling of the federal government.
It is also very important to understand that socialism is utterly compatible with democratic elections. Just as you could have a capitalist nation ruled by a dictator, you can have have a socialist nation with democratic elections. A nation's method of choosing leaders is almost entirely orthogonal to how it structures its economy.
The communist bit refers to the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party. Neither communists or socialists are canceled, there is no limit. People who go too far right are canceled.
China's not remotely communist. It's socialist.
CCP has "communist" in the name, but this is more of a historical artifact than anything.
Rule of thumb with political parties and countries is that their actual names have little to do with reality -- witness all of the dictatorships that have had "Democratic" in their names over the years.
Democratic Republic of the Congo springs to mind. And of course North Korea, officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (lol)
CCP has "communist" in the name, but this is more of a historical artifact than anything.
Rule of thumb with political parties and countries is that their actual names have little to do with reality -- witness all of the dictatorships that have had "Democratic" in their names over the years.
Democratic Republic of the Congo springs to mind. And of course North Korea, officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (lol)
I would say that there is a wide gulf between wanting to make sure people have healthcare (Sanders's big position) and the violent revolution and subsequent authoritarianism that Communism tends to require.
I feel like all of this is avoiding the point. If there is such a place on the left that is "too far left" that you will be insta-canceled, what is it? Please provide an example of this happening to a public figure.
1. People tried to cancel Bernie Sanders, it just didn't work
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/15/bernie-sa...
2. Not a single person who openly advocates Stalinism or similar forceful collectivisation makes it onto the national stage. Meanwhile Richard Spencer was so "cancelled" that he continued to interviewed on national TV
3. In Germany and Europe, most communist parties are under observation by the constitutional secret service, despite being democratic parties
4. In the US, Colin Kapernick was cancelled by the NFL for kneeling to protest police brutality
Leftist positions, as it turns out, are much less inherently tied to authoritarianism than Nazi ideology. Thus, you often see people advocating for democratic socialism on the national stage, but not for Stalinism and a violent revolution. The latter of which immediately gets them cancelled before they become much of a public figure
2. Not a single person who openly advocates Stalinism or similar forceful collectivisation makes it onto the national stage. Meanwhile Richard Spencer was so "cancelled" that he continued to interviewed on national TV
3. In Germany and Europe, most communist parties are under observation by the constitutional secret service, despite being democratic parties
4. In the US, Colin Kapernick was cancelled by the NFL for kneeling to protest police brutality
Leftist positions, as it turns out, are much less inherently tied to authoritarianism than Nazi ideology. Thus, you often see people advocating for democratic socialism on the national stage, but not for Stalinism and a violent revolution. The latter of which immediately gets them cancelled before they become much of a public figure
1. Suggesting Bernie is "too far left" to get elected President is not canceling. Being forced to resign out of office in disgrace is a canceling. James Damore was a nobody with no power who was put under the national spotlight and canceled spectacularly. Rosanne Barr was canceled.
2. Richard Spencer has not been canceled because he went too far left.
3. So not a single person then.
4. Is Kapernick far left?
I actually see people supporting leftist authoritarians openly pretty regularly. I already provided some pop culture examples elsewhere... AOC tweeted Marx's labor theory of value. Bernie openly supported the USSR (even honeymooned there), Cuba, Venezuela, and is an open socialist. I see people wearing Che Guevera shirts walking down the street.
2. Richard Spencer has not been canceled because he went too far left.
3. So not a single person then.
4. Is Kapernick far left?
I actually see people supporting leftist authoritarians openly pretty regularly. I already provided some pop culture examples elsewhere... AOC tweeted Marx's labor theory of value. Bernie openly supported the USSR (even honeymooned there), Cuba, Venezuela, and is an open socialist. I see people wearing Che Guevera shirts walking down the street.
People who think differently than you are not openly supporting authoritarian regimes.
If the left is so powerful, so accepted, where are all the communists in power? Who's in the white House?
Colin Kapernick isn't remotely far left, and he still got cancelled.
If the left is so powerful, so accepted, where are all the communists in power? Who's in the white House?
Colin Kapernick isn't remotely far left, and he still got cancelled.
Well, one symbol is inherently tied to racial purity politics, the other is a symbol which was used by communists both before and after the atrocities committed by Stalin/Lenin/etc. Is that not a difference?
I'm going to grant you every inch of that. Now please give me an example of a public person who went so far left that they were canceled and are no longer welcome in polite conversation.
I answered you in two replies already, but you will have to define "polite conversation" for this one to make sense. Anyone on the left who calls for or hints at purges in the same way that white nationalists do doesn't even make it onto the national stage. If you define "cancelled" as "losing their job and getting persecuted" then how about Colin Kapernick, for protesting police brutality by kneeling, and the worker who was (most likely illegally) fire by Amazon for pushing for unionisation amidst COVID19?
And being up Bernie Sanders name in "polite" democratic circles, let's see how supportive they are.
Reality is, the far left doesn't get cancelled as much because their popular ideas generally involve democratic control over the means of production and treating everyone like a human being, not revolution, while the far rights "popular" ideas are racism, sexism and the disenfranchisement of the "proles". One of these inherently requires authoritarianism, the other doesn't.
And being up Bernie Sanders name in "polite" democratic circles, let's see how supportive they are.
Reality is, the far left doesn't get cancelled as much because their popular ideas generally involve democratic control over the means of production and treating everyone like a human being, not revolution, while the far rights "popular" ideas are racism, sexism and the disenfranchisement of the "proles". One of these inherently requires authoritarianism, the other doesn't.
I love "What You Can't Say" and have incorporated the conformist test into my moral compass. But I think the shift to use of shame for society regulation is a positive development. I'd much rather be downvoted on HN or called names on Twitter than beaten up or deprived of freedom. But maybe that's just me.
> But I think the shift to use of shame for society regulation is a positive development. I'd much rather be downvoted on HN or called names on Twitter than beaten up or deprived of freedom.
It's easy to require due process prior to anyone being deprived of freedom, and we generally see this as a positive development, compared to the alternative. Using "shame" (aka witch hunts, cyber bullying and the like) to punish unwelcome views is the opposite of due process.
It's easy to require due process prior to anyone being deprived of freedom, and we generally see this as a positive development, compared to the alternative. Using "shame" (aka witch hunts, cyber bullying and the like) to punish unwelcome views is the opposite of due process.
It's not easy at all. Even in a democratic country with highly functional legal system like the US due process is not available to many (e.g. George Floyd).
Also my idea of shame doesn't include death threats let alone more extreme things like swatting.
Also my idea of shame doesn't include death threats let alone more extreme things like swatting.
It's the impulse that's lead to more shaming that's also pushing to make the police come and arrest you for saying offensive things- at least, this is already the case in europe.
And why not swat someone? If you're going to go after their livelihood and try to stop them from ever having a job again, you're half killing them anyway. People murder each other for less. Be honest and just have their dog shot already ;)
And why not swat someone? If you're going to go after their livelihood and try to stop them from ever having a job again, you're half killing them anyway. People murder each other for less. Be honest and just have their dog shot already ;)
It is certainly no positive development. Shame requires a central authority or is based on the minimal consensus of the majority of society. I wouldn't recommend it. To regulate society, we have laws. Far better and objective system. Doesn't protect you from social prosecution which is restricted to people with a public or know persona on Twitter as it seems. There are also pretty shameless people.
does it include losing your job for wrongthink?
[deleted]
You are pretty far from the mark here... A study as far back as 2002 recognised the US as an oligarchy — i.e. not a democracy. And to call their legal/judicial systems or process “highly functional” is also pretty laughable.
George Floyd shouldn’t have come into the line of fire of these systems, he was an innocent man. The fact that it was and is so difficult to prosecute the responsible officer shows how dysfunctional the system is.
Using shame as a system of justice relies on emotional charge at the point of infraction. I would argue that’s how mob justice starts, not how we end injustice.
George Floyd shouldn’t have come into the line of fire of these systems, he was an innocent man. The fact that it was and is so difficult to prosecute the responsible officer shows how dysfunctional the system is.
Using shame as a system of justice relies on emotional charge at the point of infraction. I would argue that’s how mob justice starts, not how we end injustice.
Re the US: I only meant that comparatively. Most of the people in the world can only dream of living under a system as good as yours. And for us violent regulation of expression is the norm.
I hear you. The shame-based system is prone to be unjust. TBH, I also think the people pioneering it are wrong about most things. I guess what I'm trying to say is that any violent regulation of expression is unjust, so even if shame-justice is on point 10% of the time it's still an improvement. And in the cases when it's wrong the consequences are less severe.
I hear you. The shame-based system is prone to be unjust. TBH, I also think the people pioneering it are wrong about most things. I guess what I'm trying to say is that any violent regulation of expression is unjust, so even if shame-justice is on point 10% of the time it's still an improvement. And in the cases when it's wrong the consequences are less severe.
I had - without questioning it - assumed you were commenting from a Western Democracy yourself. It is beautifully eye-opening to be confronted with my own bias so starkly. In fact, I am British, and I think our system has many of the same issues as that of the US. Of course we have our own issues, mostly stemming from what I perceive as a delicate sensibility which is pervasive in British society, and is the subject of decades of jokes at our expense.
I wrote, and rewrote the rest of this comment 3 times, before I gave up, and started from the top of the thread again. Now I have decided to stop exhausting myself over what might be acceptable to an indefinable demographic (HN commenters reading this individual thread) for me to say.
I wrote, and rewrote the rest of this comment 3 times, before I gave up, and started from the top of the thread again. Now I have decided to stop exhausting myself over what might be acceptable to an indefinable demographic (HN commenters reading this individual thread) for me to say.
But over here, we're not moving from the government hurting you for your speech to people shaming you. We moving from less hurt/shame in total to more shame in total. If the 2nd amendment didn't exist, the us would also have more government punishments for speech now than it did before- because that's what the people shaming want.
Sorry, actually meant 1st. But 2nd applies, too.
Regulating speech via social means is strongly preferable to regulating speech via legal means, in my opinion.
strongly disagree; it is mostly universally agreed that regulating crime via society means (i.e. lynch mobs) is bad; same applies to speech, I believe
If somebody is saying hurtful things, what's the due process to address that? Before the digital age, didn't we always manage that kind of thing through a type of social contract?
> I'd much rather be downvoted on HN or called names on Twitter than beaten up or deprived of freedom.
This blog post is literally about someone fearing that it'll escalate to "beaten up" or "fired" if their name is published.
This blog post is literally about someone fearing that it'll escalate to "beaten up" or "fired" if their name is published.
Yeah, my comment was only in reference to this subthread.
How about you and your partner being fired from your job because your 13 year old wrote 1 year ago in Instagram : "Guacamole nigga penis". Is that shame treatment good enough or you prefer it more severe?
Well as far as our rational, atheist and activists who believe in 'science' go something more severe is absolutely required to clean earth off these scums.
An important bit is that it must be restricted to US sensibilities without any regard to other cultures. The woke are the true patriots here.
It's not simply being called names (though that can cause some level of psychological distress). The big concern is economic consequences. People are losing their jobs, losing access to the platforms their customers are using, being canceled by payment services, etc.
There's also some level of physical safety concerns as well, but (as of yet) that's not as big of a concern.
There's also some level of physical safety concerns as well, but (as of yet) that's not as big of a concern.
Maybe it is like police and tasers?
In theory, tasers are good because they can substitute shooting.
In practice, you had 5 shootings, and now you have 4 shootings and 200 taser uses
In theory, tasers are good because they can substitute shooting.
In practice, you had 5 shootings, and now you have 4 shootings and 200 taser uses
I get the overall point you're trying to make, but for the person who was going to be that #5 shooting and gets to live instead, that's a positive outcome for that person at least.
Overall there's certainly a larger discussion about the use of force, and maybe tasers contribute to that in some negative ways, but most of the time they're used everybody gets to live at the end of the day.
Overall there's certainly a larger discussion about the use of force, and maybe tasers contribute to that in some negative ways, but most of the time they're used everybody gets to live at the end of the day.
You shoot 200 people with tasers, a few are going to die.
You get 200 people fired from their jobs and make it hard for them to get employment elsewhere, a few are going to kill themselves. (Or see if they can get revenge first.)
You get 200 people fired from their jobs and make it hard for them to get employment elsewhere, a few are going to kill themselves. (Or see if they can get revenge first.)
We're arguing over made up numbers here.
The problem is that cops in the US are shooting way too often. Less lethal weapons just give them more opportunities to shoot.
Go look up real numbers. Amount of unarmed black men shot year by year and up-to the riots. Look it up. And you're right the number is historic...ly low under Trump and was literally spiraling down to Zero before the riots, you could count the on your fingers and have one to spare.
As with my other comment, you'd have to actually come up with real numbers to have that kind of a discussion.
Luckily, one can never lead to the other.
It's irrelevant whether one thing can lead to the other. What's important is how often it does. If there's significantly less violence, it's a win.
I guess it could be a bit difficult to see from the US where you had the first amendment forever. But the rest of the world is not like that.
I guess it could be a bit difficult to see from the US where you had the first amendment forever. But the rest of the world is not like that.
The claim that cancel cultures appearance is single handedly responsible for a drop in violence that was entirely the fault of a more permissive attitude towards open debate seems quite a stretch to put it as politely as possible.
Are you implying it's a claim I've made? Because it isn't.
On the contrary, my claim is that if you take the world as a whole there has never been more permissive attitude towards open debate than today. But even in the so-called free world... Compare the treatment of JK Rowling got to the treatment MLK got.
On the contrary, my claim is that if you take the world as a whole there has never been more permissive attitude towards open debate than today. But even in the so-called free world... Compare the treatment of JK Rowling got to the treatment MLK got.
> But I think the shift to use of shame for society regulation is a positive development
> If there's significantly less violence, it's a win.
Don't try and back away from your claims once you've made them.
And taking this debate from the point of view of the world as a whole is disingenuous, don't try to latch the damage done by one onto the overall good done by others and claim a net good for the first who caused the damage.
Also we aren't comparing now to the 1960s; yes now looks fabulous compared to then as does it compared to the purges in the USSR but we arent comparing those; we're discussing the recent devolution in free expression as pointed out in the blog this post is about.
> If there's significantly less violence, it's a win.
Don't try and back away from your claims once you've made them.
And taking this debate from the point of view of the world as a whole is disingenuous, don't try to latch the damage done by one onto the overall good done by others and claim a net good for the first who caused the damage.
Also we aren't comparing now to the 1960s; yes now looks fabulous compared to then as does it compared to the purges in the USSR but we arent comparing those; we're discussing the recent devolution in free expression as pointed out in the blog this post is about.
> violence that was entirely the fault of a more permissive attitude towards open debate
Where did I say anything that can even remotely be interpreted this way?
Whether you think it's appropriate or not, I wasn't referring to the blog post. I also don't think it's what the blog post is about: Scott is worried about his patients knowing his political views interfering with his work as well as death threats, none of which has anything to do with shame.
Where I live cancel culture coexists with violent regulation of expression. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the US history but I doubt that whatever golden age you have in mind was sufficiently long even if it existed. Larry Flint was shot in '78 so that leaves 30 years max if that.
Where did I say anything that can even remotely be interpreted this way?
Whether you think it's appropriate or not, I wasn't referring to the blog post. I also don't think it's what the blog post is about: Scott is worried about his patients knowing his political views interfering with his work as well as death threats, none of which has anything to do with shame.
Where I live cancel culture coexists with violent regulation of expression. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the US history but I doubt that whatever golden age you have in mind was sufficiently long even if it existed. Larry Flint was shot in '78 so that leaves 30 years max if that.
You claimed these new shaming tactics lead to less violence as I have quoted above.
Shaming tactics are the diametric opposite of debate, it is fundamentally zero sum; you support them, you oppose the other and you equated their growth with a reduction in violence; again I have quoted this.
Now perhaps I overshot the gun and we could state that your interpretation of shamming tactics was something else but right now they have a very public face so you'll have to specify if you mean something else.
This blog post is a symptom of the lean towards shaming tactics over debate; the problem has evolved to the point that scott has to worry about his career being destroyed because of it.
And re times, how about the 2000s then? we built and debated online without the need to destroy one another's lives because of the POV we took on a political argument.
Now perhaps I overshot the gun and we could state that your interpretation of shamming tactics was something else but right now they have a very public face so you'll have to specify if you mean something else.
This blog post is a symptom of the lean towards shaming tactics over debate; the problem has evolved to the point that scott has to worry about his career being destroyed because of it.
And re times, how about the 2000s then? we built and debated online without the need to destroy one another's lives because of the POV we took on a political argument.
Bruises heal and prisons have limited terms. Twitter lasts forever.
> I'd much rather be downvoted on HN
Would you also like being hellbanned on HN?
Would you also like being hellbanned on HN?
> Three years ago she argued that the smartest people are silencing themselves (...) which serves to consolidate power with insiders – those who are already powerful.
Wow. I couldn't imagine that a person from the USA, of all places, could made so nonchalantly the equivalence smarts=power (unless there is a level of sarcasm on this essay that escapes me). There's such a lack of self-awareness in the american elite if they are bona-fide capable of sprouting such bullshit without realizing what they say.
Wow. I couldn't imagine that a person from the USA, of all places, could made so nonchalantly the equivalence smarts=power (unless there is a level of sarcasm on this essay that escapes me). There's such a lack of self-awareness in the american elite if they are bona-fide capable of sprouting such bullshit without realizing what they say.
It seems that by "smart" she meant "knowledgeable", in particular about how things work in her field. Of course people at the top know more (on average) about how the industry works. They are in a position to know.
[deleted]
[deleted]
That Paul Graham essay is fantastic. It really helps me to put into place things that I've been realising over time. For a long time I've had showdead enabled and I always go looking for the buried comments to see what I'm not allowed to say. I suggest everyone does.
[deleted]
From my observations nuclear energy is the holliest cow on HN.
Raising any sort of doubt regarding nuclear energy safety will quickly get you downvoted, flagged or banned:
Fukushima proved that nuclear energy is not that safe.
Raising any sort of doubt regarding nuclear energy safety will quickly get you downvoted, flagged or banned:
Fukushima proved that nuclear energy is not that safe.
Fukushima did not. Check out the Netflix documentary Inside Bill’s Brain. The last episode discusses nuclear tech, and was rather enlightening to me. Fukushima was discussed, and I learned a lot about why that happened.
Really? I'm more pro-nuclear, and to me it seems like every time there's a post about it there's a pretty balanced argument in the comments about it. It's incendiary, yes, but the debate does happen, and the antis seem just as passionate as the pros.
I think it's less about "any sort of doubt" and more about the doubts that I actually see put forward, e.g. "Fukushima proved that nuclear energy is not that safe."
I'll downvote that not because it's a doubt about nuclear energy safety, but because it's a pretty bad assertion.
I'll downvote that not because it's a doubt about nuclear energy safety, but because it's a pretty bad assertion.
[deleted]
Another expression i like is 'truth by convention'
The silent majority!
It may have been a conservative talking point back in the day, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. "Broken clocks, twice daily" etc.
Both of those are right on point, and match my observations within my own circles. For me stallmans cancellation was a big turning point. I'm using a pseudonym everywhere now. I can't risk someone pulling up a comment or post years from now and using it to ruin my reputation or career, simply because i may have voiced an unpopular or controversial opinion that did not age well.
It seems, too, that making jokes is very risky. With text online it's just far too easy to take something out of context and misrepresent or weaponize a person's words. I have had this happen to me personally and it's unbelievably frustrating.
People aren't allowed to make mistakes, it seems. It is just too fraught, and even sincerity and honesty are not safe.
It seems, too, that making jokes is very risky. With text online it's just far too easy to take something out of context and misrepresent or weaponize a person's words. I have had this happen to me personally and it's unbelievably frustrating.
People aren't allowed to make mistakes, it seems. It is just too fraught, and even sincerity and honesty are not safe.
It's undoubtedly more dangerous to be critical of the mainstream narrative now than it was 10-20 years ago.
There's an alt right author called Vox Day (and I'm a little afraid to be referencing him here) who makes the following argument: if mainstream thought becomes increasingly constricted, and disagreeing with it becomes increasingly dangerous, people will do one of two things. Either they'll self-censor, or they'll "flip the switch" and just go totally anti-mainstream, because it's safer to associate and identify with people who won't get them fired for their opinions. The greater the censorship and fear, the more people will "flip" in a search for safety.
Now he is alt right and he has a vested interest in portraying the ascendancy of the alt right as inevitable, but the point is nonetheless logical, and quite disturbing. It may be that punishing moderately "wrong" speech will ultimately drive moderates into the waiting arms of the extreme right, where they won't be judged so harshly for their errors. Moreover if the purity spiral [1] theory is correct, this phenomenon may be hard to stop, because punishing people for their dissenting speech is an effective way to gain status in many communities!
[1] https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a...
There's an alt right author called Vox Day (and I'm a little afraid to be referencing him here) who makes the following argument: if mainstream thought becomes increasingly constricted, and disagreeing with it becomes increasingly dangerous, people will do one of two things. Either they'll self-censor, or they'll "flip the switch" and just go totally anti-mainstream, because it's safer to associate and identify with people who won't get them fired for their opinions. The greater the censorship and fear, the more people will "flip" in a search for safety.
Now he is alt right and he has a vested interest in portraying the ascendancy of the alt right as inevitable, but the point is nonetheless logical, and quite disturbing. It may be that punishing moderately "wrong" speech will ultimately drive moderates into the waiting arms of the extreme right, where they won't be judged so harshly for their errors. Moreover if the purity spiral [1] theory is correct, this phenomenon may be hard to stop, because punishing people for their dissenting speech is an effective way to gain status in many communities!
[1] https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a...
> Either they'll self-censor, or they'll "flip the switch" and just go totally anti-mainstream
I wouldn't call myself alt-right, far from it in fact. But I definitely see this happening in me over the past few years. Starting the night of the 2016 election.
It's one of those things that makes me wonder how much I've changed vs how much society has changed around me.
For instance, I learned first thing this morning that I have a corrupt faith and that I've fractured the nation [1]. There's only so much debasement one can listen to before you just tune out.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2020/06/23/881992622/book-jesus-and-john...
I wouldn't call myself alt-right, far from it in fact. But I definitely see this happening in me over the past few years. Starting the night of the 2016 election.
It's one of those things that makes me wonder how much I've changed vs how much society has changed around me.
For instance, I learned first thing this morning that I have a corrupt faith and that I've fractured the nation [1]. There's only so much debasement one can listen to before you just tune out.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2020/06/23/881992622/book-jesus-and-john...
I’ve listened to NPR my entire adult life but now it feels like I’m listening to the liberal version of The 700 Club.
Aye, same. I was a Bernie voter before it was cool, and now it feels like I'm being beaten over the head with left-wing propaganda daily.
Given that we're less than 6 months out from an election -- the election -- it's not a surprise. Lots of propaganda, foreign and domestic, is going to go hard all summer.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
Given that we're less than 6 months out from an election -- the election -- it's not a surprise. Lots of propaganda, foreign and domestic, is going to go hard all summer.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
Maybe not from NPR, but it's hard not to see a cynical motive here. If you incite more and more escalation, you get more violence and unrest which means more clicks and views.
> It's undoubtedly more dangerous to be critical of the mainstream narrative now than it was 10-20 years ago.
I have observed that in the last 10-20 years the definition of "mainstream" has come to mean something very personal and subjective. Some media are referred to as "mainstream" only if they offer a supporting bias, and others are labelled "mainstream" only if they have demonstrated disagreement, depending on your ask. The epithet "mainstream media" has become a brush with which one may paint a canvas any colour one desires to forward one's peculiar viewpoint. It is a phrase that has become as meaningless as "political", "science", and even "unbiased". Just another empty adjective to lend pseudo-credence to your opinion.
I have observed that in the last 10-20 years the definition of "mainstream" has come to mean something very personal and subjective. Some media are referred to as "mainstream" only if they offer a supporting bias, and others are labelled "mainstream" only if they have demonstrated disagreement, depending on your ask. The epithet "mainstream media" has become a brush with which one may paint a canvas any colour one desires to forward one's peculiar viewpoint. It is a phrase that has become as meaningless as "political", "science", and even "unbiased". Just another empty adjective to lend pseudo-credence to your opinion.
I don't know about that. In the context of history's broad arc I think you can come up with some adjectives that describe the post-WW2 era in broad terms. Liberal, open, globalized, emancipatory, diverse, individualist, capitalist, etc. I think this set of adjectives seems to characterize the mainstream trends of thought in Western society from 1945-2020 compared to other periods in history, and most major media outlets embrace most of these values.
I had a bad experience with this yesterday.
My country right now is deeply divided between literal left (not USA left, I mean actual marxists) and "right" (almost noone support true rightwing, either in historical sense, being monarchists, or in the current sense, being capitalists, what they support instead is a populist authoritarian way of doing things, more in common with left than with any kind of right).
I now have to be very careful with who I talk to, often whatever I say spark trouble because where I live most people are marxists, and I am ex-marxist.
So I decided yesterday to talk with people in an whatsapp group that is anti-marxist... instead found myself having to be careful and self-censor because they went all the way to the other side, hard, people there were mad our former justice minister praised the army honor... because to them, that is evil, what he should be praising is the army might, as soon I touched on the subject it sparked hostile rants against anyone that believes that a violent army-backed coup is wrong, in a chillingly civil way, they explained to me that the army job is basically kill people in the government until it obeys the majority of the population, basically a literal dictatorship of the majority.
It became obvious then... I won't find a place to talk about my now somehow "moderate" views.
My country right now is deeply divided between literal left (not USA left, I mean actual marxists) and "right" (almost noone support true rightwing, either in historical sense, being monarchists, or in the current sense, being capitalists, what they support instead is a populist authoritarian way of doing things, more in common with left than with any kind of right).
I now have to be very careful with who I talk to, often whatever I say spark trouble because where I live most people are marxists, and I am ex-marxist.
So I decided yesterday to talk with people in an whatsapp group that is anti-marxist... instead found myself having to be careful and self-censor because they went all the way to the other side, hard, people there were mad our former justice minister praised the army honor... because to them, that is evil, what he should be praising is the army might, as soon I touched on the subject it sparked hostile rants against anyone that believes that a violent army-backed coup is wrong, in a chillingly civil way, they explained to me that the army job is basically kill people in the government until it obeys the majority of the population, basically a literal dictatorship of the majority.
It became obvious then... I won't find a place to talk about my now somehow "moderate" views.
Just a thought, but... a WhatsApp group full of crazy people may not be an ideal place to have a reason based discussion.
I think there must be a place "outside" where you can talk about it. Somewhere were people do not know the facts of your country and so on. And have less bias about it.
> There's an alt right author called Vox Day
Went down a strange rabbit hole there for a while this morning after reading this. Ready to come back up for air now and put that behind me a while.
Went down a strange rabbit hole there for a while this morning after reading this. Ready to come back up for air now and put that behind me a while.
It's not just commenting--it's any interaction at all:
https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/hddnml/the_...
https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/hddnml/the_...
> People aren't allowed to make mistakes, it seems.
Not even mistakes. Things that were considered progressive as little as 15-20 years ago have now been flipped into "microaggressions".
Not even mistakes. Things that were considered progressive as little as 15-20 years ago have now been flipped into "microaggressions".
The most infuriating to me is that educational curriculum drilled into people's heads that color blindness and treating all people equally was the key to ending racism, and now there's been a complete 180 on that
> I'm using a pseudonym everywhere now.
I've wondered a couple times recently how dangerous it is that I'm easily discoverable. I tell myself that since I live in the Midwest, the worst of it hasn't reached here yet. Hopefully it doesn't come to that.
I've wondered a couple times recently how dangerous it is that I'm easily discoverable. I tell myself that since I live in the Midwest, the worst of it hasn't reached here yet. Hopefully it doesn't come to that.
Per a comment up-thread, I wouldn't place too big a bet on pseudonyms remaining pseudonyms forever. Sure, absent a real effort to unmask you, you'll probably be fine. But sustained efforts to figure out pseudonymous identities often succeed.
It won't even need a sustained effort once ai gets somewhat decent at analysing writing patterns. I don't think it will really matter if it's even that accurate, really, like it doesn't really matter to the police how accurate facial scanners are people who are looking for troublemakers will go with it anyway.
You have to make giant, sweeping mistakes a part of your career or personality. Rush Limbaugh lost one tangential job, but is still influential and wealthy.
Or make a private joke to your friend about a dongle.
Did that work out well for him in the end?
No I would not say it did. Being publicly shamed, kicked out of a conference, fired, and having your name posted all over the place are the kinds of things that tend to stay with you. Remember, we're talking about a stupid dick joke between friends.
The whole thing got way out of hand and I'm sure it was very stressful. On the other hand, I understand he had a new job in short order. (On still the other hand, the person who kicked the whole thing off was also fired and AFAIK was basically locked out of the industry--at least in any public role.)
explain
Several years ago two guys (who iirc were friends and there together) were at some industry conference and one whispered to the other a suggestive joke about dongles. A woman (who I believe was a complete stranger to both of them) was sitting a few rows back and heard them and posted on Twitter how these guys were horrible misogynists and etc and got the Twitter mob to attack them.
Paul's post has always felt like a wordy defense of the "well, actually".
Lots of us passionate techies like to weigh in on every topic and forget that not everything is academic. Sometimes the world doesn't need to hear our opinion. That doesn't mean we're being censored.
Lots of us passionate techies like to weigh in on every topic and forget that not everything is academic. Sometimes the world doesn't need to hear our opinion. That doesn't mean we're being censored.
Do you think regular people out there who are not experts in housing, policing, government, economics should remain silent and not express opinions on things they don’t have insight to?
Everyone has a right to express their opinion even on topics they are woefully unqualified for. Including clueless techies.
The only instance I agree is when celebrities spout opinions as fact (or promote a pet diet or cause) only because it could send millions of people on wild goose chases. That said it’s more of a wish and really not a desire to censor them.
Everyone has a right to express their opinion even on topics they are woefully unqualified for. Including clueless techies.
The only instance I agree is when celebrities spout opinions as fact (or promote a pet diet or cause) only because it could send millions of people on wild goose chases. That said it’s more of a wish and really not a desire to censor them.
Usually those topics don't fall prey to moral policing.
An example might be someone arguing "trans women are not really women". If the question doesn't affect them personally, they're just pursuing what they see as a rational debate or stretching their mind. Their lives will not actually be affected by the exercise.
If you're a trans woman then that's an argument you've been exposed to hundreds of times and it's demeaning and emotional.
You can argue that you're just being rational. And you might ever change your mind! But it's a shitty thing to force that conversation on people when they're only the ones who have a stake in the outcome.
It's not censorship if you are choosing to hold your tongue out of consideration for others.
An example might be someone arguing "trans women are not really women". If the question doesn't affect them personally, they're just pursuing what they see as a rational debate or stretching their mind. Their lives will not actually be affected by the exercise.
If you're a trans woman then that's an argument you've been exposed to hundreds of times and it's demeaning and emotional.
You can argue that you're just being rational. And you might ever change your mind! But it's a shitty thing to force that conversation on people when they're only the ones who have a stake in the outcome.
It's not censorship if you are choosing to hold your tongue out of consideration for others.
[deleted]
> Sometimes the world doesn't need to hear our opinion. That doesn't mean we're being censored.
That...pretty much is being censored?
That...pretty much is being censored?
This self censorship is most often meant when someone criticizes political correctness. It doesn't mean that you should unnecessarily put people off with inflammatory language. But I think it could still get you fired if posted on Twitter, at least a few years ago. Some people with especially large incomes seem to be immune though.
Hah, yes, like JK Rowling! If you are a self made billionaire, you are pretty immune from the twitter mobs, and can make controversial statements such as "there are only two genders."
It is a matter of definition and she is probably wrong if academic definitions apply, but yes, that is one prominent mob. There are others of course. If you think that these dissections were meant to free yourself from expectations, it is kind of ironic to have a twitter mob coming after you for wrong opinions. Completely defeats the purpose and then some.
Where can one go to learn these controversial truths? I would love to see a list of these facts that apparently only insiders can talk about. Are they literally so confronting/offensive that they don’t exist on the internet?
It's not the "truth" and the "facts" that people are afraid to discuss. It's their opinions about truth and facts.
When you see phrases like "wrong/right side of history" and you see things happening like mass cancellation of brands or people for their opinions, you are seeing it. When a police officer is immediately fired and then charged with murder for performing his job the way he was trained to do it, you are seeing people fear the mob more than they care about the truth.
JK Rowling and Terry Crews are two famous people that come to mind who recently stated unpopular opinions and were attacked by mobs of people. There was no desire on the part of the mob to look for logical reasons for someone to have a valid opinion that differs from the mainstream.
When you see phrases like "wrong/right side of history" and you see things happening like mass cancellation of brands or people for their opinions, you are seeing it. When a police officer is immediately fired and then charged with murder for performing his job the way he was trained to do it, you are seeing people fear the mob more than they care about the truth.
JK Rowling and Terry Crews are two famous people that come to mind who recently stated unpopular opinions and were attacked by mobs of people. There was no desire on the part of the mob to look for logical reasons for someone to have a valid opinion that differs from the mainstream.
Maybe we should find a more accurate alternative for “attacked by mobs of people” to avoid equating flamewars with, I don’t know, the Tulsa Massacre. We still need to have the capacity to describe the relative horror of that.
I'm sorry, am I supposed to emphathize with a multimillionaire best-seller author who, instead of enjoying her wealth in some yacht somewhere (or whatever it is rich people do), decided to spend her free time riling up some trans people on twitter?
It's fair to claim Rowling's opinions are bad and it's also fair to say she was dumb to express them. But it seems like a non sequitur to point those things out when someone produces her as an example of someone being attacked for expressing their controversial opinions.
If you want an example of a current person with a true belief that is not accepted by their society that seems by definition hard to produce. Especially to an anonymous member of the society.
If you want an example of a current person with a true belief that is not accepted by their society that seems by definition hard to produce. Especially to an anonymous member of the society.
>Where can one go to learn these controversial truths?
Bits and pieces are strewn all over the place. But you have learn to separate the wheat from the chaff for yourself. Then you might start noticing the places with limited quantities of slightly more observant commentary.
>Are they literally so confronting/offensive that they don’t exist on the internet?
No, they just don't exist on the internet the same way most real conversations don't exist on the internet. The internet is great for information of the type that would be found in traditional publications, is of professional interest, or are marketing materials. It sucks for everything else.
People being real exist in very small quantities, usually on lighter topics to avoid exposing themselves, and are always outnumbered by people preforming for the audience or (untempered by people openly talking like reasonable people) have taken an extreme position on the topic.
Bits and pieces are strewn all over the place. But you have learn to separate the wheat from the chaff for yourself. Then you might start noticing the places with limited quantities of slightly more observant commentary.
>Are they literally so confronting/offensive that they don’t exist on the internet?
No, they just don't exist on the internet the same way most real conversations don't exist on the internet. The internet is great for information of the type that would be found in traditional publications, is of professional interest, or are marketing materials. It sucks for everything else.
People being real exist in very small quantities, usually on lighter topics to avoid exposing themselves, and are always outnumbered by people preforming for the audience or (untempered by people openly talking like reasonable people) have taken an extreme position on the topic.
The “Ben Shapiro DESTROYS liberal” videos that pop up on YouTube sometimes come to mind. Ben Shapiro was obviously a (probably very successful) high school debater and the guy thinks and responds fast. Not that those traits are good for actual discussion or coming to agreement.
He also claims him voicing his opinions about politics got him blacklisted from his dream job of being a Hollywood writer.
When he’s talking on a platform like Joe Rogan or having a leisurely chat he’s much more willing to be moderated by others opinions, and demonstrates the sort of give and take of a normal human being in a conversation. He’s certainly not some bastion of liberal values, and has principles he believes in, after all he’s an Orthodox Jew, but people like him exist because there’s a market for it and he’s carved out this public persona.
The people performing to the audience will get views from people like my uncle who just wants to see “Stephen Crowder OWNS libs” and has no interest in being right, only in feeling right. Unfortunately they’re going to likely always have the larger audience.
He also claims him voicing his opinions about politics got him blacklisted from his dream job of being a Hollywood writer.
When he’s talking on a platform like Joe Rogan or having a leisurely chat he’s much more willing to be moderated by others opinions, and demonstrates the sort of give and take of a normal human being in a conversation. He’s certainly not some bastion of liberal values, and has principles he believes in, after all he’s an Orthodox Jew, but people like him exist because there’s a market for it and he’s carved out this public persona.
The people performing to the audience will get views from people like my uncle who just wants to see “Stephen Crowder OWNS libs” and has no interest in being right, only in feeling right. Unfortunately they’re going to likely always have the larger audience.
I don't think the Shapiro is the one signal boosting the whole "own libs thing".
It's very simple. Suppose the following.
1) A man has a law degree from Harvard and was publishing nationally when he was in high-school.
2) He has a set of opinions and schools invite him to speak.
3) Lot's of students ask him questions many who strongly disagree with him and attempt to "take him down".
4) All of this is on video, hours and hours of video.
OK
Now, in what possible world would this person not "own" people at a high frequency?
If he wasn't "owning" at a high frequency then that person should be embarrassed.
You see "Ben Shapiro owns X" and not, Ben Shapiro in conversation with Ezra Klein, or Ben Shapiro telling his audience that their opinions aren't worth anything if they don't spend time reading and listening to the best voices on the other side.
"Ben Shapiro the guy who owns people" is a meme because he's more of a threat then "Ben Shapiro the guy who certainly should speak slower, has reasonable arguments, even when he's wrong" because that Ben Shapiro, that second one is actually scary. People could listen to what he has to say.
The right's loudest voices have never been the brightest, or when they were bright, the most reasonable. Shapiro raises the level of discourse on the right by a mile.
I have yet to hear Ben Shapiro say something novel or interesting. I like him though, because for the first time a popular voice on the right is educated and can reason from premises to conclusions, in steps, and is willing to discuss the validity AND soundness of his arguments.
By consistently doing that alone, he's in the top 1% of journalists. He's the exact opposite of what the right is "supposed" to look like.
And if you look to reasonable then you'll become a "Ben Shapiro owns" meme or a "binders full of woman" meme.
It's very simple. Suppose the following.
1) A man has a law degree from Harvard and was publishing nationally when he was in high-school.
2) He has a set of opinions and schools invite him to speak.
3) Lot's of students ask him questions many who strongly disagree with him and attempt to "take him down".
4) All of this is on video, hours and hours of video.
OK
Now, in what possible world would this person not "own" people at a high frequency?
If he wasn't "owning" at a high frequency then that person should be embarrassed.
You see "Ben Shapiro owns X" and not, Ben Shapiro in conversation with Ezra Klein, or Ben Shapiro telling his audience that their opinions aren't worth anything if they don't spend time reading and listening to the best voices on the other side.
"Ben Shapiro the guy who owns people" is a meme because he's more of a threat then "Ben Shapiro the guy who certainly should speak slower, has reasonable arguments, even when he's wrong" because that Ben Shapiro, that second one is actually scary. People could listen to what he has to say.
The right's loudest voices have never been the brightest, or when they were bright, the most reasonable. Shapiro raises the level of discourse on the right by a mile.
I have yet to hear Ben Shapiro say something novel or interesting. I like him though, because for the first time a popular voice on the right is educated and can reason from premises to conclusions, in steps, and is willing to discuss the validity AND soundness of his arguments.
By consistently doing that alone, he's in the top 1% of journalists. He's the exact opposite of what the right is "supposed" to look like.
And if you look to reasonable then you'll become a "Ben Shapiro owns" meme or a "binders full of woman" meme.
[deleted]
There is a pizza restaurant in suburban Arlington, Virginia in which these truths are stored in a filing cabinet in the basement. Certain inner-circle members of those who know are familiar with its whereabouts and its indexing system.
I am going to respond with a paraphrasing of a well known quote about one such truth. The truth is that you are a slave in a prison without walls where prisoner never dreams of escaping.
They exist, but the woke crowd is purging them hard now. Any moment now I expect Columbus city to be renamed.
They exist, but the woke crowd is purging them hard now. Any moment now I expect Columbus city to be renamed.
Any moment now I expect Columbus city to be renamed.
There’s a movement to have Yale renamed as it was named after a slave trader, not merely a slave owner. But so far Yale has managed to frame it as a troll
There’s a movement to have Yale renamed as it was named after a slave trader, not merely a slave owner. But so far Yale has managed to frame it as a troll
You’re leaving out the large scale drug dealing (opium wars)
We live in a prison because some folks are doing a historical reckoning about Columbus' past exactions?
[deleted]
>They exist, but the woke crowd is purging them hard now.
Yes, thereby creating tomorrow's woke crowd. Tomorrow's woke crowd will ultimately purge today's woke crowd. So we may as well just politely state our opinions because self-censoring and trying to be nice won't save us.
Yes, thereby creating tomorrow's woke crowd. Tomorrow's woke crowd will ultimately purge today's woke crowd. So we may as well just politely state our opinions because self-censoring and trying to be nice won't save us.
But, and this is the important point, stating your opinion today may actually hurt you ( job loss, public media shaming, loss of business ) regardless on how politely it is stated.
In a sense, it is starting remind of me stories my parents told me of the old country during communist regime. Political jokes could and were reported by your friends. This could result in various social sanctions including 'wolf ticket' ( effectively blacklist of dissidents ) preventing you from getting a job, car, you name it.
Amusingly, today you find out, who your friends are by being unflinchigly open.
In a sense, it is starting remind of me stories my parents told me of the old country during communist regime. Political jokes could and were reported by your friends. This could result in various social sanctions including 'wolf ticket' ( effectively blacklist of dissidents ) preventing you from getting a job, car, you name it.
Amusingly, today you find out, who your friends are by being unflinchigly open.
Okay but what does this have to do with the thread? Scott isn't being silenced, he's shutting down his blog out of concern that his relationship with his patients may be jeopardized if they could look him up on the NYT. (Whether he's justified I'm not qualified to say as I'm not a psychiatrist.) What's the hidden truth, controversial opinion or super secret insight at stake here?
Scott's coronavirus articles were reliably ahead of the media. He was early with insights such as the insufficiencies of the flattening the curve model, the efficacy of masks, and warning it could become a pandemic.
These opinions are now mainstream. He gave them a platform earlier than the media did, because he was more open to being wrong and to exploring heterodox ideas, but also applied research and rigour when writing about them.
These opinions are now mainstream. He gave them a platform earlier than the media did, because he was more open to being wrong and to exploring heterodox ideas, but also applied research and rigour when writing about them.
I don't get your point. People are going to roast Scott because he got things right about covid? What does this have to do with his relationship with his patients?
You asked which "hidden truth, controversial opinion or super secret insight [is] at stake". I gave some examples of what Scott got right to illustrate what's at stake if he's forced off the internet.
Can you explain a bit more about what you're asking for?
Can you explain a bit more about what you're asking for?
The original post made an argument of the following form:
>People who could offer smart insights consor themselves for fear of being attacked for their opinions.
The user you're replying to asked what opinions is Scott risking to be attacked about. You're providing arguments about Scott having offered smart insights, which was not the part of the argument debated. The original post shifted the discussion from Scott's worries--which were chiefly related to the dangers of working in psychology--towards the more general discussion about censorship as it is talked about in the works referenced above.
In other words, most of this thread is repurposing Scott's post to give a platform for their current political concerns.
>People who could offer smart insights consor themselves for fear of being attacked for their opinions.
The user you're replying to asked what opinions is Scott risking to be attacked about. You're providing arguments about Scott having offered smart insights, which was not the part of the argument debated. The original post shifted the discussion from Scott's worries--which were chiefly related to the dangers of working in psychology--towards the more general discussion about censorship as it is talked about in the works referenced above.
In other words, most of this thread is repurposing Scott's post to give a platform for their current political concerns.
> The original post shifted the discussion from Scott's worries--which were chiefly related to the dangers of working in psychology--towards the more general discussion about censorship
If you read Scott's post, it says that blog readers have tried to get him fired and sent him death threats. That's already happened, before his anonymity is completely broken by the NYT. He's written on a variety of political topics, including feminism and racism, which are now self-censored as the blog has been taken down. Censorship is very much a feature of Scott's post.
If you read Scott's post, it says that blog readers have tried to get him fired and sent him death threats. That's already happened, before his anonymity is completely broken by the NYT. He's written on a variety of political topics, including feminism and racism, which are now self-censored as the blog has been taken down. Censorship is very much a feature of Scott's post.
Plenty of people were attacked for their opinions on, e.g. the case for wearing masks, or the effectiveness of simple cloth coverings. Their opinions turned out to be correct. We can only know in retrospect what opinions will turn out to be controversial, so in effect you're asking for something impossible.
Okay so you're saying the NYT is silencing Scott by threatening to publish a hit piece about his early warning about covid? And if he didn't post that, his relationship with his patients wouldn't have been jeopardized by having his real name associated to his personal blog and he'd have kept it up? I'm not trying to strawman here, I'm genuinely attempting to connect the dots.
What I got from it is that any sort of publicity at this scale is potentially harmful to his position as a psychiatrist and person. Not necessarily that the things he said were particularly right, wrong, or controversial. And even though early warnings about COVID may not seem particularly controversial, the internet attracts and fosters all sorts of conspiracy theorists and fantastic ideas. Scott also mentions himself that he's had death threats, which adds to the risk of having his name associated with the blog.
Maybe I'm missing some nuance to this line of questioning since I'm skimming too quickly for my own good...
But my read is that Scott is simply opposing the NYT's absolute policy of posting his real name in their article. His decision to delete the blog is because there were other non-coronavirus posts which he feared could lead to all kinds of IRL reprisals if his real name were to be known publicly.
Hence the repetition of "No doxing random bloggers for clicks". He seemed to be willing to bring everything back if that policy changes, and went so far as to ask people to mail the editor and be polite and specific about it.
Anyhow, apologies if I'm just restating the obvious here.
But my read is that Scott is simply opposing the NYT's absolute policy of posting his real name in their article. His decision to delete the blog is because there were other non-coronavirus posts which he feared could lead to all kinds of IRL reprisals if his real name were to be known publicly.
Hence the repetition of "No doxing random bloggers for clicks". He seemed to be willing to bring everything back if that policy changes, and went so far as to ask people to mail the editor and be polite and specific about it.
Anyhow, apologies if I'm just restating the obvious here.
The point I was trying to make is tangential, but related to the post.
Scott has created one of the most thoughtful, level-headed, and interesting places on the internet. And yet he's shutting it down because it has led to a huge downside risk for his personal and professional life:
> I also worry that my clinic would decide I am more of a liability than an asset and let me go, which would leave hundreds of patients in a dangerous situation as we tried to transition their care.
What does this mean for others who want to start similar blogs or engage in these sorts of discussions? They're going to see this sort of thing happening and think: "Why bother? It's not worth the trouble."
Scott has created one of the most thoughtful, level-headed, and interesting places on the internet. And yet he's shutting it down because it has led to a huge downside risk for his personal and professional life:
> I also worry that my clinic would decide I am more of a liability than an asset and let me go, which would leave hundreds of patients in a dangerous situation as we tried to transition their care.
What does this mean for others who want to start similar blogs or engage in these sorts of discussions? They're going to see this sort of thing happening and think: "Why bother? It's not worth the trouble."
But this is not about his opinions or that they are not accepted. This is about maintaining pseudonym and importance of it for practising MD.
I don't understand how his blog could impact his practice. He doesn't blog about his patients. Unless, of course, his practice is worried about the opinions Scott posts on his blog...
His post literally includes the line “and angry internet critics have called my job pretending to be upset patients to get me fired.”
You can’t imagine how it would affect his job?
You can’t imagine how it would affect his job?
Doctors have weirdly strict rules about what they can or can't say on social media.
In England the regulator is the GMC, and here's their page for doctors use of social media: https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for...
> Anonymity
> If you identify yourself as a doctor in publicly accessible social media, you should also identify yourself by name. Any material written by authors who represent themselves as doctors is likely to be taken on trust and may reasonably be taken to represent the views of the profession more widely.10
But also, a complaint to the regulator is a worrying time for the doctor even if they've done nothing wrong.
In England the regulator is the GMC, and here's their page for doctors use of social media: https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for...
> Anonymity
> If you identify yourself as a doctor in publicly accessible social media, you should also identify yourself by name. Any material written by authors who represent themselves as doctors is likely to be taken on trust and may reasonably be taken to represent the views of the profession more widely.10
But also, a complaint to the regulator is a worrying time for the doctor even if they've done nothing wrong.
If you had bothered to read the article, you would see that Scott lists two reasons why he is shutting down the blog. The reason that you mentioned is one. The other reason is:
> The second reason is more prosaic: some people want to kill me or ruin my life, and I would prefer not to make it too easy. I’ve received various death threats. I had someone on an anti-psychiatry subreddit put out a bounty for any information that could take me down (the mods deleted the post quickly, which I am grateful for).
You write:
> What's the hidden truth, controversial opinion or super secret insight at stake here?
There is no one opinion at stake here. What is at stake is the ability to hold any dissenting opinion. Or not even hold it, but merely discuss it openly.
In the case of the anti-psychiatry lobby it's not even a dissenting opinion! It's basically the opinion that psychiatry ought to exist. There is just a small community of dissidents who disagree and want to get Scott fired (or worse). They now have a lot more leverage, because we've collectively decided that we should foster a culture where it's totally normal to try and get someone fired for things that are totally unrelated to work.
Just as the members of an anti-psychiatry subreddit should have a right to freedom of speech and association without the fear that their posts will get them fired (or worse), so should Scott.
> The second reason is more prosaic: some people want to kill me or ruin my life, and I would prefer not to make it too easy. I’ve received various death threats. I had someone on an anti-psychiatry subreddit put out a bounty for any information that could take me down (the mods deleted the post quickly, which I am grateful for).
You write:
> What's the hidden truth, controversial opinion or super secret insight at stake here?
There is no one opinion at stake here. What is at stake is the ability to hold any dissenting opinion. Or not even hold it, but merely discuss it openly.
In the case of the anti-psychiatry lobby it's not even a dissenting opinion! It's basically the opinion that psychiatry ought to exist. There is just a small community of dissidents who disagree and want to get Scott fired (or worse). They now have a lot more leverage, because we've collectively decided that we should foster a culture where it's totally normal to try and get someone fired for things that are totally unrelated to work.
Just as the members of an anti-psychiatry subreddit should have a right to freedom of speech and association without the fear that their posts will get them fired (or worse), so should Scott.
This is pretty easy. Scott does have controversial opinions at times. He uses a pseudonym to make them public without fear of that impinging on his life and work.
So yes. He's being silenced because he cannot enjoy speaking publicly without fear of retribution.
So yes. He's being silenced because he cannot enjoy speaking publicly without fear of retribution.
What do these controversial opinions have to do with the NYT writing a piece about Scott's early warnings about covid, and Scott's assessment that it would damage his relationship with his patients? Are you arguing that warning everyone ahead about the virus was controversial?
Not in this case, now, no. But he's said plenty of things that some proportion of people find controversial enough to bother harassing his job to get him fired. If his name and website get more widespread acknowledgement, he expects the level of harassment to increase proportionally, which he fears could get him fired.
You are being obtuse. The NYT propose linking his real identity to everything in his blog.
I think GP and many people ITT project their current political concerns on OP's post. It doesn't seem apparent to me that Scott is deleting his blog due to any recent political changes.
His name is...
I’ve seen a lot of criticism for the NYT as of late, and, sadly, it’s almost all been warranted upon inspection.
I’m not sure if it’s a case of the top dog getting all the scrutiny, but it’s crazy to me how a company with so many good journalists can seem to have so many bad.
Much criticism is not even new (Manufactured Consent, Judith Miller).
I’m not sure if it’s a case of the top dog getting all the scrutiny, but it’s crazy to me how a company with so many good journalists can seem to have so many bad.
Much criticism is not even new (Manufactured Consent, Judith Miller).
FWIW the publisher/top editor of NYTimes changed in 2017 and Arthur Ochs Sulzberger's [1] stepped down letting his son AG Sulzberger take over [2]. This is around the time it started becoming really clickbaity and 24/7 news channel level intentionally misrepresenting or spinning stories for reactions.
I believe his father took on a more old school approach to keeping the news as neutral as possible, while still having a bit of your usual slant.
I read NYTimes daily for a decade and it's sad to see it decline as it has. I understand now just how much effort that must take, especially in the age of social media. I respect any news org that avoids the pull and pushes back on that sort of thing. But they are increasingly rare.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Ochs_Sulzberger_Jr.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._G._Sulzberger
I believe his father took on a more old school approach to keeping the news as neutral as possible, while still having a bit of your usual slant.
I read NYTimes daily for a decade and it's sad to see it decline as it has. I understand now just how much effort that must take, especially in the age of social media. I respect any news org that avoids the pull and pushes back on that sort of thing. But they are increasingly rare.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Ochs_Sulzberger_Jr.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._G._Sulzberger
I mean, the NYT during the Clinton and Bush years was hardly some golden age of journalism. Off the top of my head, there was Whitewater, Wen Ho Lee, the Jayson Blair thing, and the Judith Miller / Curveball / Iraq war stuff.
You didn’t even mention their piece de resistance - killing a story on a nationwide illegal mass surveillance program, then being scooped by their own reporter years later as he’s publishing his story on how the NYT is complicit in keeping the program out of view of the public. I’ve personally lost faith in the NYT and prefer other papers of record in the US.
Could you please clarify what program you're talking about instead of hinting about it?
Did the NYT ever have any sort of golden age of journalism? They were publishing glowing profiles of one Adolf H. in the runup to WWII.
They've had good pieces but pretty much every publication other than tabloids got those, Playboy published a number of great interviews and articles.
Worse, assuming they did have a golden age they’re using that reputation in laundering the likes of Brett Stephens.
They've had good pieces but pretty much every publication other than tabloids got those, Playboy published a number of great interviews and articles.
Worse, assuming they did have a golden age they’re using that reputation in laundering the likes of Brett Stephens.
William T Sherman complained intensely about the new York Times in his autobiography about how they misrepresented him, (he took some time off because of burnout and they said he went insane). The problem is quite old
Edit: minor typo
Edit: minor typo
> he took some time off because of burnout and they said he went insane
I actually kind of assume, in my prejudice about the past, that if there had been a DSM in the 19th century, "being tired of work" would have been in it.
I actually kind of assume, in my prejudice about the past, that if there had been a DSM in the 19th century, "being tired of work" would have been in it.
Publishing the Pentagon Papers?
Was not investigative journalism. Ellsberg provided the content to the NYT. They did show some balls in rejecting the advice of external counsel (and in accepting that of internal counsel) but they were a conduit.
As was the Washington Post, which started publishing soon after the NYT (and managed to fight off the injuction NYT did not). It's possible that the Post only started publishing because the NYT had started, but the value of the NYT itself in the scheme was… limited.
As was the Washington Post, which started publishing soon after the NYT (and managed to fight off the injuction NYT did not). It's possible that the Post only started publishing because the NYT had started, but the value of the NYT itself in the scheme was… limited.
This is why the NYT is going to blink. If they doxx this guy, then this becomes a huge grassroots story about how they are "fake news media" that doesn't uphold journalism ethics standards. (Even more so if the article is a negative hit piece w/ politicized overtones, as some people are - rightly or wrongly - speculating here. People _will_ stand up for him over his views, however controversial in some places.) He made the right call here; shutting the blog down and stating his concerns so clearly was the way to get everyone involved to face the issue.
Lets be honest here. This will be a big story here in Hacker News for a few days, then we will get on with our lives. It will not spread out from that.
This is ironically how the News works. It's new - novel, interesting, unique, temporary.
We will stand up for Scott - but it won't really change anything, and it will be temporary. It's naive to think that what we find important for a bit will have any impact on the real world and real lives. Especially as this is literally what the News does and has done for a hundred or so years.
This is ironically how the News works. It's new - novel, interesting, unique, temporary.
We will stand up for Scott - but it won't really change anything, and it will be temporary. It's naive to think that what we find important for a bit will have any impact on the real world and real lives. Especially as this is literally what the News does and has done for a hundred or so years.
I don't know what "Standing up for Scott" means. His concerns are that he could lose his job, his patients might not want or be able to connect with him after reading his blog or about it, and dangerous people both online and in his real life would have an easier time finding him in person.
Given these concerns, I have no clue what benefit a supportive forum like this would be. We might all be cheering him on and thinking highly of him, but that wouldn't change any of his concerns.
Given these concerns, I have no clue what benefit a supportive forum like this would be. We might all be cheering him on and thinking highly of him, but that wouldn't change any of his concerns.
>I don't know what "Standing up for Scott" means.
It means: Pressure the NYT. Write a polite but firm email that this is not an acceptable attitude. If you happen to be subscribed, unsubscribe, and point to this as the reason.
It means: Pressure the NYT. Write a polite but firm email that this is not an acceptable attitude. If you happen to be subscribed, unsubscribe, and point to this as the reason.
People are cancelling their NYT subscriptions over this. I don't know how many, but a campaign to mass un-subscribe could be successful.
I also imagine that if he was doxxed and wasn't able to make a living as a psychiatrist anymore, many people here would probably fund him through patreon, or purchasing books or whatever.
I also imagine that if he was doxxed and wasn't able to make a living as a psychiatrist anymore, many people here would probably fund him through patreon, or purchasing books or whatever.
Sometimes it's really interesting to go back and see what happened with stories that the NYT was absolutely freaking out about a year ago. Remember RussiaGate for example? Daily stories on the NYT for 2 years from anonymous sources amounting to nothing.
Or the Tom Cotton op-ed just two weeks ago. The highest hourly spike in NYT subscription cancellations, James Bennett resigning, employees in disarray, employees threatening to resign, and now we've mostly forgotten about the whole case. I doubt the NYT has incentives to really unpack why it was possible for their paper to publish pro-fascist content in the first place.
Perhaps. But this is also the kind of story that can go far beyond the HN niche, especially given how it can align with current political views. It depends whether they do publish the article, and what it's like.
They need only write something like "Scott has been called alt-right and anti feminist online" (as I'm sure somewhere they have, once) and then any public defense of the character can be labelled as being racist and toxic.
there are other simple strategies that can be put into place to make any defence of a person harder and most people will look at the surface representation and move on to the next story. Eventually the story about the story will itself fade away.
there are other simple strategies that can be put into place to make any defence of a person harder and most people will look at the surface representation and move on to the next story. Eventually the story about the story will itself fade away.
> 'Scott has been called alt-right and anti feminist online'
Who hasn't? I mean, I see your point and it would be correct in many cases but if people can use this so easily to score points against the NYT, they aren't going to be deterred by that. The online culture that likes to label anything and everything as "racist and toxic" would only make their point stronger.
Who hasn't? I mean, I see your point and it would be correct in many cases but if people can use this so easily to score points against the NYT, they aren't going to be deterred by that. The online culture that likes to label anything and everything as "racist and toxic" would only make their point stronger.
I think you misunderstood. The NYT could use it to silence support for Scott Alexander because anyone saying "no, he's a reasonable person that writes about the beliefs of people without holding it themselves" will hang next to him as somebody that is supporting Scott Alexander "who many say is prominent alt-right figure and who has lead a hate campaign against feminists on his blog".
Eric Weinstein has gotten this treatment for questioning mainstream narratives. He calls it the distributed idea suppression complex (DISC).
The problem is in who owns the mass media.
Newspapers are bankrupt, specially the NYT,that earns more money in real state(newspapers own properties in the center of cities that are very expensive) than with journalism.
Newspapers gold days are long gone.
So when someone buys it, it is not for making good journalism but for buying a propaganda channel for the owner's own interest.
The good journalist do not matter, if they say anything that the owner does not approve they are instantly fired. So they auto censor themselves.
Journalist are people too, they have families that need shelter and food. Being independent usually means almost starving. Young idealistic single people usually do that until they pick the comfortable alternative.
Newspapers are bankrupt, specially the NYT,that earns more money in real state(newspapers own properties in the center of cities that are very expensive) than with journalism.
Newspapers gold days are long gone.
So when someone buys it, it is not for making good journalism but for buying a propaganda channel for the owner's own interest.
The good journalist do not matter, if they say anything that the owner does not approve they are instantly fired. So they auto censor themselves.
Journalist are people too, they have families that need shelter and food. Being independent usually means almost starving. Young idealistic single people usually do that until they pick the comfortable alternative.
> specially the NYT,that earns more money in real state
This is verifiably untrue. As a public company, their balance sheets are public, and almost 90% of their revenue is accounted for by subscriptions and advertising.
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/71691/000007...
This is verifiably untrue. As a public company, their balance sheets are public, and almost 90% of their revenue is accounted for by subscriptions and advertising.
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/71691/000007...
That’s true now because they sold their headquarters. But in fact they earned more from that sale than they had in many prior years of operations combined. So the essence of the comment was spot on in the case of the NYT.
Wouldn't that be kind of like saying that I'm a real estate baron instead of a Software Developer, because I own a house that is worth many years of my salary as a software developer combined?
I haven't looked at the NYT balance sheets at all recently, so it's possible that I'm off the mark here, but a one time sale of a headquarters does not make them a real-estate company in my mind. To do that, you would need to demonstrate to me that they are regularly engaging in the transaction of property and buildings, instead of a one time sale.
I haven't looked at the NYT balance sheets at all recently, so it's possible that I'm off the mark here, but a one time sale of a headquarters does not make them a real-estate company in my mind. To do that, you would need to demonstrate to me that they are regularly engaging in the transaction of property and buildings, instead of a one time sale.
I'm not convinced that this is a new problem. Newspapers used to make money, but they have always been owned by someone rich enough to buy a printing press.
What's different now is that people have more access to primary sources. The story says that the boy was 11, because kids in that grade are usually 11 and the reporter was lazy, but the boy was really 12.
In the world where only one organization in the city has a printing press, the boy is now officially 11 years old because nobody who knows any better has the means to contradict it. In the world where your cat can get more hits on YouTube than there are people in New York City, the inaccuracies get publicized left and right, and then, rightly or wrongly, people lose faith in the news media.
This is kind of what we asked for. Give everyone a chance to speak to the world instead of only a privileged few and you get all the stories instead of only the rich man's story.
The problem now is instead of one party telling you a lie you didn't know was a lie, you have two parties saying contrary things and you know they can't both be right but the average person has no way to know who to believe and also doesn't have the capacity to verify everything personally.
So we end up with camps who are absolutely convinced that the other camp is nothing but angry malicious idiots who can't see the truth, even though that's what they think about you.
What's different now is that people have more access to primary sources. The story says that the boy was 11, because kids in that grade are usually 11 and the reporter was lazy, but the boy was really 12.
In the world where only one organization in the city has a printing press, the boy is now officially 11 years old because nobody who knows any better has the means to contradict it. In the world where your cat can get more hits on YouTube than there are people in New York City, the inaccuracies get publicized left and right, and then, rightly or wrongly, people lose faith in the news media.
This is kind of what we asked for. Give everyone a chance to speak to the world instead of only a privileged few and you get all the stories instead of only the rich man's story.
The problem now is instead of one party telling you a lie you didn't know was a lie, you have two parties saying contrary things and you know they can't both be right but the average person has no way to know who to believe and also doesn't have the capacity to verify everything personally.
So we end up with camps who are absolutely convinced that the other camp is nothing but angry malicious idiots who can't see the truth, even though that's what they think about you.
The NYT is mostly benefiting from its reputation from 20+ years ago. It's a shitshow nowadays of extreme opinion pieces and bought articles. Other news papers that didn't have such a stellar reputation already surrendered to the digital age.
I still vividly remember the shit they pulled before the Iraq war. In large part because I happened to talk to a former NYT reporter (in a Parisian café of all places) who spent an hour detailing how disgusted he was by them.
So it's no exacting hot new news, sadly.
So it's no exacting hot new news, sadly.
[deleted]
The good journalists are mostly gone. The NYT has fired a lot of people the last 4 years.
> Much criticism is not even new (Manufactured Consent, Judith Miller).
Walter Duranty.
Walter Duranty.
Seeing all this negative press about NYT (their website's weird trackers) and spotting increasingly more propaganda articles in their editorial section in the recent past, I am now going to stop my NYT subscription.
The last thing they deserve is my money.
The last thing they deserve is my money.
I gave up on them years ago when I noticed so much editorialization outside of their opinion section. Their news has become opinion; their opinion has become propaganda.
Same here, I'm trying to cancel now and they actually don't have a one click to stop the subscription.
Other comments on this thread are suggesting switching the mode of payment to PayPal which let's you cancel instantly. Or credit card chargebacks if you can document that you exhausted reasonable efforts to ask NYT to cancel the subscription
You can also use privacy.com to create virtual credit cards that'll allow you to block transactions.
[deleted]
[deleted]
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.
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.
> 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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
There is a third possibility, a negative and factual article.
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.
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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...
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...
>>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"
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"
> 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.
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.
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.
Is democracy a natural right? Either way, notice how the voting is secret. That's a feature, not a bug.
Writing, as opposed to speaking, by its nature conveys a degree of anonymity. Historically, anonymous writers are very common.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
(FWIW, psychotherapists and psychiatrists are not the same thing.)
>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?
Have you ever felt the need of knowing his full name?
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.
This is exactly why people are losing faith in journalists and the media in general. NYT has been going downhill for a while now so this is not surprising. It's not the doxxing itself, but it's the hypocrisy. I'm willing to bet that the same person would not hesitate to call out anyone else of a differing opinion (especially politically) on how wrong doxxing is.
I've cancelled my NY Times subscription and encourage everyone here to do the same.
Please contact them and clearly state why you are doing it. Enough people contacting them can change the editor's mind.
You HAVE to contact them to cancel, there's no way to do it without talking to a human that I can find.
Been there. To cancel the New York Times digital subscription, send an email to [email protected]. You'll get a special offer, ignore that and you'll be unsubscribed.
Seconding this. A threat is only credible if known.
Did the same and told them why
Of all the things the NYT has done over the last couple of decades this is a strange one to cancel your subscription over.
[deleted]
Remember when Newsweek found this random guy named Dorian Nakamoto and told the world that he was Satoshi Nakamoto, creator of Bitcoin? They were almost certainly wrong and the guy got harassed for years.
I've also been reading SSC for a long time. I'm sad, but honestly, who's surprised? I mean, he defended Steven Hsu the other day for being on the wrong side of the whole "race/IQ differences" thing, despite having written probably a dozen essays over the years about the phenomenon of prominent people losing their jobs for being on the wrong side of the race/IQ differences thing.
Scott's had a pretty amazing run of being able to write edgy-enough-to-possibly-get-you-cancelled essays on the internet without getting cancelled, and on a personal level I've found him to be extremely kind and thoughtful and I wish this weren't happening to him, but at the same time it seems as inevitable as the flooding of a house built on low ground.
Scott's had a pretty amazing run of being able to write edgy-enough-to-possibly-get-you-cancelled essays on the internet without getting cancelled, and on a personal level I've found him to be extremely kind and thoughtful and I wish this weren't happening to him, but at the same time it seems as inevitable as the flooding of a house built on low ground.
Honestly, I'm surprised. This doesn't look like getting cancelled for being edgy. There's no mob that I can see pushing to doxx him.
It looks to me more like the reporter decided that Scott's refusal to use his real last name was a weird request, not a legitimate security concern for his patients and himself. The reporter just doesn't get it.
It's not like it adds to the story. Every on the internet knows Scott as "Scott Alexander". I didn't even know it wasn't his real last name until today. It just seems so cruel to insist on doing this to Scott when I can't see any good reason to do it.
It looks to me more like the reporter decided that Scott's refusal to use his real last name was a weird request, not a legitimate security concern for his patients and himself. The reporter just doesn't get it.
It's not like it adds to the story. Every on the internet knows Scott as "Scott Alexander". I didn't even know it wasn't his real last name until today. It just seems so cruel to insist on doing this to Scott when I can't see any good reason to do it.
> The reporter just doesn't get it.
Full-time reporters don't get why a source might not want to be named? Dude that's a high-school level journalism discussion. If you're a full-timer at the NYT you get why, and are either complying with a corporate policy or grinding a political axe.
Full-time reporters don't get why a source might not want to be named? Dude that's a high-school level journalism discussion. If you're a full-timer at the NYT you get why, and are either complying with a corporate policy or grinding a political axe.
> If you're a full-timer at the NYT you get why, and are either complying with a corporate policy or grinding a political axe.
Or you are just an asshole.
There does not seem to be a good reason to refer to him by his full name rather than Scott Alexander. But there are a lot of bad reasons.
The main way I could see using Scott’s full name as being valid is if the reporter is outing some sort of malpractice, which I do not think is the case. I struggle really to think of any other good reasons.
Or you are just an asshole.
There does not seem to be a good reason to refer to him by his full name rather than Scott Alexander. But there are a lot of bad reasons.
The main way I could see using Scott’s full name as being valid is if the reporter is outing some sort of malpractice, which I do not think is the case. I struggle really to think of any other good reasons.
In this context, he's not a "source"--he's the subject of an article. Using the subject's full name is one way to prove to your readers that you're writing about who you claim you're writing about.
But it doesn't prove any such thing. He's writing about "Scott Alexander". All discussion of SSC that you will encounter will refer to "Scott Alexander". Claiming that "Scott Alexander" is really "Scott Somebodyorother" does not enhance the credibility of the article in the least. Rather the reverse, since it would make one wonder about the objectivity of the reporter if they for no reason cause massive damage to their subject, and his patients.
It took me quite some time to get through, but I DID call the New York Times to cancel my membership and share the following note: https://www.mcherm.com/journalistic-ethics.html
Interestingly, the person I reached was initially engaging with me but when I began to describe the reason for cancelling my account he sighed and said, "Oh, That." Clearly I was far from the first person to raise the issue today.
Interestingly, the person I reached was initially engaging with me but when I began to describe the reason for cancelling my account he sighed and said, "Oh, That." Clearly I was far from the first person to raise the issue today.
Geez, patio11 was sure quick to jump in with nonsense:
https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1275346993296969730
> I feel like Slate Star Codex and the NYT are coming at each other from a substantial expectations gap regarding risk management.
> The culture of participating under one’s own name is normative for much of the professional class but not all of it.
Maybe stop trying to explain away that which is unabated shitty behaviour by the reporter.
https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1275346993296969730
> I feel like Slate Star Codex and the NYT are coming at each other from a substantial expectations gap regarding risk management.
> The culture of participating under one’s own name is normative for much of the professional class but not all of it.
Maybe stop trying to explain away that which is unabated shitty behaviour by the reporter.
Agreed. This feels similar to how armchair security experts will tweet about bad opsec every time someone is identified.
Obviously, Scott didn’t expect the blog to be so big or his anonymity to be such and issue when he started using his real first and middle names. It’s self-congratulatory to imagine that you would have made a different decision given the full benefit of hindsight. It’s not like Scott could go back and change his online name to something more anonymous after the blog became more popular.
> In the financial industry we get around that most commonly by giving people “desk names.” If you’ve called and spoken to Sarah Smith, you are very likely not speaking to someone who answers to Sarah or Smith outside of work.
His Tweetstorm is a long-winded way of saying “Scott should have used a completely fake name instead of a partially fake name.” That’s not really a guarantee that his real name wouldn’t have been discover. It’s also missing the point of the issue.
Obviously, Scott didn’t expect the blog to be so big or his anonymity to be such and issue when he started using his real first and middle names. It’s self-congratulatory to imagine that you would have made a different decision given the full benefit of hindsight. It’s not like Scott could go back and change his online name to something more anonymous after the blog became more popular.
> In the financial industry we get around that most commonly by giving people “desk names.” If you’ve called and spoken to Sarah Smith, you are very likely not speaking to someone who answers to Sarah or Smith outside of work.
His Tweetstorm is a long-winded way of saying “Scott should have used a completely fake name instead of a partially fake name.” That’s not really a guarantee that his real name wouldn’t have been discover. It’s also missing the point of the issue.
My point was demonstrating that there are broadly accepted professional situations where even quite public people operate under pseudonyms due to perceived risk of harm, in a way which is probably not legible to the news media.
I read the desk name comment as a suggestion to have psychiatrists perform their jobs pseudonymously.
> Obviously, Scott didn’t expect the blog to be so big or his anonymity to be such and issue when he started using his real first and middle names
He definitely did. Slatestarcodex was started to replace his old blog which was not anonymous and was becoming too popular for him to be comfortable with that, especially with his career starting to take-off. The old blog linked to the new one briefly to allow current readership to migrate, and then cut ties. That's why I know his real name. Perhaps he didn't expect it to be quite that big, but it being too big to be linked to his real name was part of the equation when he chose to use his first and middle names.
First and middle names are hardly better for tracking someone down than than first names only, since middle names aren't really used anywhere except very official things. Unless you have access to some official database that contains addresses and middle names or something (hey, isn't this what phone books used to be?), the middle name doesn't really add much IMHO.
He definitely did. Slatestarcodex was started to replace his old blog which was not anonymous and was becoming too popular for him to be comfortable with that, especially with his career starting to take-off. The old blog linked to the new one briefly to allow current readership to migrate, and then cut ties. That's why I know his real name. Perhaps he didn't expect it to be quite that big, but it being too big to be linked to his real name was part of the equation when he chose to use his first and middle names.
First and middle names are hardly better for tracking someone down than than first names only, since middle names aren't really used anywhere except very official things. Unless you have access to some official database that contains addresses and middle names or something (hey, isn't this what phone books used to be?), the middle name doesn't really add much IMHO.
It also elides the real subtext:
The risk is whatever SSCs role in the piece is, they will be unfairly portrayed and de-contextualized with the intention of reputational harm -- probably via cherry-picked quotes from past writing - which is absolutely something the media is dishing out at this moment.
The risk is whatever SSCs role in the piece is, they will be unfairly portrayed and de-contextualized with the intention of reputational harm -- probably via cherry-picked quotes from past writing - which is absolutely something the media is dishing out at this moment.
I've been reading this guy off and on since he was Yvain on Less Wrong.
This is a really fucking strange place to take a stand when his name has been public knowledge for...almost forever. The guy physically meets people at conventions and the like and introduces himself with his full name. It's been less of a secret than who The Stig (top gear) is. NYT may or may not be doing a big wrong here, but it's a fruitless act by [insert name here] given that his name always already public.
Strangely emotional though he claims it's out of fear for his safety (which would have already been compromised.)
This is a really fucking strange place to take a stand when his name has been public knowledge for...almost forever. The guy physically meets people at conventions and the like and introduces himself with his full name. It's been less of a secret than who The Stig (top gear) is. NYT may or may not be doing a big wrong here, but it's a fruitless act by [insert name here] given that his name always already public.
Strangely emotional though he claims it's out of fear for his safety (which would have already been compromised.)
That seems covered by this paragraph:
"Some people want to kill me or ruin my life, and I would prefer not to make it too easy. I’ve received various death threats. I had someone on an anti-psychiatry subreddit put out a bounty for any information that could take me down (the mods deleted the post quickly, which I am grateful for). I’ve had dissatisfied blog readers call my work pretending to be dissatisfied patients in order to get me fired. And I recently learned that someone on SSC got SWATted in a way that they link to using their real name on the blog. I live with ten housemates including a three-year-old and an infant, and I would prefer this not happen to me or to them. Although I realize I accept some risk of this just by writing a blog with imperfect anonymity, getting doxxed on national news would take it to another level."
Do you feel that that addresses your concerns? It seems reasonable to predict that he'd have more of those safety problems if the number of people who know his real name increases by 2+ orders of magnitude, and if it appears prominently on a website with a high rank on Google.
"Some people want to kill me or ruin my life, and I would prefer not to make it too easy. I’ve received various death threats. I had someone on an anti-psychiatry subreddit put out a bounty for any information that could take me down (the mods deleted the post quickly, which I am grateful for). I’ve had dissatisfied blog readers call my work pretending to be dissatisfied patients in order to get me fired. And I recently learned that someone on SSC got SWATted in a way that they link to using their real name on the blog. I live with ten housemates including a three-year-old and an infant, and I would prefer this not happen to me or to them. Although I realize I accept some risk of this just by writing a blog with imperfect anonymity, getting doxxed on national news would take it to another level."
Do you feel that that addresses your concerns? It seems reasonable to predict that he'd have more of those safety problems if the number of people who know his real name increases by 2+ orders of magnitude, and if it appears prominently on a website with a high rank on Google.
> Do you feel that that addresses your concerns?
Many of the responses critical of his decision seem to read as "Here's reason X that his decision is non-sensical, and I didn't read the actual link where he clearly and reasonably addresses reason X."
Many of the responses critical of his decision seem to read as "Here's reason X that his decision is non-sensical, and I didn't read the actual link where he clearly and reasonably addresses reason X."
That's pretty dismissive. I read what he said. I was not convinced. For him, this is an illogical, emotional, and disingenuous move. I fully believe this is about a personal slight by the reporter, who did not accede to his request.
He's taking his ball home.
He's taking his ball home.
You must agree there is a difference between, "if I know this person's blog I can find their real name in under an hour", and "if I search this person's real name I can find their blog instantly on the NYTimes".
The first type of anonymity he does not currently have. But he does have the second type.
And it's true there is some truth to him being emotional. If he didn't possess any anxiety or fear then he wouldn't be worried and scared that if it's easier to find him more people will harass him (which has already happened). Lots of people have lost their jobs because they said something people didn't like on the internet so this seems like a reasonable fear.
Nothing about this seems illogical or disingenuous about this. What part of this fairly simple straightforward explanation doesn't make sense to you?
The first type of anonymity he does not currently have. But he does have the second type.
And it's true there is some truth to him being emotional. If he didn't possess any anxiety or fear then he wouldn't be worried and scared that if it's easier to find him more people will harass him (which has already happened). Lots of people have lost their jobs because they said something people didn't like on the internet so this seems like a reasonable fear.
Nothing about this seems illogical or disingenuous about this. What part of this fairly simple straightforward explanation doesn't make sense to you?
I’d say the dismissiveness is well warranted since you are impugning Scott’s motives without justifying yourself, or any of your claims. If you make poor faith assumptions about others, you can hardly complain when others are dismissive of what your write.
I think I've justified my opinion well enough. And I still hold it.
I'm not concerned with people dismissing what I say on its merit, only presuming that because I wasn't convinced by his explanation that I hadn't read it which is dismissive.
I'm not concerned with people dismissing what I say on its merit, only presuming that because I wasn't convinced by his explanation that I hadn't read it which is dismissive.
You said because he meets people in real life and gives his real name, he should have no problem with any person with the ability to read the NYT being able to connect the dots through the article between his employment and his personal ideas on his blog.
His meatspace introductions necessarily have an upper limit, but the Internet will instantly and concurrently bring down the law of large numbers upon him, where every whack job sharing every dumb FB post about how he's evil will have an opportunity to ruin his life, his and his employer's work, the patients that depend on them, and/or the lives of his cohabitants in all the same ways.
As someone who knows people who work in mental health I can assure you there are many security vectors available once someone's real identity hits the internet and social media. I'm talking about patients who are in hiding from pimps, abusive family or significant others.
It's no different than using HTTPS or CORS to mitigate security threats. You're essentially saying that since my acquaintances in mental health go to a therapy conference or a trivia night at the bar, that their personal lives should be exposed to the entire world in perpetuity. You're essentially saying that any SaaS should leave their ports open to the world for every scanner and scammer to exploit.
His meatspace introductions necessarily have an upper limit, but the Internet will instantly and concurrently bring down the law of large numbers upon him, where every whack job sharing every dumb FB post about how he's evil will have an opportunity to ruin his life, his and his employer's work, the patients that depend on them, and/or the lives of his cohabitants in all the same ways.
As someone who knows people who work in mental health I can assure you there are many security vectors available once someone's real identity hits the internet and social media. I'm talking about patients who are in hiding from pimps, abusive family or significant others.
It's no different than using HTTPS or CORS to mitigate security threats. You're essentially saying that since my acquaintances in mental health go to a therapy conference or a trivia night at the bar, that their personal lives should be exposed to the entire world in perpetuity. You're essentially saying that any SaaS should leave their ports open to the world for every scanner and scammer to exploit.
Nope, you just lack information. His "real life divergences" are in the context of his blog at events relevant to his blog. He hasn't been shy. If he was concerned, truly, then he could have protected himself more thoroughly by being careful. Moreover, the information is already out there. Anyone sufficiently motivated to get him will find his information. Whether it's widely publicized or not makes no difference, except in that he may face personal scrutiny for his heterodox opinions. Him framing this in the context of personal safety is where he's full of it.
I just responded to this same notion in another comment thread [0], and I don't want to spam the discussion, so I'll quote part of it and link to it:
> There's a difference between being able to easily find an answer, and knowing which question to ask.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23620455
> There's a difference between being able to easily find an answer, and knowing which question to ask.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23620455
[deleted]
He only needs one-way anonymity. There aren't many problems with his blog readers searching for "scott alexander real name" and finding it. But there are problems if his patients search for "[real name] psychiatrist" and find his blog.
Scott is less worried about his real name being known among readers of the blog, he mostly just wants it to be non-googleable to protect his professional identity. He has been consistent with this position since 2013, it was actually one of the main reasons he started Slatestarcodex. From his old LiveJournal:
“Several people have suggested I move off LiveJournal because it has a negative prestige aura surrounding it and a lot of people are unwilling to read or link to LiveJournals.
Further, one of the interviewers at one of the hospitals I visited found my blog and told me that if I got hired it would be unacceptable to have a blog that was easily traceable back to my real name. Even if I never talked about medicine on it, it's still probably not a good idea to have patients know too much about my personal life. Also, if I expressed any controversial political opinions (me? controversial political opinions? really?) it might bring someone into disrepute or something, or even offend patients and destroy the therapeutic relationship.”
and “This blog is now closed and locked.
Since part of the reason I closed it is to make myself less stalk-able, I'm not linking from here to the new blog. If you really want to know where it is, message or email me and I'll probably tell you.”
“Several people have suggested I move off LiveJournal because it has a negative prestige aura surrounding it and a lot of people are unwilling to read or link to LiveJournals.
Further, one of the interviewers at one of the hospitals I visited found my blog and told me that if I got hired it would be unacceptable to have a blog that was easily traceable back to my real name. Even if I never talked about medicine on it, it's still probably not a good idea to have patients know too much about my personal life. Also, if I expressed any controversial political opinions (me? controversial political opinions? really?) it might bring someone into disrepute or something, or even offend patients and destroy the therapeutic relationship.”
and “This blog is now closed and locked.
Since part of the reason I closed it is to make myself less stalk-able, I'm not linking from here to the new blog. If you really want to know where it is, message or email me and I'll probably tell you.”
If you're pissed off by this, as I am, here's how the author politely suggests that you direct your support:
> There is no comments section for this post. The appropriate comments section is the feedback page of the New York Times. You may also want to email the New York Times technology editor Pui-Wing Tam at [email protected], contact her on Twitter at @puiwingtam, or phone the New York Times at 844-NYTNEWS
> (please be polite – I don’t know if Ms. Tam was personally involved in this decision, and whoever is stuck answering feedback forms definitely wasn’t. Remember that you are representing me and the SSC community, and I will be very sad if you are a jerk to anybody. Please just explain the situation and ask them to stop doxxing random bloggers for clicks.)
> There is no comments section for this post. The appropriate comments section is the feedback page of the New York Times. You may also want to email the New York Times technology editor Pui-Wing Tam at [email protected], contact her on Twitter at @puiwingtam, or phone the New York Times at 844-NYTNEWS
> (please be polite – I don’t know if Ms. Tam was personally involved in this decision, and whoever is stuck answering feedback forms definitely wasn’t. Remember that you are representing me and the SSC community, and I will be very sad if you are a jerk to anybody. Please just explain the situation and ask them to stop doxxing random bloggers for clicks.)
Note that the author also requests that people be polite in doing so. Everyone please model the behavior you want to see in this reporter.
Update: Thanks OP for updating to include a note about this.
Update: Thanks OP for updating to include a note about this.
Sorry for the unrelated question, but I'm not from the US and I'm curious, what does this mean?
844-NYTNEWS
Do landlines phones have letters in the US? Is it pressing a number several times?
And also mentioning that I'm grateful for SSC to exist. I rarely comment but it's a refreshing community.
844-NYTNEWS
Do landlines phones have letters in the US? Is it pressing a number several times?
And also mentioning that I'm grateful for SSC to exist. I rarely comment but it's a refreshing community.
1 | 2 | 3
| ABC | DEF
-----|-----|-----
4 | 5 | 6
GHI | JKL | MNO
-----|-----|-----
7 | 8 | 9
PQRS | TUV | WXYZ
-----|-----|-----
* | 0 | #
| + |
[deleted]
Your chart isn’t quite right— Q and Z aren’t (or weren’t) generally present: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_number#/media/File...
They were generally present beginning in the 1980s. The phone you linked is from the 1960s. The layout with Q and Z was standardized by ITU-T in 1988 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.161
Earlier in time the letter "O" was also not generally on phone keypads.
Earlier in time the letter "O" was also not generally on phone keypads.
According to your link, Q and Z were officially added sometime in the 1990’s, in a later revision. That puts the official change well into my childhood, which explains my out-of-date information; I didn’t put much effort into researching my comment.
the Q & Z assignments shown are typical. That said, few text-based phone numbers include these characters, for the obvious reason.
Depends, I used to have one of these: https://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=39&topicid=114...
Though the chart is still wrong according to that, however it (the chart) does match what my Android phone's dialer looks like.
Though the chart is still wrong according to that, however it (the chart) does match what my Android phone's dialer looks like.
You're correct, which appropriately enough is why you're downvoted. The letters were placed on telephone dials when telephone ‘numbers’ used a mnemonic exchange+digits format¹, so there was no requirement to include the entire alphabet. Advertising mnemonics like the one in the grandparent comment came later, and entering arbitrary text such as names, which actually requires the whole alphabet, much later.
¹ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_exchange_names
¹ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_exchange_names
You press the number on the dial pad which also has the letter in question. Just once.
This is just a popular (in the US?) way to make numbers easier to remember.
This is just a popular (in the US?) way to make numbers easier to remember.
I see, so it's not like in the old mobile phones where you have to press a bunch of times to get a letter, just once. It's a clever custom.
It's not a "custom". The reason keypads have letters is precisely because the letters are mnemonics for the real number. This usage predates mobile phones, and is not US-specific.
They were originally used for area codes (Wikipedia lists a UK example of 0AY6, ie 0296, for Aylesbury), then later for mnemonic numbers like the one from the article. Mobile phones inherited the lettered keypad from landlines and also started using it for typing text messages.
They were originally used for area codes (Wikipedia lists a UK example of 0AY6, ie 0296, for Aylesbury), then later for mnemonic numbers like the one from the article. Mobile phones inherited the lettered keypad from landlines and also started using it for typing text messages.
It is definitely a custom limited to some particular countries.
Wikipedia: The use of alphanumeric codes for exchanges was abandoned in Europe when international direct dialing was introduced in the 1960s, because, for example, dialing VIC 8900 on a Danish telephone would result in a different number to dialling it on a British telephone. At the same time letters were no longer placed on the dials of new telephones.
Wikipedia: The use of alphanumeric codes for exchanges was abandoned in Europe when international direct dialing was introduced in the 1960s, because, for example, dialing VIC 8900 on a Danish telephone would result in a different number to dialling it on a British telephone. At the same time letters were no longer placed on the dials of new telephones.
(The very next paragraph after the one you quoted talks about how letters for European mobile phones were reintroduced some time later, now standardized so as to not have that problem.)
At any rate, the presence of lettered keypads doesn't mean people * had * to make mnemonic phone numbers with them, and it does look like (in Europe) only the UK had such numbers.
Apart from the US and UK, they might be popular in some Commonwealth countries too. I grew up in one and remember having them.
At any rate, the presence of lettered keypads doesn't mean people * had * to make mnemonic phone numbers with them, and it does look like (in Europe) only the UK had such numbers.
Apart from the US and UK, they might be popular in some Commonwealth countries too. I grew up in one and remember having them.
Yes, but only for SMS messages. They are not commonly used to write phone numbers (very occasionally you can see them now, but the numbers are also written below or next to them).
In the early automatic telephone years, letters were also used in the Netherlands, France, Denmark and other countries, but they fell out of use way before most people here were born, and also they were mostly (only?) used for area codes and exchange names/numbers, not subscriber numbers.
In the early automatic telephone years, letters were also used in the Netherlands, France, Denmark and other countries, but they fell out of use way before most people here were born, and also they were mostly (only?) used for area codes and exchange names/numbers, not subscriber numbers.
Sure, but the keypad for the phone app on your iPhone or Android has letters on it.
Duh. Who ever denied that?
Well, the OC was confused as to how letters can be translated into an actual phone number. This should be obvious to anyone that has ever dialed a number on their mobile phone, i.e. OC.
They were specifically asking about landlines. And referring to the method of pressing a number several times to get the correct letter on a mobile phone (i.e., when texting). So they explicitly mentioned that they have seen the letters. However, when dialling a number, they used the numbers, not the letters.
> This usage predates mobile phones
Indeed -- it dates back to the 1920s. At that time, phone numbers in the US started to be formed from a 2-letter exchange code followed by 5 (or sometimes 4) digits. For instance, "PEnnsylvania 6-5000" (dialled 736-5000) was the number of the Hotel Pennsylvania in New York City, and also the title of a 1940 hit song.
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_number
Indeed -- it dates back to the 1920s. At that time, phone numbers in the US started to be formed from a 2-letter exchange code followed by 5 (or sometimes 4) digits. For instance, "PEnnsylvania 6-5000" (dialled 736-5000) was the number of the Hotel Pennsylvania in New York City, and also the title of a 1940 hit song.
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_number
> was the number of the Hotel Pennsylvania
Still is!
Still is!
Well, I've never seen this in Spain or any other country I've been in continental europe. It could just be that I didn't pay attention though.
You're thinking of T9, which is for typing text. When you dial 800-AAAAAAA, you're not typing, you're dialing. The "A" character is just on the same button as the "2". So when you press "A" seven times you're really pressing "2" seven times. You end up dialing 800-2222222. There's nothing funny happening, "A" is just another symbol printed on the "2" button.
I think your example would be better if you used B, as A only takes a single press in T9.
Mobile phones took this cue from telephones, which have had this kind of notion of an associated set of alphabetic characters since at least the eighties or nineties.
Since the 1920s actually, for the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_number#United_States
>In the most areas of North America, telephone numbers in metropolitan communities consisted of a combination of digits and letters, starting in the 1920s until the 1960s. Letters were translated to dialed digits, a mapping that was displayed directly on the telephone dial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_number#United_States
>In the most areas of North America, telephone numbers in metropolitan communities consisted of a combination of digits and letters, starting in the 1920s until the 1960s. Letters were translated to dialed digits, a mapping that was displayed directly on the telephone dial.
Much earlier. Except that in most of the world they fell out of use before telephones became a common household item, so for people who grew up between, very roughly, the 60s and early 90s, mobile phones were the first phones with letters on them. We had heard about those strange phone "numbers" with letters in them via American television shows, of course.
Yep, apologies if I wasn't clear. I said "at least" since the late eighties and nineties since that's around when I first became coherent enough of a human to notice. I didn't intend it to be interpreted as "around" the eighties and nineties.
This refers to the letters that are on phone keypads: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_keypad#/media/File:T...
You may find this relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_keypad#Letter_mappin...
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
mobile phones have letters on their dial pads also.
Do you guys really feel that you're on the right side of history by harassing an investigative journalist?
Yes. Doxxing people whose only crime is producing good but complex content for the world to enjoy is cyberbullying. If bullies are on the right side of history I have no interest in the metric.
Doxxing, what? What do you think journalism is? It's very common for controversial authors with a very wide reach to be "revealed" and investigated? How do you know that this is "cyber bullying" after just reading one side of the story?
People seem have lost all sense of objectivity due to some sort of idolatry.
People seem have lost all sense of objectivity due to some sort of idolatry.
Well, now this 'controversial' author has been silenced; given that it reduced the number of places with better writing than the NYT, I would bet it will be permanent. Is that what you wanted?
He has certainly not been silenced in any way shape or form. Him closing his blog is just a way to create outrage, it has no effect in whether the NYT article will be published with his name or not.
In short: yes.
To expand: nobody here is harassing the journalist. The journalist harassed the blogger. The commenters are providing polite, critical feedback.
To expand: nobody here is harassing the journalist. The journalist harassed the blogger. The commenters are providing polite, critical feedback.
How can you possibly know this?
The doubt you are trying to introduce is exactly the doubt that Scott Alexander has about his well being once exposed to the readership of the NYT (or anyone else in the world who catches a whiff of it).
If you think the journalist should enjoy being able to do what they want without an Internet mob, then why wouldn't you think the same way about Scott?
If you think the journalist should enjoy being able to do what they want without an Internet mob, then why wouldn't you think the same way about Scott?
Harassing journalists for doing their job (we don't even know what kind of article this is yet) and revealing the real name of some blogger that has barely hidden their full name either way is worlds apart. The outrage, if there would even be one, that the latter would get would also be because of their own writings. If you write on controversial topics and have a large following you can't expect some sort of total anonymity. That's just naive to the point of stupidity.
Unfortunate, for sure. The NYT has no real reason to post his name (as far as I'm aware--the tone of the article could affect that conclusion), so I'm not really sure why they'd dig their heels in here.
Though, he really does post a lot of personal and identifying information on his blog--literally any motivated party could find his name very easily. I thought "maybe he doesn't want his real name to link to his blog if a patient googles it"--but, it already does that. In fact, it's a suggested search in google!
Ultimately though, in some respect, I do think Scott's trying to have his cake and eat it too a bit here. I think when he starts trying to influence certain events in the real world; eg. like his Signal Boosting for Hsu to give an example within the last week, where he takes umbrage against the Grad student organization at MSU to drum up support in defense of Prof. Hsu--whether or not you agree with Hsu or you agree with the graduate students at MSU, Scott is decidedly an outsider attempting to exert his influence. People have mentioned that these sorts of actions legitimize the "fair play" of the NYT revealing his real identity, and I'm having a hard time finding umbrage with that statement.
I don't think the NYT should post his full name but I also do think Scott has been playing fast and loose; both with revelatory facts about his identity and by putting himself in situations where there are legitimate reasons for blog-outsiders to inquire about his real identity. Hopefully there will be an amicable end to this conflict.
Though, he really does post a lot of personal and identifying information on his blog--literally any motivated party could find his name very easily. I thought "maybe he doesn't want his real name to link to his blog if a patient googles it"--but, it already does that. In fact, it's a suggested search in google!
Ultimately though, in some respect, I do think Scott's trying to have his cake and eat it too a bit here. I think when he starts trying to influence certain events in the real world; eg. like his Signal Boosting for Hsu to give an example within the last week, where he takes umbrage against the Grad student organization at MSU to drum up support in defense of Prof. Hsu--whether or not you agree with Hsu or you agree with the graduate students at MSU, Scott is decidedly an outsider attempting to exert his influence. People have mentioned that these sorts of actions legitimize the "fair play" of the NYT revealing his real identity, and I'm having a hard time finding umbrage with that statement.
I don't think the NYT should post his full name but I also do think Scott has been playing fast and loose; both with revelatory facts about his identity and by putting himself in situations where there are legitimate reasons for blog-outsiders to inquire about his real identity. Hopefully there will be an amicable end to this conflict.
>I thought "maybe he doesn't want his real name to link to his blog if a patient googles it"--but, it already does that. In fact, it's a suggested search in google!
That's not true. I just searched his real name and I get results about him but none of them are SSC-related at least on the first pages. Maybe your customized results lead to that or maybe you are including Scott Alexander or SSC in the search - either way most patients googling him wouldn't see SSC at all.
That's not true. I just searched his real name and I get results about him but none of them are SSC-related at least on the first pages. Maybe your customized results lead to that or maybe you are including Scott Alexander or SSC in the search - either way most patients googling him wouldn't see SSC at all.
If I click on the first google image result from a search for his real name in an "incognito" window, I see plenty of stuff about SSC and rationalists https://i.imgur.com/0hWxzp3.png
An image of EY is hardly something that will alert your average patient. They'll just think it's an irrelevant result like a bunch of the other stuff that shows up. I do admit, if you are already familiar with the rationalist community, you will figure it out based on that. Anyway, that takes more leaps than the top result being an article from the NYT about SSC.
On 'All' I at least get 0 rationalist results or autocompletes with his name. I do get them if I google Scott Alexander <LastName> but he doesn't feature Alexander in the professional results and I doubt patients know that's his middle name.
On 'All' I at least get 0 rationalist results or autocompletes with his name. I do get them if I google Scott Alexander <LastName> but he doesn't feature Alexander in the professional results and I doubt patients know that's his middle name.
There are links below the pictures which I edited out, to very critical posts with both his real name and his pseudonym
Patients don't know his middle name. Very few people know each others' middle names unless they are looking at official documents on someone.
If you just google Scott $LASTNAME, there is only one reference to his writings as Scott Alexander, and it is not linkable to the blog, doesn't call him Scott Alexander, and is merely praise of prediction markets being quoted by Robin Hanson. Given there are a few others out there who share his first name and last name, who come up in the search results (some graphic designer for example), this is plausibly not even him. It won't raise any eyebrows at all if a patient googles him.
One thing that's more concerning is the number of people intentionally doxxing him on Twitter today. I'm reporting comments there, and Twitter seems to not come up in Google searches, but a search for Scott's real name on Twitter right now returns results where people are saying some pretty nasty things about him.
If you just google Scott $LASTNAME, there is only one reference to his writings as Scott Alexander, and it is not linkable to the blog, doesn't call him Scott Alexander, and is merely praise of prediction markets being quoted by Robin Hanson. Given there are a few others out there who share his first name and last name, who come up in the search results (some graphic designer for example), this is plausibly not even him. It won't raise any eyebrows at all if a patient googles him.
One thing that's more concerning is the number of people intentionally doxxing him on Twitter today. I'm reporting comments there, and Twitter seems to not come up in Google searches, but a search for Scott's real name on Twitter right now returns results where people are saying some pretty nasty things about him.
>>I thought "maybe he doesn't want his real name to link to his blog if a patient googles it"--but, it already does that. In fact, it's a suggested search in google!
>That's not true. I just searched his real name and I get results about him but none of them are SSC-related at least on the first pages. Maybe your customized results lead to that or maybe you are including Scott Alexander or SSC in the search - either way most patients googling him wouldn't see SSC at all.
I get slatestarcodex as the fourth google autocomplete suggestion when I search "Scott RealLastName" but I don't get SSC in the first page of results. And the third autocomplete suggestion is Alexander. Incognito mode of course.
>That's not true. I just searched his real name and I get results about him but none of them are SSC-related at least on the first pages. Maybe your customized results lead to that or maybe you are including Scott Alexander or SSC in the search - either way most patients googling him wouldn't see SSC at all.
I get slatestarcodex as the fourth google autocomplete suggestion when I search "Scott RealLastName" but I don't get SSC in the first page of results. And the third autocomplete suggestion is Alexander. Incognito mode of course.
Scott was not "taking umbrage against the Grad student organization at MSU", he was merely defending academic freedom. Hsu ended up resigning from an administrative and politically-sensitive position at the university while still being free to pursue his (somewhat contentious) research interests, and that may well have been the right call. I'm not sure Scott would have any reason to object to that choice.
> People have mentioned that these sorts of actions legitimize the "fair play" of the NYT revealing his real identity, and I'm having a hard time finding umbrage with that statement.
I don't see how these things legitimize each other at all, unless you're advocating or favoring personal harassment as a legitimate political strategy.
I don't see how these things legitimize each other at all, unless you're advocating or favoring personal harassment as a legitimate political strategy.
No, I don't think harassment in any form is acceptable.
I do think the case of Hsu is worth using as an example here: an intra-university conflict; a group of grad students is petitioning for a professor that they believe is actively harmful to the institution to step down as director of research. Now, I don't think it really matters what you or I think about any of this--whether or not we agree with the students or the prof is immaterial. This is an issue for the university, the students at the university, the professor, and any professional relations the professor has within his field of academia.
If I'm a student at the school, and I'm pro-grad student faction, I'd probably be rightly annoyed and mighty curious at a pseudonymous blogger so fervently involving himself. Why the pseudonym? Why the support? It would behoove me to look into this person, seeing as, from my perspective, he is signal boosting an erroneous cause via his immensely popular website.
If I'm a professor at the school, and I'm pro-prof faction, I'd probably be rightly bewildered and mighty curious at a pseudonymous blogger so fervently involving himself. Why the pseudonym? Why the support? It would behoove me to look into this person, seeing as, from my perspective, he is signal boosting, albeit for a good cause, via his immensely popular website, with no apparent reason to do so, seeing as how he doesn't seem to be a geneticist or faculty. It would definitely give me pause, to say the least.
I can think of things even in my personal life or business where, if an outsider were involving himself trying to "signal boost" a resolution (even if in my favor), I think I'd very rightly want to know the motivations and identity of said person.
The above examples don't illustrate that he should be identified, rather, that he's presenting people with a compelling reason to want him identified. I don't think he should be ID'd, but if a campus paper wrote an OP-ed about it, I'd have a hard time faulting them.
I don't think anyone should harass anyone else, which I think is somewhat what Scott has been doing (perhaps for a righteous cause) with this affair (as, by nature, signal boosting pro-prof draws some fire upon the grad student faction in question), so his response here rings a little bit hollow to me. But, to be crystal clear, even if I think Scott is using his platform to ever so slightly browbeat institutions via his followers (in the most mild sense & with the best of intentions), I still think the NYT is very much clearly in the wrong.
I do think the case of Hsu is worth using as an example here: an intra-university conflict; a group of grad students is petitioning for a professor that they believe is actively harmful to the institution to step down as director of research. Now, I don't think it really matters what you or I think about any of this--whether or not we agree with the students or the prof is immaterial. This is an issue for the university, the students at the university, the professor, and any professional relations the professor has within his field of academia.
If I'm a student at the school, and I'm pro-grad student faction, I'd probably be rightly annoyed and mighty curious at a pseudonymous blogger so fervently involving himself. Why the pseudonym? Why the support? It would behoove me to look into this person, seeing as, from my perspective, he is signal boosting an erroneous cause via his immensely popular website.
If I'm a professor at the school, and I'm pro-prof faction, I'd probably be rightly bewildered and mighty curious at a pseudonymous blogger so fervently involving himself. Why the pseudonym? Why the support? It would behoove me to look into this person, seeing as, from my perspective, he is signal boosting, albeit for a good cause, via his immensely popular website, with no apparent reason to do so, seeing as how he doesn't seem to be a geneticist or faculty. It would definitely give me pause, to say the least.
I can think of things even in my personal life or business where, if an outsider were involving himself trying to "signal boost" a resolution (even if in my favor), I think I'd very rightly want to know the motivations and identity of said person.
The above examples don't illustrate that he should be identified, rather, that he's presenting people with a compelling reason to want him identified. I don't think he should be ID'd, but if a campus paper wrote an OP-ed about it, I'd have a hard time faulting them.
I don't think anyone should harass anyone else, which I think is somewhat what Scott has been doing (perhaps for a righteous cause) with this affair (as, by nature, signal boosting pro-prof draws some fire upon the grad student faction in question), so his response here rings a little bit hollow to me. But, to be crystal clear, even if I think Scott is using his platform to ever so slightly browbeat institutions via his followers (in the most mild sense & with the best of intentions), I still think the NYT is very much clearly in the wrong.
I feel you're using a lot of noncentral meanings of terms here - "harassing" a "group" by drawing attention to something they're doing, publically, to another person, which severely impacts that person's life in a comparison with revealing somebody's identity in order to enable harassment of their private life.
I note that it's "the same" side in both situations that you're comparing, who thinks imposing personal consequences for civil, public speech is a legitimate substitute for debate. What Scott is doing is very dissimilar from what that group of students was doing, but what they were doing is very similar to what the NYT is trying to do.
I note that it's "the same" side in both situations that you're comparing, who thinks imposing personal consequences for civil, public speech is a legitimate substitute for debate. What Scott is doing is very dissimilar from what that group of students was doing, but what they were doing is very similar to what the NYT is trying to do.
[deleted]
I'm curious what those "legitimate reasons" are.
> I'm not really sure why they'd dig their heels in here.
I was wondering the same thing, until other HN comments mentioned both his support of Hsu and tirade against paywalls. His support of Hsu seemed to be based on a mutual respect and started off looking like support for academic freedom, but comments on that post did reveal a lot of questionable positions on Hsu’s part with no update from Scott himself.
The anti-paywall article however was much more likely to get the attention of the NYT, because he was viscerally against them and NYT is one of the big paywall sites—it’s their entire business model now and they might feel the need to push back on the criticism. Frankly, I thought Scott’s anti-paywall position wasn’t very rational or well-argued, but I didn’t really have time to follow that comment thread. But in the end, I think he might have attracted the Eye of Sauron on his relatively peaceful little kingdom.
I was wondering the same thing, until other HN comments mentioned both his support of Hsu and tirade against paywalls. His support of Hsu seemed to be based on a mutual respect and started off looking like support for academic freedom, but comments on that post did reveal a lot of questionable positions on Hsu’s part with no update from Scott himself.
The anti-paywall article however was much more likely to get the attention of the NYT, because he was viscerally against them and NYT is one of the big paywall sites—it’s their entire business model now and they might feel the need to push back on the criticism. Frankly, I thought Scott’s anti-paywall position wasn’t very rational or well-argued, but I didn’t really have time to follow that comment thread. But in the end, I think he might have attracted the Eye of Sauron on his relatively peaceful little kingdom.
I have been reading Slate Star Codex for a long time and consider it a source of many great texts, but i do not really get this step from Scott Alexander.
Term 'doxxing' is a loaded term that may describe both revealing private information and revealing personal information researchable from public sources. While the former is condemnable, the later is more neutral and part of basic journalist work, especially if the exposed is a public persona.
Seems to me that for impartial third person it would look like a reporter wrote a neutral article about SSC mentioning authors name, SSC author overreacted and punished himself and its readers by removing the blog, and by Streissand effect much more people would know autors name now.
Term 'doxxing' is a loaded term that may describe both revealing private information and revealing personal information researchable from public sources. While the former is condemnable, the later is more neutral and part of basic journalist work, especially if the exposed is a public persona.
Seems to me that for impartial third person it would look like a reporter wrote a neutral article about SSC mentioning authors name, SSC author overreacted and punished himself and its readers by removing the blog, and by Streissand effect much more people would know autors name now.
> the later is more neutral and part of basic journalist work, especially if the exposed is a public persona.
This is where the problem comes in-- best practice on the Internet is to let people who want to be anonymous stay anonymous. This is analog world culture butting into digital world culture, and in this case _digital world culture is right_, and also a case of the NYTimes being hypocritical.
The guy who wrote the NYTimes Resistance piece is allowed to stay anonymous, but a guy who writes about the efficacy of different depression medications isn't? [0]
It's ridiculous.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house...
This is where the problem comes in-- best practice on the Internet is to let people who want to be anonymous stay anonymous. This is analog world culture butting into digital world culture, and in this case _digital world culture is right_, and also a case of the NYTimes being hypocritical.
The guy who wrote the NYTimes Resistance piece is allowed to stay anonymous, but a guy who writes about the efficacy of different depression medications isn't? [0]
It's ridiculous.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house...
Doxxing is new term reflecting new online norms. This strikes me as a clash of internet culture and traditional newspaper culture.
Is it really just new online norms? As a German I am astonished that this is even legal, let alone journalistic norm.
Here in Germany a “right to informational self-determination” is legally well-established going back to a judgement in 1983 and journalists know that they have to weigh freedom of press and public interest against this right. I am pretty sure that what the times is doing in this case would actually be illegal here, if they cannot justify why public interest in knowing Scott’s real name would outweigh his right to informational self-determination.
Does anybody know what the legal situation regarding doxxing is in the US?
Here in Germany a “right to informational self-determination” is legally well-established going back to a judgement in 1983 and journalists know that they have to weigh freedom of press and public interest against this right. I am pretty sure that what the times is doing in this case would actually be illegal here, if they cannot justify why public interest in knowing Scott’s real name would outweigh his right to informational self-determination.
Does anybody know what the legal situation regarding doxxing is in the US?
This is incredibly disheartening, I will miss the weekly reads - journalists position themselves as fighting the good fight for the truth. But increasingly just seems that in a world where there relevance is dropping fast they are willing to do anything for clicks. If you want to be the arbiters of truth perhaps start with a solid base of ethics.
I had no idea The Last Psychiatrist stopped writing because he got doxxed. I enjoyed his blog and was sad it stopped updating.
psst: https://hotelconcierge.tumblr.com/
Might or might not be the same guy, but it's close enough to not matter.
Might or might not be the same guy, but it's close enough to not matter.
That isn't TLP, it's one of TLP's millennial disciples. They mentioned working as a trainee doc in the ER but TLP was a psychiatrist at a large university hospital.
Also I don't think TLP quit because he was doxxed necessarily. If that were the case, he wouldn't have kept paying the site hosting fees all this time. I think he decided the blog had become too much about his identity as a sort of minor messiah figure in the eyes of his readers, which is sort of against the founding principles of the blog itself. The character or voice he created for the blog was gaining too much power. Having his real name revealed was only a secondary concern.
He probably still writes somewhere though... probably, he's a well-respected/beloved voice on some obscure phpBB board or similar (real TLP heads will know he used to read/post on Metafilter back in the day.)
Also I don't think TLP quit because he was doxxed necessarily. If that were the case, he wouldn't have kept paying the site hosting fees all this time. I think he decided the blog had become too much about his identity as a sort of minor messiah figure in the eyes of his readers, which is sort of against the founding principles of the blog itself. The character or voice he created for the blog was gaining too much power. Having his real name revealed was only a secondary concern.
He probably still writes somewhere though... probably, he's a well-respected/beloved voice on some obscure phpBB board or similar (real TLP heads will know he used to read/post on Metafilter back in the day.)
Trying to make sense of this reminds me of reading monad tutorials. To dense with references (self- and otherwise) and analogy for me to make sense of.
It's definitely possible I'm just not smart enough to understand this, but how does one go about learning to comprehend stuff like this?
It's definitely possible I'm just not smart enough to understand this, but how does one go about learning to comprehend stuff like this?
If you want to read Russian literature, you don't have to be Russian ('but it wouldn't hurt!'), you have to want to read Russian literature, i.e. learn the language and have sufficient interest in the material to seek out enough context to understand it.
Unless of course you simply want to be seen as the type of person who reads Russian literature, in which case thelastpsychiatrist.com is probably better for reading...
Unless of course you simply want to be seen as the type of person who reads Russian literature, in which case thelastpsychiatrist.com is probably better for reading...
The style is one of the appeal (without being the totality of it - I definitely would like the straigth version as well).
Personally for instance, I read "Shame & Society" once, found it fascinating, but couldn't really pinpoint what I had learned, so I re-read it and took notes, as well as try to summarize and articulate the big points and how they related.
Personally for instance, I read "Shame & Society" once, found it fascinating, but couldn't really pinpoint what I had learned, so I re-read it and took notes, as well as try to summarize and articulate the big points and how they related.
I love you.
Anyone saying that it would be a non-issue because people could find out the information is they looked hard enough obviously haven't personally or had their friends/family subject to the Times' entirely unaccountable abuse of power and absence of ethics.
There is a big difference between something being buried where people with the interest and competence could go find it and it being put up in lights. Particularly when the lights are the bonfire of a hit piece.
There is a big difference between something being buried where people with the interest and competence could go find it and it being put up in lights. Particularly when the lights are the bonfire of a hit piece.
"people could find out the information is they looked hard enough" is also ridiculous because, yeah, that's trivially true - the journalist already found the information.
I propose an experiment.
Create two separate web servers. Open both of their ports to the internet. Put a bitcoin on each one. Only publish the IP/URL to one of them on a website with millions of DAUs.
My hypothesis is the address you publish will see its bitcoin disappear more quickly than the other.
There's a difference between being able to easily find an answer, and knowing which question to ask. This is basically the entire point of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Create two separate web servers. Open both of their ports to the internet. Put a bitcoin on each one. Only publish the IP/URL to one of them on a website with millions of DAUs.
My hypothesis is the address you publish will see its bitcoin disappear more quickly than the other.
There's a difference between being able to easily find an answer, and knowing which question to ask. This is basically the entire point of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Not entirely, -- e.g. in some cases the information might only be available by breaching confidentiality.
But the fact that it was technically openly available to some degree doesn't change the fact that the people most likely to cause harm with it often lack the mental facilities to actually do the work to dig it up.
The same lack of judgement that makes someone more likely to engage in harassment or violence often also makes them less skilful researchers than a blinking NYT reporter.
Maybe a way I'd express your sentiment instead: If it didn't matter because the information was already public then why write the article in the first place? -- after all, anyone else could also learn these things so no one needs the article. The answer is because articles do matter and by that same token we can't disregard the ethical considerations regarding their content, even if it's entirely derived from open sources.
The theoretical open availability of the information also doesn't change the fact that many other venues (e.g. sites like Reddit and Wikipedia) will protect your personal information but not if the NYT has printed it with neon blinkers.
But the fact that it was technically openly available to some degree doesn't change the fact that the people most likely to cause harm with it often lack the mental facilities to actually do the work to dig it up.
The same lack of judgement that makes someone more likely to engage in harassment or violence often also makes them less skilful researchers than a blinking NYT reporter.
Maybe a way I'd express your sentiment instead: If it didn't matter because the information was already public then why write the article in the first place? -- after all, anyone else could also learn these things so no one needs the article. The answer is because articles do matter and by that same token we can't disregard the ethical considerations regarding their content, even if it's entirely derived from open sources.
The theoretical open availability of the information also doesn't change the fact that many other venues (e.g. sites like Reddit and Wikipedia) will protect your personal information but not if the NYT has printed it with neon blinkers.
I grew up in a tiny town in the Midwest, idolizing the NYT as representative of a NYC intellectual culture that was sorely lacking around me. I used to read the Sunday edition every week at Starbucks, which was something of a novelty for the area at the time.
It has been deeply disappointing to watch The Times devolve into a highly-partisan, clickbait, unprofessional shadow of their former self - the exact opposite of what we need a news organization to be in this day and age.
It has been deeply disappointing to watch The Times devolve into a highly-partisan, clickbait, unprofessional shadow of their former self - the exact opposite of what we need a news organization to be in this day and age.
> He told me it would be a mostly positive piece about how we were an interesting gathering place for people in tech, and how we were ahead of the curve on some aspects of the coronavirus situation. It probably would have been a very nice article. Unfortunately, he told me he had discovered my real name and would reveal it in the article, ie doxx me. ... When I expressed these fears to the reporter, he just said that me having enemies was going to be part of the story. He added that “I have enemies too”. Perhaps if he was less flippant about destroying people’s lives, he would have fewer.
Wow. This is similar to Vice reporting on Naomi Wu and threatening to dox her while claiming to write a positive article about her: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Wu#Vice_article
Wow. This is similar to Vice reporting on Naomi Wu and threatening to dox her while claiming to write a positive article about her: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Wu#Vice_article
FWIW the CEO of Lambda School had the following to say on Reddit regarding whether the piece would really be positive ("you" in this quote is addressed to Scott):
> I don’t want to be the bearer of bad news, but they’re going to say you’re a far-right racist who supports eugenics, based on you not immediately supporting the firing of Hsu. I know this probably sounds improbable to you because the author was pleasant, but they’ll have a quote from you they’ll strip of nuance and context to make it clear that you’re evil. Probably something about why you want to remain anonymous and they’ll paint it as you wanting to be anonymous because your views are beyond the pale or a dog whistle or something.
> ... It was absolutely going to be a hit piece and they don’t tell you that upfront because they need your participation.
> Pui doesn’t care, she’s cracking open champagne right now. This is what she thinks their job is. Exposing everything because reasons and feeling good about it.
> It will absolutely be a hit piece, probably call SA a racist, and will be unapologetic. To expect anything different is impossible if you’ve spent a lot of time around this particular brand of new age journalist.
> ... The editor SA is referring to is a known quantity in many circles, including mine, as is the author of the piece (I know people who were asked for comment; all refused). This is a win in their book, and they couldn’t care less about whether SA’s life will be destroyed.
> I don’t want to be the bearer of bad news, but they’re going to say you’re a far-right racist who supports eugenics, based on you not immediately supporting the firing of Hsu. I know this probably sounds improbable to you because the author was pleasant, but they’ll have a quote from you they’ll strip of nuance and context to make it clear that you’re evil. Probably something about why you want to remain anonymous and they’ll paint it as you wanting to be anonymous because your views are beyond the pale or a dog whistle or something.
> ... It was absolutely going to be a hit piece and they don’t tell you that upfront because they need your participation.
> Pui doesn’t care, she’s cracking open champagne right now. This is what she thinks their job is. Exposing everything because reasons and feeling good about it.
> It will absolutely be a hit piece, probably call SA a racist, and will be unapologetic. To expect anything different is impossible if you’ve spent a lot of time around this particular brand of new age journalist.
> ... The editor SA is referring to is a known quantity in many circles, including mine, as is the author of the piece (I know people who were asked for comment; all refused). This is a win in their book, and they couldn’t care less about whether SA’s life will be destroyed.
A New York Times reporter was also involved in that incident.
https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-nao...
https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-nao...
Wow, i’ve read all her 3 long blog posts about what happened and it angers me so much. I knew Vice was shit, but I had higher expectations from NY Times, Google or Twitter.
Here are the other parts:
- part 2: https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-nao...
- part 3: https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-nao...
There was a positive outcome too, though, check out this video where she helps save someone’s life (SFW): https://youtu.be/4VKZTmTP7oY
Here are the other parts:
- part 2: https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-nao...
- part 3: https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-nao...
There was a positive outcome too, though, check out this video where she helps save someone’s life (SFW): https://youtu.be/4VKZTmTP7oY
That is very fucked.
Jeong worked for Vice at the time and then the NYT hired her correct?
Correct, in fact Wu had posted the article in order to somehow protest NYT's hiring of Jeong. I personally think that Jeong was simply misguided in this particular incident and doesn't deserve that much criticism especially compared to the Vice reporter in question, though.
[deleted]
Is there any conceivable good reason for the NYT to publish the name in an article on the claimed topic, despite the author's wishes to the contrary? Can't think of any, unless the reporter was also misrepresenting the subject of the story or the angle he is taking.
Maybe, revealing the true (or full) name is seen as a journalistic contribution? (As in "I'm not just reporting on what is there for everyone to see, I also did some actual research. See, here's the real name nobody was meant to know." – Obviously, this would be more proof of an issue with professional self-esteem, rather than of anything else.)
> Can't think of any, unless the reporter was also misrepresenting the subject of the story or the angle he is taking.
That is exactly what was happening there. There is no other plausible explanation for the behavior.
That is exactly what was happening there. There is no other plausible explanation for the behavior.
Wow, hadn't heard that linked story before, what garbage for vice to act that way.
Vice is the epitome of garbage so no surprise there
NowThis and that entire network of brands collaborating on radical politics. There has to be way to make this more obvious to people.
I've watched VICE and NowThis alone radicalize perfectly decent people. I knew someone for over 10 years who was always highly observant, emotional but self-aware, would drop what he was doing to sit in my car with me in a dark parking lot and let me go through the wild ride of emotions I have about my ex. He knew we wouldn't ever be a thing. I sat with him one evening in a dark parking lot and let him go through his emotions on us just not falling into place, the existential crisis of seeing something desired within reach and being able to touch but not keep it. He's the person who taught me every second is independent from the next, that a bad feeling toward someone can be isolated, compartmentalized, only exist in a moment in the front of our minds. That if we're aware of that independence, we can turn off an emotion so quickly we hardly notice the effort. And today, I could be thoroughly enraged by someone's comment online, turn off my screen and be in a great mood before I even realize the transition occurred.
A few years back, he started watching the VICE documentaries at work during his free time. And then he started watching the clips and cuts made by Buzzfeed and channels like NowThis. Then he started sharing them on social media. And the clips got more and more incendiary. It's like VICE news could do a 30-minute special on LGBT in Brazil, but he'd watch and re-watch the few seconds of Bolsonaro saying gays are bad and that's just his view. And then he'd repost the clips. And then he started posting them on people's timelines to make sure their friends saw the clips and his comments too. And it eventually spiraled out into him posting clips of Nazi propaganda and these detailed comparisons to the Trump administration. And then he got verbally abusive toward his family.
My last conversation with him was me asking why he posted what read like a manifesto that white people, Nazis/KKK, cisgender people should be put into training programs and if they refused or didn't show rapid progress then they deserved to be dropped off somewhere remote and left there. I thought he was joking, but he said he was serious. He ranted for almost an hour at me, even after I closed Facebook. I got 13 or so message notifications on my phone.
Just to clarify, his posts on Facebook and Twitter included his belief that 'cisnormativity' is a product of 'white mafias', that we're all accomplices and own a blood libel for the deaths of the poor around the world, that ISIS wasn't homophobic and only executed cishomos, that he'd force cishomos to have sexual intercourse with trans people even if it didn't fix them. Just insane, insane shit.
These sites are the gateway drugs to violence. For all the talk about violent video games and movies, these indie (corporate) 'news' channels are the real danger.
I've watched VICE and NowThis alone radicalize perfectly decent people. I knew someone for over 10 years who was always highly observant, emotional but self-aware, would drop what he was doing to sit in my car with me in a dark parking lot and let me go through the wild ride of emotions I have about my ex. He knew we wouldn't ever be a thing. I sat with him one evening in a dark parking lot and let him go through his emotions on us just not falling into place, the existential crisis of seeing something desired within reach and being able to touch but not keep it. He's the person who taught me every second is independent from the next, that a bad feeling toward someone can be isolated, compartmentalized, only exist in a moment in the front of our minds. That if we're aware of that independence, we can turn off an emotion so quickly we hardly notice the effort. And today, I could be thoroughly enraged by someone's comment online, turn off my screen and be in a great mood before I even realize the transition occurred.
A few years back, he started watching the VICE documentaries at work during his free time. And then he started watching the clips and cuts made by Buzzfeed and channels like NowThis. Then he started sharing them on social media. And the clips got more and more incendiary. It's like VICE news could do a 30-minute special on LGBT in Brazil, but he'd watch and re-watch the few seconds of Bolsonaro saying gays are bad and that's just his view. And then he'd repost the clips. And then he started posting them on people's timelines to make sure their friends saw the clips and his comments too. And it eventually spiraled out into him posting clips of Nazi propaganda and these detailed comparisons to the Trump administration. And then he got verbally abusive toward his family.
My last conversation with him was me asking why he posted what read like a manifesto that white people, Nazis/KKK, cisgender people should be put into training programs and if they refused or didn't show rapid progress then they deserved to be dropped off somewhere remote and left there. I thought he was joking, but he said he was serious. He ranted for almost an hour at me, even after I closed Facebook. I got 13 or so message notifications on my phone.
Just to clarify, his posts on Facebook and Twitter included his belief that 'cisnormativity' is a product of 'white mafias', that we're all accomplices and own a blood libel for the deaths of the poor around the world, that ISIS wasn't homophobic and only executed cishomos, that he'd force cishomos to have sexual intercourse with trans people even if it didn't fix them. Just insane, insane shit.
These sites are the gateway drugs to violence. For all the talk about violent video games and movies, these indie (corporate) 'news' channels are the real danger.
>There has to be way to make this more obvious to people.
I've always been of the opinion that the reader needs to be on guard towards content which teaches people to hate, much moreso than "hate speech" that's just someone screaming their head off like an angry paranoid fool.
It's easy for everyone to identify and contextualize someone talking trash; even if they happen to agree they can still see it for what it is. It's much harder when a reporter (someone branded as a smart person) uses high-status language, slick production value, and an almost disengaged tone of voice to seduce you into a comfortable but dishonest explanation that turns people into cartoonish monsters to lay blame at their feet.
I've always been of the opinion that the reader needs to be on guard towards content which teaches people to hate, much moreso than "hate speech" that's just someone screaming their head off like an angry paranoid fool.
It's easy for everyone to identify and contextualize someone talking trash; even if they happen to agree they can still see it for what it is. It's much harder when a reporter (someone branded as a smart person) uses high-status language, slick production value, and an almost disengaged tone of voice to seduce you into a comfortable but dishonest explanation that turns people into cartoonish monsters to lay blame at their feet.
> content which teaches people to hate
It's called "critical race theory".
It's called "critical race theory".
I'm sorry that happened to your friend. Unless I've only seen the tip of the iceberg, I didn't think vice was that bad? Not always substantiative, and definitely a ways left of center, but I wouldn't stick it in the same vein as something like Infowars or breitbart.
But probably you don't have any actual metric or system for deciding "badness".
PC goodthink is that Breitbart is terrible in every way and the worst possible source of news. When I've compared its European edition to outlets like the Guardian, it's pretty similar in tone, style and content (obviously with political polarity reversed). If anything it's actually less extreme, for instance, it's very clear about the separation between illegal immigrants (i.e. a class defined by choice) from race (a class defined by immutable characteristic), whereas the Guardian does publish pieces talking about 'white people' or 'white men' quite frequently.
Also, Breitbart uses links to primary sources much more heavily than most news sources do. A lot of papers only link to other stories they published, to keep you in-site.
PC goodthink is that Breitbart is terrible in every way and the worst possible source of news. When I've compared its European edition to outlets like the Guardian, it's pretty similar in tone, style and content (obviously with political polarity reversed). If anything it's actually less extreme, for instance, it's very clear about the separation between illegal immigrants (i.e. a class defined by choice) from race (a class defined by immutable characteristic), whereas the Guardian does publish pieces talking about 'white people' or 'white men' quite frequently.
Also, Breitbart uses links to primary sources much more heavily than most news sources do. A lot of papers only link to other stories they published, to keep you in-site.
Wow, Vice actually outed her as gay, in China. There’s not much room to fall any lower now, unless they learn how to hack voicemails.
He could also name the NYT reporter.
That would be counterproductive. The reporter would get abuse from random people, the article would definitely get published with the blogger's name, with the twist of "blogger tries to suppress publication of article by leveraging an online mob."
I would like to know who the journalist is. Not so they can be threatened or put in danger. But so their reputation can take a hit. Part of the reason people do these things is because they can get away with it without any consequences.
The lead editors are responsible for maintaining ethical standards, and they represent the NYT. Adjust your impression of the NYT reputation based on this story. Also see the other comment on this article about Naomi Wu being doxxed, where the risk is deadly living under a tyrannical regime: the NYT hired the journalist responsible, who doesn't believe any mistake was made there.
It's just assumed in your comment that this should only be about the media outlet, and that we should ignore the journalist involved.
The problem with people trying to shut down others primarily comes from individuals. Often that's individuals on social media. In this case it's a journalist. These individuals can destroy other people's lives, yet they essentially face zero consequences for doing so.
And each time they succeed, like in this case, they embolden others to do it.
The problem with people trying to shut down others primarily comes from individuals. Often that's individuals on social media. In this case it's a journalist. These individuals can destroy other people's lives, yet they essentially face zero consequences for doing so.
And each time they succeed, like in this case, they embolden others to do it.
For twitter, you have a point. For something being paid for and published by an organization, this is driven by the organizational culture which pays them to do so.
radomysisky(2)
People want to know who SSC is for the same reason.
So Scott the psychiatrist's reputation can take a hit? If Scott Alexander writes shitty stuff, Scott Alexander's name will take a hit. And there's nothing wrong with that, because his future work will also be published under that name. But what's the rationale for nuking Scott the psychiatrist? (who will also be nuked even if his patients see nothing wrong with his blog. Patient-psychiatrist interactions are supposed to be tightly controlled)
The issue is that those two people are one and the same.
Many of Scott's patients would find his writings to be very relevant information.
Many of Scott's patients would find his writings to be very relevant information.
Not every relevant interest is legitimate.
Fortunately it will now be up to his patients and colleagues to decide that.
Colleagues, sure. Patients, NO. Especially since this will harm even potential patients who would have had no problem with Scott. The problem isn't that patients will read SSC, decide that Scott isn't cool, and Scott loses business. It's that patients will read SSC, learn too much about how and what Scott thinks, and this will hinder Scott's ability to help these patients regardless of what said thoughts are. For instance, if Scott talks about hating PE class in high school (he very well might have, I don't know), that could stop patients from opening up to him about their passion which happens to be sports or something.
But, you say, surely that's not a problem for well-adjusted people! Guess what the hell a psychiatrist does.
But, you say, surely that's not a problem for well-adjusted people! Guess what the hell a psychiatrist does.
There is no need to do that. As long as the reporter remains unnamed, for now, they can decide to either not publish the article, or not publish the name, and they will be able to go along with there life, without getting the negative backlash.
If they do dox the person, though, their name will be on the article, and you'll be able to find it.
If they do dox the person, though, their name will be on the article, and you'll be able to find it.
Yeah if it were me there would definitely be another online release about how a certain reporter ruined my life just so he could get the "scoop".
> how a certain reporter ruined my life just so he could get the "scoop"
The point though, is that this hasn't actually happened yet. There is still a possibility that the reporter will back out, and not publish the name.
At which point, the author wins, and isn't doxed.
By not attacking the reporter, yet it still leaves open the possibility that everyone can back down.
The point though, is that this hasn't actually happened yet. There is still a possibility that the reporter will back out, and not publish the name.
At which point, the author wins, and isn't doxed.
By not attacking the reporter, yet it still leaves open the possibility that everyone can back down.
they've already succeeded in getting the site removed from the internet, and done so with complete impunity.
Presumably the NYT article would be under the reporters name.
Since it seems that the reporter might have been named after all, did anyone take a quick look at their previous work to check whether they have a history of publishing problematic or misleading 'hit pieces'? It might be useful to figure out if concern really is warranted here.
Why would he stoop that low?
Part of the reason people do things like what the journalist did is because they can do so without facing any consequences. There should be disincentives for that kind of behavior. I'm not talking about them being threatened or put at risk. I'm talking about there being consequences for their reputation.
It may prevent the same reporter from destroying someone else's life. There are consequences to hurting another human being's life and privacy.
That's been done, unsurprisingly, on Twitter already.
Slate Star Codex is one of the most interesting blogs on the internet. If we doxx this voice, who do we doxx next?
I stopped trusting reporters about 35 years ago, when I personally witnessed an occurrence, where a reporter was at the scene, and later read what he had written about it in the newspaper.
It had practically nothing to do with what really happened, but was written in a way that most of their readers would most likely expect and endorse.
I was still very young then, but it opened my eyes, and from then on, I mostly stopped reading newspapers, and don't trust anything they write, without checking the facts.
It had practically nothing to do with what really happened, but was written in a way that most of their readers would most likely expect and endorse.
I was still very young then, but it opened my eyes, and from then on, I mostly stopped reading newspapers, and don't trust anything they write, without checking the facts.
Disengaging based on an N=1 is not the type of individual action that improves our society. Our society is built on individual (and collective) attempts to improve, and you putting your money towards journalists you found to be doing a good job is the way we leave the world better than we found it.
I hope you'll consider this, because our society cannot function without quality investigative reporting. I of course agree there are many kinds of people who call themselves journalists many of which don't improve our society. We must fight this battle, as we must fight every battle, because that's the only way things change for the better. Do not let cynicism win.
I hope you'll consider this, because our society cannot function without quality investigative reporting. I of course agree there are many kinds of people who call themselves journalists many of which don't improve our society. We must fight this battle, as we must fight every battle, because that's the only way things change for the better. Do not let cynicism win.
And there's the rub. What is "quality investigative reporting" in an objective sense, when most of the MSM outlets are owned by oligarchs, or simply "toe the line"?
In theory I would gladly support the theory of "quality investigative reporting", but the reality is a propagandist machine where opinion pieces replaces actual unbiased, adjective-free objective news.
Some examples of "oligarch news": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwA4k0E51Oo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI
As a former developer who worked closely on Thomson Reuters News feed (in the 00's), I've seen how there is almost zero fact checking for the information that appears on news feeds. Instead, news outlets trust the 'upstream' feeds and then quote the reports verbatim.
To be fair, there are those who are really awesome at doing research and releasing information that are part of the MSM. Unfortunately, there are plenty others who are not affiliated with MSM news outlets and hence aren't regarded as "reporters" per-se. These latter ones are regularly attacked via "fact checking" websites as a way to discredit them.
An article on the latter is here: https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-381-who-will-fact-chec...
In short, there's a bunch of information out there and without each and every news report clearly citing original sources, then MSM or not, it must be regarded as suspect.
So for "quality investigative reporting", the actual reports must rigorously cite objective sources.
In theory I would gladly support the theory of "quality investigative reporting", but the reality is a propagandist machine where opinion pieces replaces actual unbiased, adjective-free objective news.
Some examples of "oligarch news": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwA4k0E51Oo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI
As a former developer who worked closely on Thomson Reuters News feed (in the 00's), I've seen how there is almost zero fact checking for the information that appears on news feeds. Instead, news outlets trust the 'upstream' feeds and then quote the reports verbatim.
To be fair, there are those who are really awesome at doing research and releasing information that are part of the MSM. Unfortunately, there are plenty others who are not affiliated with MSM news outlets and hence aren't regarded as "reporters" per-se. These latter ones are regularly attacked via "fact checking" websites as a way to discredit them.
An article on the latter is here: https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-381-who-will-fact-chec...
In short, there's a bunch of information out there and without each and every news report clearly citing original sources, then MSM or not, it must be regarded as suspect.
So for "quality investigative reporting", the actual reports must rigorously cite objective sources.
I find it mildly ironic that you link to a clip from the PBS NewsHour while, from my reading, you also imply that objective reporting or investigative reporting don't exist or are dwindling. There are clearly some sources left that are worth their salt.
In the US, I've found most PBS/NPR news broadcasts fairly objective, and the various NPR podcasts sometimes chart into investigative territory but there are other sources I rely on for this (e.g. ProPublica) which I don't expect to be just objective.
I'm not sure I understood exactly what you meant about quality investigative journalism, so forgive me if I misread. I generally agree with your comment.
In the US, I've found most PBS/NPR news broadcasts fairly objective, and the various NPR podcasts sometimes chart into investigative territory but there are other sources I rely on for this (e.g. ProPublica) which I don't expect to be just objective.
I'm not sure I understood exactly what you meant about quality investigative journalism, so forgive me if I misread. I generally agree with your comment.
> PBS/NPR news broadcasts fairly objective
For example, listen for ", without providing evidence" in NPR broadcasts. Notice how selectively it is used.
For example, listen for ", without providing evidence" in NPR broadcasts. Notice how selectively it is used.
I consider Media Bias/Fact Check fairly objective and they rate NPR as having left-center bias.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/npr/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/npr/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check:
> The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[3] The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."[4]
> The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[3] The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."[4]
I doubt that we can achieve absolute objectivity, that's why I wrote that I consider it fairly objective, not that it is. That said I don't see a reason why should Columbia Journalism Review or Poynter Institute be any better arbiters of what is correct way to measure bias. (Especially because both are competition.)
Also Poynter Institute has record of "weaknesses in the methodology".[1]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynter_Institute
Also Poynter Institute has record of "weaknesses in the methodology".[1]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynter_Institute
Having a bias doesn't in itself imply lack of objectivity, in relation to what we call 'facts' and 'truth'. It would seem somewhat of a coincidence if 'center' (politically) is right where that lies.
Not that I'm saying that 'reality has a liberal bias', as some would. I personally think it has a left bias, but I'm not nearly certain enough of my opinions to make that claim!
Not that I'm saying that 'reality has a liberal bias', as some would. I personally think it has a left bias, but I'm not nearly certain enough of my opinions to make that claim!
NPR isn't explicitly biased, but it does lean left. A recent example:
> Even In A Pandemic, WHO Believes That Public Protests Are Important
> June 8, 2020 5:40 PM ET
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/08/8724198...
14 minutes later
> Trump To Restart Political Rallies This Month Despite Coronavirus Pandemic
> June 8, 2020 5:54 PM ET
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/0...
> Even In A Pandemic, WHO Believes That Public Protests Are Important
> June 8, 2020 5:40 PM ET
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/08/8724198...
14 minutes later
> Trump To Restart Political Rallies This Month Despite Coronavirus Pandemic
> June 8, 2020 5:54 PM ET
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/0...
"Unbiased" or "factual" does not mean "we take both sides' opinions and put them next to each other without comment" - that's what the BBC does and it gives extremist, dangerous viewpoints far more legitimacy than they're worth. The fact that coronavirus got caught up in a bunch of political nonsense does not change that.
"Unbiased" != "Factual".
"Extremist" and "dangerous" according to whom?
That's precisely what unbiased and factual means. You're actually arguing that the media should be opinionated, which is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint, but please don't try to destroy the meaning of words to make disputing your preference impossible.
Edit: I should clarify that I meant "unbiased and factual" together. Of course it's entirely possible to be both biased and factual, by choosing which facts to include.
Edit: I should clarify that I meant "unbiased and factual" together. Of course it's entirely possible to be both biased and factual, by choosing which facts to include.
It's not. You can reproduce information in an unbiased manner, but being factual involves fact-checking, which rarely yields a neutral result.
What's the more 'factual' language about the coronavirus pandemic in this case? It has to be one or the other, that's what unbiased means.
You investigate specific claims. For example, take the claim that Covid-19 is "no worse than the flu". You could report on people making this claim, and state that others disagree. That can be considered an example of unbiased reporting, but it's nevertheless problematic as it may leave a reader with the impression that all reported-on claims are equally valid.
Choice and presentation of opinions you report on is not a neutral acitvity.
edit: I was distracted when I wrote my answer, so I missed some context. Was your question about differences in tone pointed out in a sibling comment[1]? Without having read the articles in question, at first glace, I'd considere this an example of journalistic bias.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23611963
Choice and presentation of opinions you report on is not a neutral acitvity.
edit: I was distracted when I wrote my answer, so I missed some context. Was your question about differences in tone pointed out in a sibling comment[1]? Without having read the articles in question, at first glace, I'd considere this an example of journalistic bias.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23611963
> take the claim that Covid-19 is "no worse than the flu"
That's an interesting example of how difficult unbiased fact checking is.
To start with, there are many interpretations of the statement. Does worse mean death rate, severity of symptoms, infectiousness, or something else? What strain of the flu, and in which country? Which paper or anecdote does the fact checker cite? Because of differences like these, two fact checkers will give different ratings for the same statement.
Journalists aren't experts and shouldn't act like they are by presenting a single perspective as if it were unchallenged fact, or by injecting their own unqualified opinions. Any issue complex enough to be a matter for serious debate isn't going to be solved in an article.
They can be unbiased and report what the leading figures have said, like a camera at a televised debate, or they can be opinionated and add their voice to one of the camps, but they can't (honestly) do both.
That's an interesting example of how difficult unbiased fact checking is.
To start with, there are many interpretations of the statement. Does worse mean death rate, severity of symptoms, infectiousness, or something else? What strain of the flu, and in which country? Which paper or anecdote does the fact checker cite? Because of differences like these, two fact checkers will give different ratings for the same statement.
Journalists aren't experts and shouldn't act like they are by presenting a single perspective as if it were unchallenged fact, or by injecting their own unqualified opinions. Any issue complex enough to be a matter for serious debate isn't going to be solved in an article.
They can be unbiased and report what the leading figures have said, like a camera at a televised debate, or they can be opinionated and add their voice to one of the camps, but they can't (honestly) do both.
[deleted]
Not everything can be fact checked in the first place and if it can, who fact checks the fact checkers? There are numerous examples of fact checking websites being factually wrong.
[deleted]
I don't think that's fair. The first article explains the WHO position, it does not endorse it.
Compare the language in the first paragraph, describing the severity of the pandemic.
In the context of left-wing political activity, just:
> In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic
In the context of right-wing political activity, a far more frightening description:
> despite the deadly coronavirus pandemic, which continues to wreak havoc on the lives and livelihoods of households across the country.
If NPR didn't lean left, the second article could have started with a tone similar to the first: in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the Trump campaign will address another pressing issue, restarting the American economy. The rally has prompted fears that the close contact of thousands of attendees could lead to a spike in case counts.
In the context of left-wing political activity, just:
> In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic
In the context of right-wing political activity, a far more frightening description:
> despite the deadly coronavirus pandemic, which continues to wreak havoc on the lives and livelihoods of households across the country.
If NPR didn't lean left, the second article could have started with a tone similar to the first: in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the Trump campaign will address another pressing issue, restarting the American economy. The rally has prompted fears that the close contact of thousands of attendees could lead to a spike in case counts.
A campaign rally is not the same thing as a grassroots political protest by far. It's an organised event that an organiser explicitly invites people to, which primarily serves party politics rather than any particular political issue.
That still doesn't change the very obviously biased framing of the information. You can objectively describe one as more important, or more justified if you will, but manipulating the reader by speaking to his subconciousness like they did is not what should be expected from serious journalism.
I disagree - stating the different situations in different ways is entirely reasonable and to be expected. Can you find me some "serious journalism", ever, which operated in the way you describe?
COVID-19 doesn't suddenly become a "different situation" depending on the political orientation of the mass gathering.
It's not the political orientation of the mass gathering - it's the purpose. One is the President organising a gathering in an attempt to boost his election campaign - the other is some random people who came together to protest a specific thing.
>> COVID-19 doesn't suddenly become a "different situation" depending on the political orientation of the mass gathering.
> It's not the political orientation of the mass gathering - it's the purpose. One is the President organising a gathering in an attempt to boost his election campaign - the other is some random people who came together to protest a specific thing.
How does the purpose of a public gathering alter a virus? Does it have political awareness and dynamically modify its transmissibility according to the righteousness of the cause?
Or perhaps the purpose of a public gathering justifies journalistic framing (altering the description of the severity of the virus, which in turn alters readers mental model of reality). If it's this, what is the logic behind the justification?
> It's not the political orientation of the mass gathering - it's the purpose. One is the President organising a gathering in an attempt to boost his election campaign - the other is some random people who came together to protest a specific thing.
How does the purpose of a public gathering alter a virus? Does it have political awareness and dynamically modify its transmissibility according to the righteousness of the cause?
Or perhaps the purpose of a public gathering justifies journalistic framing (altering the description of the severity of the virus, which in turn alters readers mental model of reality). If it's this, what is the logic behind the justification?
Sure it does, when opposition to mask wearing, social distancing, and other such precautions are part of that political orientation.
(Plus, Trump's rally was indoors; protests are outdoors. We've got quite a bit of data now indicating outdoor transmission is less likely.)
(Plus, Trump's rally was indoors; protests are outdoors. We've got quite a bit of data now indicating outdoor transmission is less likely.)
[deleted]
It's not really inconsistent to believe fighting against racial injustice is more important than the reelection of a specific president?
Making any kind of judgment about what’s “important” or “worthy” is exactly what OP was saying - that media suffer from bias and rarely confine themselves to neutral reporting of facts.
> neutral reporting of facts.
I don't know how this fiction has to be represented in every discussion. I don't want neutral unbiased reporting if it requires giving equal time to people who think that neutral unbiased reporting is real. The selection of what's important to report is literal biasing.
I don't know how this fiction has to be represented in every discussion. I don't want neutral unbiased reporting if it requires giving equal time to people who think that neutral unbiased reporting is real. The selection of what's important to report is literal biasing.
You're right, determining what's newsworthy is a biased process in and of itself. But that doesn't mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater, neutrality is still something we should constantly aim for, even if it's a moving target.
For example, if a media outlet compare actual vs expected turnout for a Trump rally and report that turnout was "lower than expected", it would be plainly biased not to do the same comparison for Biden. The lines are obviously going to blur at some point (where 'balance' involves publishing something far less 'newsworthy'), but it's a lot like the definition of pornography - you know it when you see it.
Besides, most modern media outlets are blatantly pushing their own narratives anyway - I'd say it's far more important that we fix this before moving on to the smaller problem of selection bias.
For example, if a media outlet compare actual vs expected turnout for a Trump rally and report that turnout was "lower than expected", it would be plainly biased not to do the same comparison for Biden. The lines are obviously going to blur at some point (where 'balance' involves publishing something far less 'newsworthy'), but it's a lot like the definition of pornography - you know it when you see it.
Besides, most modern media outlets are blatantly pushing their own narratives anyway - I'd say it's far more important that we fix this before moving on to the smaller problem of selection bias.
> What is "quality investigative reporting" in an objective sense, when most of the MSM outlets are owned by oligarchs, or simply "toe the line"?
I don't think better ownership changes anything. The Guardian is owned by a trust, yet falsely reported Mark Duggan was unarmed in a front page headline (if you're unaware, this was false and the Gruan had to retract the claim after a PCC ruling).
I don't think better ownership changes anything. The Guardian is owned by a trust, yet falsely reported Mark Duggan was unarmed in a front page headline (if you're unaware, this was false and the Gruan had to retract the claim after a PCC ruling).
Not sure why you're being downvoted. The biggest German left-wing newspaper (taz) is owned by a cooperative. If anything, I find it more annoyingly partisan than other newspapers. It's a hard problem.
The problem isn't bias/partisanship. You can't have any one source be truly unbiased and if you're aware of the politics behind any given source you can neutralise it and temper it with multiple sources from opposite camps.
The problem is that we're not being delivered news-as-information, we're sold news-as-entertainment.
The problem is that we're not being delivered news-as-information, we're sold news-as-entertainment.
In some parts of tech people treat politics as a team sport, so criticism of their 'team' (even pointing out mistakes acknowledged by the publications) is considered to be punishable.
Indeed. The Guardian Trust has also ruled in editorial complaints that factual inaccuracies in the opinion section are fine, which seems to be to be incredibly irresponsible.
IMO we need some kind of data driven media/data driven reporting/data driven newspaper type thing.
Then we can have reporting/debate/conversation on the meaning of the data but without the filters we use to have in place all reporting has essentially become meaningless, untrustworthy, opinion pieces.
Then we can have reporting/debate/conversation on the meaning of the data but without the filters we use to have in place all reporting has essentially become meaningless, untrustworthy, opinion pieces.
> I hope you'll consider this, because our society cannot function without quality investigative reporting.
Where do I find quality investigative reporting?
I support the Guardian and two regional/local newspapers and I' also forced to pay for the state run broadcaster here but I have to say that I also find myself reading a number of other sources to figure out what is really going on (for the Scandinavians here I'm one of those who will happily look to both Klassekampen and Document, in addition to vg.no and nrk to figure out what is really going on in certain cases, and I understand I am not alone in this).
Once you know a bit of history and a number of different angles you realize some things are horribly complicated and big media is making things worse by pushing misinformation, and by conveniently omitting facts. My favourite example from my favourite (i.e. least despised) local mainstream media source: X fired at a number of positions in neighbouring country Y yesterday. <Long article about this>. <Towards the end:> This happened after a barrage of rockets was fired from these positions shortly before. And that is the most honest of them. The rest seemed to just omit the fact that part Y fired first.
PS: The reason I support some of them is 1) because I feel it is the right thing to do. 2) because I feel at least one of them have actually managed to do some great quality investigative reporting as well as some great feature stories in between. We talk about certain companies and public healthcare organizations getting some much needed sunlight.
Where do I find quality investigative reporting?
I support the Guardian and two regional/local newspapers and I' also forced to pay for the state run broadcaster here but I have to say that I also find myself reading a number of other sources to figure out what is really going on (for the Scandinavians here I'm one of those who will happily look to both Klassekampen and Document, in addition to vg.no and nrk to figure out what is really going on in certain cases, and I understand I am not alone in this).
Once you know a bit of history and a number of different angles you realize some things are horribly complicated and big media is making things worse by pushing misinformation, and by conveniently omitting facts. My favourite example from my favourite (i.e. least despised) local mainstream media source: X fired at a number of positions in neighbouring country Y yesterday. <Long article about this>. <Towards the end:> This happened after a barrage of rockets was fired from these positions shortly before. And that is the most honest of them. The rest seemed to just omit the fact that part Y fired first.
PS: The reason I support some of them is 1) because I feel it is the right thing to do. 2) because I feel at least one of them have actually managed to do some great quality investigative reporting as well as some great feature stories in between. We talk about certain companies and public healthcare organizations getting some much needed sunlight.
>> Where do I find quality investigative reporting?
One that is limited, but wonderful is: ProPublica
One that is limited, but wonderful is: ProPublica
According to https://www.propublica.org/supporters ProPublica gets funding from:
Abrams Foundation, Altman Foundation, Arnold Ventures, Barr Foundation, The William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation, The Peter and Carmen Lucia Buck Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Craigslist Foundation, Davis Wright Tremaine, The Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, Democracy Fund, The Richard H. Driehaus Foundation, Dyson Foundation, Emerson Collective, The Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundation, Goldhirsh Foundation, The Jerome L. Greene Foundation, Heising-Simons Foundation, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, Leon Levy Foundation, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Metabolic Studio, Park Foundation, The Lisa and John Pritzker Family Fund, Charles H. Revson Foundation, Sandler Foundation, Select Equity Foundation, Skoll Global Threats Fund, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Solidarity Giving
Abrams Foundation, Altman Foundation, Arnold Ventures, Barr Foundation, The William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation, The Peter and Carmen Lucia Buck Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Craigslist Foundation, Davis Wright Tremaine, The Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, Democracy Fund, The Richard H. Driehaus Foundation, Dyson Foundation, Emerson Collective, The Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundation, Goldhirsh Foundation, The Jerome L. Greene Foundation, Heising-Simons Foundation, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, Leon Levy Foundation, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Metabolic Studio, Park Foundation, The Lisa and John Pritzker Family Fund, Charles H. Revson Foundation, Sandler Foundation, Select Equity Foundation, Skoll Global Threats Fund, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Solidarity Giving
I've come to really enjoy long-form podcast investigative reporting, as there's enough content that it's pretty obvious whether proper journalistic work has been done or not.
My favorite in that vein is 'In The Dark' by APM Reports, which was a massive eye-opener for me in terms of flaws in the justice system (especially Season 2).
My favorite in that vein is 'In The Dark' by APM Reports, which was a massive eye-opener for me in terms of flaws in the justice system (especially Season 2).
I'm all for quality investigative reporting, but that is not something that 99% of journalists do.
I've been interviewed by journalists a few times and I've seen at least a half-dozen other people be interviewed. The articles published are totally disconnected from what was actually said. Heck, I've had a journalist make up a quote and attribute it to me.
Don't talk to journalists. If you must, record everything.
I've been interviewed by journalists a few times and I've seen at least a half-dozen other people be interviewed. The articles published are totally disconnected from what was actually said. Heck, I've had a journalist make up a quote and attribute it to me.
Don't talk to journalists. If you must, record everything.
How would you measure good journalism? In OP’s case they could only see a given journalist was bad by personally witnessing the falsity. You don’t get many opportunities like that unfortunately.
I do think some journalism is good. Many reporters at the Financial Times come to mind for example. But I found your reply did not really address the nature of OP’s complaint.
I do think some journalism is good. Many reporters at the Financial Times come to mind for example. But I found your reply did not really address the nature of OP’s complaint.
Financial Times is considered one of the least biased papers out there. I feel the quality dropped a bit recently but in general,they are ligh years ahead compared to the usual suspects of this world.
Yeah, always my favourite to read. I really do like a lot of journalism, I just thought the comment I replied to was unfair.
A propos of nothing, here is the story of a photojournalist I just came across. Took many photos of the cultural revolution and hid them for decades: https://twitter.com/tony_zy/status/1275267759216222209
A propos of nothing, here is the story of a photojournalist I just came across. Took many photos of the cultural revolution and hid them for decades: https://twitter.com/tony_zy/status/1275267759216222209
Also stopped reading any news and reports from big media about 3 years ago.
Just curious are there any independent investigation journalists that work on the patreon/subscription model? Would consider donation them rather than NYT or WSJ.
Just curious are there any independent investigation journalists that work on the patreon/subscription model? Would consider donation them rather than NYT or WSJ.
It's difficult (for values that soon reduce to impossible) to get press accreditation as an independent journalist.
There are plenty of scrappy little online micronewspapers now, usually with an evident political slant, and some of them do real investigative journalism.
But there's no chance they'll get the direct access to the political system their mainstream cousins do.
It's also incredibly easy to astroturf fake news at that level, so not all of those sites are reliable.
The point about the MSM is that they're mass media with a huge subscriber/reader base. That's what gives them their leverage.
Journalism is much less influential without that.
There are plenty of scrappy little online micronewspapers now, usually with an evident political slant, and some of them do real investigative journalism.
But there's no chance they'll get the direct access to the political system their mainstream cousins do.
It's also incredibly easy to astroturf fake news at that level, so not all of those sites are reliable.
The point about the MSM is that they're mass media with a huge subscriber/reader base. That's what gives them their leverage.
Journalism is much less influential without that.
Exactly. The main problem is MSM with corporate money behind it. Getting things wrong is normal, getting things wrong intentionally (or recklessly) is malicious.
There are many. But they're difficult to find and get into. My favorite is http://www.noagendashow.com/.
There are many. But they're difficult to find and get into. My favorite is http://www.noagendashow.com/.
> My favorite is http://www.noagendashow.com/.
Are they doing independent investigative journalism, though? I jumped around in the episode a bit and it just sounds like talk radio commentary/opinion that cites MSM sources.
Are they doing independent investigative journalism, though? I jumped around in the episode a bit and it just sounds like talk radio commentary/opinion that cites MSM sources.
It's more like media analysis I think. Both John and Adam take clips from main-stream/internet media and try to examine it. I think they do a very good job at that. There's a long donation segment because the show is produced by listeners. Sound effects and such started out as a joke but listeners like it, and almost everything around the show is done by the community, including the website, shownotes, and transcripts.
Adam was on Rogan in March. I recommend watching that episode.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaPKrZTUoUs
Adam was on Rogan in March. I recommend watching that episode.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaPKrZTUoUs
Pretty partisan tho. I couldn't listen more than 5 minutes, "No one should vote x candidate".
I don't think so, but I've been listening to them for years. They criticize all sides, but one needs to listen to a few episodes to get into it, because they do have their own style of inside-jokes/jargon that might make first-time listener feel a bit lost, but that's the case with most indie/alternative media I think.
> The main problem is MSM with corporate money behind it
Plenty of non-profit MSM, including the BBC, The Guardian, AP, and so on.
Plenty of non-profit MSM, including the BBC, The Guardian, AP, and so on.
ProPublica. I have to admit I don't read enough of what they write, but I became a monthly supporter after their reporting on Intuit/TurboTax lobbying: https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-turbotax-20-year-f...
There's plenty of independent journalists on YouTube/Patreon/Alt-Tech, some more reliable than others. Hopefully, in the future, more people will start getting their news from the independent YouTube/Alt-Tech journalists who wound up migrating to those platforms after they were laid off from their mainstream media publications during the past decade of layoffs for that industry. Anyone can find a list of such YouTube/Alt-Tech channels by searching Reddit. Of course, that also means having to go through the process of weeding out the biased low quality journalists. Hard hitting debates are rather rare on YouTube, but, as a general rule, I have found that the YouTubers who are willing to debate others (and who present facts during that debate) are better sources of information than those who are unwilling to ever debate anyone.
Vice (NYT reporter involved in the overall ordeal) got a person they doxxed to be kicked off Patreon aka their livelihood for some period of time before after she (the person) retaliated against Vice — SexyCyborg. Not sure if there’s a space or not.
Matt Taibbi
https://taibbi.substack.com/
https://taibbi.substack.com/
Though they are sunsetting their platform, there were a bunch of high quality newsrooms on Civil which can be supported via donations. I recommend checking out https://readsludge.com/ & https://popula.com/, for local news Block Club Chicago, FAQ NYC, Gotham Gazette, The Colorado Sun.
https://civil.co/registry/approved
https://civil.co/registry/approved
That is deed my criterion as well: I support independent investigative publications only (and I read few other sources, haven't had TV for nearly two decades for instance).
I'm not sure about individual journalists, but The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project has a donate button. If there's a journalist whose work you admire, you could check if they have Patreon. https://www.occrp.org/en
Don't know about investigative journalism, but https://thecorrespondent.com/ claim they're only supported through their reader's subscriptions.
> Disengaging based on an N=1 is not the type of individual action that improves our society.
Statistical significance is not the only epistemological tool around. I would even argue that, outside of some scientific fields, it is really not that important (and might even lead to a lot of wrong conclusions in the context that is used nowadays, but that is a different discussion altogether).
We are not some dumb statistical machine. We have an entire model of the world in our heads, and one single observation can have profound implications on it. The journalist reports to an editor, who maintains a system of job promotions, and all of this is connected to an institution that holds very real power. The OP observed this journalist manipulating the story, not in a random direction, but in their view in a direction that would appeal to the status quo. It is normal to update one's map of reality when confronted with first-person experience of an event that goes against what you've been told, and when the simplest explanation for how the world works changes in light of this direct observation.
And this is also how your mind works, and this is also how you formed your views on reality, including repeating the "N=1" cliché. None of it has anything to do with p-values.
Statistical significance is not the only epistemological tool around. I would even argue that, outside of some scientific fields, it is really not that important (and might even lead to a lot of wrong conclusions in the context that is used nowadays, but that is a different discussion altogether).
We are not some dumb statistical machine. We have an entire model of the world in our heads, and one single observation can have profound implications on it. The journalist reports to an editor, who maintains a system of job promotions, and all of this is connected to an institution that holds very real power. The OP observed this journalist manipulating the story, not in a random direction, but in their view in a direction that would appeal to the status quo. It is normal to update one's map of reality when confronted with first-person experience of an event that goes against what you've been told, and when the simplest explanation for how the world works changes in light of this direct observation.
And this is also how your mind works, and this is also how you formed your views on reality, including repeating the "N=1" cliché. None of it has anything to do with p-values.
My point is that ceasing to participate will make nothing better. Democracy requires participation, invluding engaging with whatever you see as wrong.
Quality investigative reporting is even more tricky because it's even harder to double-check
In my country, there's a supposedly quality investigative reporting outlet. I did trust them for years. Then one time they did report on something I happened to know more details from other sources. Their reporting was complete BS bending facts to come to opposite conclusions.
Months later it turned out that political party loved favoured by those journalists had an internal struggle and the dude in article above happened to be on the "wrong" side. The report was about his overseas business, not political affairs. As a bonus point, "good" side was involved in bribery scandal.
Another investigative outlet recently published a series of reports on another politician that comes from unfavourable party in among mainstream media journalists. So far all of those reports seem to have little substance and they seem to be in she-said, he-said gray area at best. I'm pretty sure the dude do have skeletons under his bed. But investigative journalists seem to just post whatever rumors they got and see what sticks. Which is not exactly helping their quality investigative reporting image.
In my country, there's a supposedly quality investigative reporting outlet. I did trust them for years. Then one time they did report on something I happened to know more details from other sources. Their reporting was complete BS bending facts to come to opposite conclusions.
Months later it turned out that political party loved favoured by those journalists had an internal struggle and the dude in article above happened to be on the "wrong" side. The report was about his overseas business, not political affairs. As a bonus point, "good" side was involved in bribery scandal.
Another investigative outlet recently published a series of reports on another politician that comes from unfavourable party in among mainstream media journalists. So far all of those reports seem to have little substance and they seem to be in she-said, he-said gray area at best. I'm pretty sure the dude do have skeletons under his bed. But investigative journalists seem to just post whatever rumors they got and see what sticks. Which is not exactly helping their quality investigative reporting image.
I was going to say that we could defer to whistleblowers instead but I realized that that term has also been loosely used. That said, it’s not journalists but news organizations that shouldn’t be trusted.
Most of the reported news is N=1 events. If the news reported averages instead, it wouldn't sell
That's a problem specific to news reporting, not journalism as a whole. I consider news reporting seperate from investigative journalism. What happened is far easier to report and consume than a report on why it happened. So, a better filter against biased news reporting, better than averaging, is taking a longer view and reading more comprehensive analyses. You can spin everything, but I find the more the article tends towards a study (investigative journalism), the blatant spinners drop off exponentially. Any bias is usually clear in such texts and therefore easily accounted for.
I think unfortunately journalists are trained to take phrases out of context so that they sound "sensational" / trigger emotional responses in the readers. You quickly find that out if give out interviews - you need to be very mindful how things may sound if taken out of context.
E.g. a while ago a newspaper here took me an interview/ they were building a story about people that had somewhat remarkable results in school & ample opportunities to leave (e.g. I participated in IOI and had 2 medals), and still chose to stay in the country - what were their motives, how it turned out for them. During the interview, I mentioned something along the lines that "I earn well enough to afford everything that I want, and my friends/family is here, I'm used to the local culture, etc". As a result, "I can afford everything" became basically the headline.
E.g. a while ago a newspaper here took me an interview/ they were building a story about people that had somewhat remarkable results in school & ample opportunities to leave (e.g. I participated in IOI and had 2 medals), and still chose to stay in the country - what were their motives, how it turned out for them. During the interview, I mentioned something along the lines that "I earn well enough to afford everything that I want, and my friends/family is here, I'm used to the local culture, etc". As a result, "I can afford everything" became basically the headline.
Wealth is one of the classic ones that journalists like stretching. My mom, a classical musician, got asked about her wages, and after some back and forth (since they varied by the job, of course), she was given this more specific question: "what's the most you made from a gig?" The sum she replied with, of course, made it into the resulting magazine article as an hourly average. Cue the stinkeyes from colleagues.
This is so common in British press of lower quality: an engineer on £80K salary gets arrested for x,y,z. A man in his 30s left his £2M house before he decided to steal money from the donation box and etc.
Is it possible to sue for this kind of misrepresentation (lies), or do you need to prove financial (non social) damages?
In Britain: very unlikely. I think sometimes journalists know the exact salaries ( public servants) or simply guess based on job title. The same with house prices. Again, the chances of getting anything through courts are very slim.
Those are not journalists. They are outrage-farming ad impression generators.
I don't think that distinction is helpful. Journalism is too important to our society for us to give the profession a free pass by giving the shadier parts a different name.
I'm sure that wasn't your intention but a profession won't improve if there's a way for its practitioners to shrug off criticism by telling themselves some version of the no true Scotsman fallacy.
I'm sure that wasn't your intention but a profession won't improve if there's a way for its practitioners to shrug off criticism by telling themselves some version of the no true Scotsman fallacy.
Mind you, that was for a so-called "quality", printed paper. I don't even think it was a daily, I think it's a weekly "business" paper.
Tomato tomato
My friend's cousin got involved in some shady activities and some regional newspaper ran a full page article on this. That's where a 2 bedroom semi detached in a not so glamorous part of a small town became: a large villa in a leafy part of the town...
The father of one of my neighbours recently died in a house fire. It was a tragic accident, nothing sinister. The whole family could be described as boringly average with nothing of note about them. The family refused all requests for interviews from the media.
That didn't stop the Irish Independent (big national paper here) from publishing gory headlines about the families pain. They also managed to source family photos (both old and more recent ones) and published pictures of the whole family. The family could deal with the headlines, but that someone leaked family photos to the paper really hit them hard.
The story was so sensationalised and gory and completely off the scale. A few column inches would have sufficed, instead it was double page spread implying the family was in turmoil. The paper turned an already painful family situation in to an absolute nightmare.
That didn't stop the Irish Independent (big national paper here) from publishing gory headlines about the families pain. They also managed to source family photos (both old and more recent ones) and published pictures of the whole family. The family could deal with the headlines, but that someone leaked family photos to the paper really hit them hard.
The story was so sensationalised and gory and completely off the scale. A few column inches would have sufficed, instead it was double page spread implying the family was in turmoil. The paper turned an already painful family situation in to an absolute nightmare.
My favourite example of all time of journalistic shamelessness is ABC reporting that Robin Williams's were "respectfully asking for privacy" following his death, while a banner at the top of the same page advertised live aerial footage of Robin Williams's home:
http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=abc_classy
http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=abc_classy
Doesn't the UK have strong laws about libel and slander? Or do they not apply to Ireland?
Two different countries. There was a big hoo-ha in 1916 about all that.
But this isn't slander. The Indo didn't lie they grossly exaggerated the truth in a gory manner.
Yes, the daughter was distraught - why wouldn't she be in the circumstances? But the Indos headline was along the lines of "AGONY AND PAIN FOR name AS FATHER PERISHES IN NORTH-SIDE INFERNO". This was accompanies by lots of quotes from anonymous "friends and family" about how she and her family were suffering. This article featured lots of personal photos. The really sore things about this is that these photos were only on display in her house, someone she trusted took copies with a smartphone and sent them to the paper.
As she is the copyright owner of some of the pictures I am going to suggest she invoice the paper for reproduction fees when she feels up to it.
But this isn't slander. The Indo didn't lie they grossly exaggerated the truth in a gory manner.
Yes, the daughter was distraught - why wouldn't she be in the circumstances? But the Indos headline was along the lines of "AGONY AND PAIN FOR name AS FATHER PERISHES IN NORTH-SIDE INFERNO". This was accompanies by lots of quotes from anonymous "friends and family" about how she and her family were suffering. This article featured lots of personal photos. The really sore things about this is that these photos were only on display in her house, someone she trusted took copies with a smartphone and sent them to the paper.
As she is the copyright owner of some of the pictures I am going to suggest she invoice the paper for reproduction fees when she feels up to it.
Ireland is a different country.
The Republic of Ireland is situated on the island of Ireland, which is itself one of the archipelago known as the British Isles (a term which is offensive to certain people from the Republic). Other entities which sit on the British Isles include the Isle of Man and the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", comprising four nations (England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland). Great Britain is one of the British Isles, and it contains most of Wales, Scotland, and England.
Many, many years ago, I was the foreman on a murder trial in our little town. In the jury selection process, the public defender -- a good, respected, local attorney -- asked the first candidate pool if they had read about the murder in the local paper. Almost everyone had. Then he asked if any of them had ever had a story written about them, or, say, their business, in this local paper. Three or four people raised their hand. Then he simply asked, "Did they get it right?" Everyone shook their head. Everyone laughed, and he moved on. Point made. That was my eye-opener.
> Then he simply asked, "Did they get it right?" Everyone shook their head. Everyone laughed, and he moved on.
A good follow up would be "How?"
The coverage might have been factually correct, but just because they didn't like it doesn't mean the information was wrong.
A good follow up would be "How?"
The coverage might have been factually correct, but just because they didn't like it doesn't mean the information was wrong.
I had a similar experience with reporters. I worked on a commercial product, on release someone just opening store had a sale, some reporter interpreted that sale as dumping a failing product and wrote that story. No amount of proof to the contrary would get them to retract. Whether or not it effected sales I have no idea but I learned some reporters are scum
There is also the phenomenon of reading articles about topics I know well and haven them be completely wrong which leads to to at least entertain the idea that the same is true for topics i don't know about. No idea what the solution is.
There is also the phenomenon of reading articles about topics I know well and haven them be completely wrong which leads to to at least entertain the idea that the same is true for topics i don't know about. No idea what the solution is.
Some things to keep in mind when doing any interview.
First, know what message you want to get across, and focus on that.
Second, avoid almost all "what if" type hypothetical questions.
Third, make your own recording of any interview, and make sure the reporter is aware that you are doing so.
I was fortunate enough to be part of some media training early in my career, where the trainer (an ex-TV reporter) recorded an interview with one of the participants. The next day they played for us the video they had put together splicing different questions into the interview and editing down the responses. The resulting "interview" was a real hit piece, and the editing was done smoothly enough that it presented as a single continuous take (even with the switching camera angles). It would have been very damaging if it had been broadcast like that, and without proof that it was faked the PR effort to counteract it would have been challenging.
First, know what message you want to get across, and focus on that.
Second, avoid almost all "what if" type hypothetical questions.
Third, make your own recording of any interview, and make sure the reporter is aware that you are doing so.
I was fortunate enough to be part of some media training early in my career, where the trainer (an ex-TV reporter) recorded an interview with one of the participants. The next day they played for us the video they had put together splicing different questions into the interview and editing down the responses. The resulting "interview" was a real hit piece, and the editing was done smoothly enough that it presented as a single continuous take (even with the switching camera angles). It would have been very damaging if it had been broadcast like that, and without proof that it was faked the PR effort to counteract it would have been challenging.
I'd say even more simply, don't talk to the press without the intermediation of a competent PR professional.
It's the same reason you don't talk to the police without a lawyer. Even if you're the cleverest person in the world, you're playing a game against an opponent who does this for a living and holds all the cards.
It's the same reason you don't talk to the police without a lawyer. Even if you're the cleverest person in the world, you're playing a game against an opponent who does this for a living and holds all the cards.
Many years ago, a close family friend, who was a police officer in a small town, committed suicide. The local television news kept trying to find the man's children and wife in the days immediately following his suicide to ask them questions. Because there's no informative news value to the general public in his family's reactions -- of course they're heartbroken and grieving, their beloved husband/father took his own life -- it was clear that the media just wanted to air emotional people to appeal to viewers.
I stopped watching television news -- because the vast majority of 'news' programs are just entertainment with a veneer of news.
I stopped watching television news -- because the vast majority of 'news' programs are just entertainment with a veneer of news.
First and foremost, I hope that the journalist gets revealed and fired. NYT is a reputable journal and shouldn't tolerate such unprofessional and potentially dangerous behavior. The person breached a few lines of ethical journalism, and for no justified reason:
First, purposefully using an incorrect name (and Scott Alexander's online identity is Scott Alexander). In many other cases, even if the name is known publicly, and it is (or was) a legal anme, a journalist does not need to write it.
Second, for everyone having vocal opinions, it puts them in real danger. If revealing someone's identity (or a threat of such) makes someone close their blog, the journalist have already made their damage.
Third, it erodes trust in journalists. Such journalists make any other journalism harder, as people have justified reasons not to talk. Not every person wants to increase their risk.
I hope that until the journalist gets fired, no activist, whistleblower, a person who wants to speak about professional malpractice, controversial artist etc. won't talk to NYT. For their own safety.
First, purposefully using an incorrect name (and Scott Alexander's online identity is Scott Alexander). In many other cases, even if the name is known publicly, and it is (or was) a legal anme, a journalist does not need to write it.
Second, for everyone having vocal opinions, it puts them in real danger. If revealing someone's identity (or a threat of such) makes someone close their blog, the journalist have already made their damage.
Third, it erodes trust in journalists. Such journalists make any other journalism harder, as people have justified reasons not to talk. Not every person wants to increase their risk.
I hope that until the journalist gets fired, no activist, whistleblower, a person who wants to speak about professional malpractice, controversial artist etc. won't talk to NYT. For their own safety.
> NYT is a reputable journal
The people who lied us into Iraq?
The people who lied us into Iraq?
The NYT isn't reputable anymore. Haven't been for a while. Case in point, this article they might publish.
They fired most of their senior editors in 2017 because they were both too expensive and enforcing old school journalist standards and integrity which doesn't generate clicks like hot handed opinion pieces followed by reverse opinion pieces does.
Though mind you that senior group was one of the biggest cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq, so take their integrity with a grain of salt.
They fired most of their senior editors in 2017 because they were both too expensive and enforcing old school journalist standards and integrity which doesn't generate clicks like hot handed opinion pieces followed by reverse opinion pieces does.
Though mind you that senior group was one of the biggest cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq, so take their integrity with a grain of salt.
> Case in point, this article they might publish.
As an NYT subscriber, I'm very concerned by this, but I think it's ironic that people skeptical of the media because they don't wait to get facts right are so willing to jump to the conclusion that Scott's account is the full story. I'm inclined to believe Scott, but just as a remotely plausible hypothetical: there's also been rumors of a hit piece floating around for a few days[1]. Maybe they uncovered something Scott doesn't want out there besides just his identity and this is his way of seeding distrust before it gets out.
[1] https://twitter.com/TauTeFox/status/1273775737527394306
As an NYT subscriber, I'm very concerned by this, but I think it's ironic that people skeptical of the media because they don't wait to get facts right are so willing to jump to the conclusion that Scott's account is the full story. I'm inclined to believe Scott, but just as a remotely plausible hypothetical: there's also been rumors of a hit piece floating around for a few days[1]. Maybe they uncovered something Scott doesn't want out there besides just his identity and this is his way of seeding distrust before it gets out.
[1] https://twitter.com/TauTeFox/status/1273775737527394306
If the piece can run without the guy's name then it should.
If he's violating HIPAA or something, then sure, name names. But if it's simply about the content of the blog, then his nomme de guerre should suffice.
If he's violating HIPAA or something, then sure, name names. But if it's simply about the content of the blog, then his nomme de guerre should suffice.
Isn't this just speculation? He gave out enough good reasons for his identity to not be known, the biggest is that he works as a professional psychiatrist with clients of wide ranging political stances.
He's also, I suspect (I don't follow his blog), given and written enough to at least earn enough good faith to be taken at his word.
He's also, I suspect (I don't follow his blog), given and written enough to at least earn enough good faith to be taken at his word.
Yes, I give him the benefit of the doubt, but at the time I wrote the comment NYC was barely awake yet and people were already cancelling their subscriptions and calling for the journalist to be fired.
To be honest, I was hoping NYT would have cleared things up by now, but I've been monitoring Twitter and haven't seen anything.
To be honest, I was hoping NYT would have cleared things up by now, but I've been monitoring Twitter and haven't seen anything.
I guess part of the problem is that there are few reputable sources. Reuters still seems ok. So does Financial Times. WSJ dropped in quality, but still seems to cater well tonita audience.
> old school journalist standards and integrity
Where were those when they wrote about Iraq?
Where were those when they wrote about Iraq?
Or US-aligned coups. Passive voice and aggressively dodging the word "coup" can go a long way.
All awfully convenient for the State Department, and equally convenient for the paper's relationships with their contacts within it and other parts of the US government.
All awfully convenient for the State Department, and equally convenient for the paper's relationships with their contacts within it and other parts of the US government.
I saw this mentioned twice. What did they write?
> I hope that the journalist gets revealed and fired.
Not going to happen. The reporter was doing his job. No one will lose their job just because your favorite blogger agreed to go on the record for an interview and is not upset that his identity will be revealed.
Not going to happen. The reporter was doing his job. No one will lose their job just because your favorite blogger agreed to go on the record for an interview and is not upset that his identity will be revealed.
It doesn't matter if anyones favorite or hated.
Breaking trust, going against wished how people prefer to be addressed and endangering people for now good reason - well, it's at most style of irresponsible, tabloid-level journalism.
If NYT aims for tabloid level standard, indeed, the journalist was doing his job.
Breaking trust, going against wished how people prefer to be addressed and endangering people for now good reason - well, it's at most style of irresponsible, tabloid-level journalism.
If NYT aims for tabloid level standard, indeed, the journalist was doing his job.
> Breaking trust, going against wished how people prefer to be addressed and endangering people for now good reason - well, it's at most style of irresponsible, tabloid-level journalism.
Did you read SSC's post? SSC didn't mention anything of a "promise" or "agreement" for the reporter to not use his name. The reporter found it another way.
Now, if SSC explicitly said the reporter promised not to use his name, then that opens a new can of worms.
Did you read SSC's post? SSC didn't mention anything of a "promise" or "agreement" for the reporter to not use his name. The reporter found it another way.
Now, if SSC explicitly said the reporter promised not to use his name, then that opens a new can of worms.
Doxxing is not something new. Scott Alexander is clear about his anonymity.
If a journalist interviewed a popular camgirl who introduced herself as (say) LustyClaraXXX, and then "did research" to compare pictures, and revealed her legal name an occupation (say, a schoolteacher), would you consider it ethical?
If yes, why so? If no, why so?
If a journalist interviewed a popular camgirl who introduced herself as (say) LustyClaraXXX, and then "did research" to compare pictures, and revealed her legal name an occupation (say, a schoolteacher), would you consider it ethical?
If yes, why so? If no, why so?
> If a journalist interviewed a popular camgirl who introduced herself as (say) LustyClaraXXX, and then "did research" to compare pictures, and revealed her legal name an occupation (say, a schoolteacher), would you consider it ethical?
It really depends on the context of the story, with additional nuances that a competent editor must consider:
Is this camgirl the central figure of this story?
What are her reasons for not revealing her real name?
You say she is a school teacher. What kind of teacher? Is she a well-known professor? Is she someone who teaches kindergarten?
Does she make more money from camming than being a teacher? That in itself could be another story about the system.
And on and on and on.
It really depends on the context of the story, with additional nuances that a competent editor must consider:
Is this camgirl the central figure of this story?
What are her reasons for not revealing her real name?
You say she is a school teacher. What kind of teacher? Is she a well-known professor? Is she someone who teaches kindergarten?
Does she make more money from camming than being a teacher? That in itself could be another story about the system.
And on and on and on.
Journalists shouldn't print anonymous articles. Journalists should use anonymous sources as little as possible.
"Tabloid level" journalism is how I would describe stories full of anonymous sources.
"Tabloid level" journalism is how I would describe stories full of anonymous sources.
> Journalists shouldn't print anonymous articles. Journalists should use anonymous sources as little as possible.
Correct. But there are times when anonymous sources are necessary. Look at WaPo and NYT's political coverage. They use many political insiders who can't go on the record but reveal necessary information for the public.
One example: Trump's "shit hole countries" comment. That came from anonymous sources who were in the room, backed up with a few on-the-record commends from outsiders.
Correct. But there are times when anonymous sources are necessary. Look at WaPo and NYT's political coverage. They use many political insiders who can't go on the record but reveal necessary information for the public.
One example: Trump's "shit hole countries" comment. That came from anonymous sources who were in the room, backed up with a few on-the-record commends from outsiders.
> I hope that the journalist gets revealed
The name of the journalist in question is no secret; spend 5 minutes browsing Twitter or the SSC subreddit and you'll figure it out.
The name of the journalist in question is no secret; spend 5 minutes browsing Twitter or the SSC subreddit and you'll figure it out.
It baffles me when people trust the "news", _especially_ if they only consume news within their own little bubble. I was interviewed a couple of times on technological topics (once by a NYT journalist), and was once in the middle of events that were reported on, so I knew what actually happened. In all three cases what was printed was total clickbait horseshit that had nothing to do with reality. So if a journalist wants to talk to me now, I will only do it if it generates clickbait horseshit that's good for me somehow.
You can always agree for an interview on a condition of receiving final draft before it gets published and having a say on it. Whether they agree or not depends on how many other sources they have for that story.
I had a similar experience in Iraq. I had saw an attack happen and then heard the CNN report about it a few hours later and it wasn't even in the realm of what happened. It was surreal.
This may be slightly off topic here, but I attended a birthday party of a friend last year. Long story short, there was a guy at the same pub who OD'd and my wife and I helped him until the ambulance arrived. There was a 'reality' TV cameraman with them and we didn't want him filming us so I asked him to stop. His tactic was to shove the camera in my face and make snide remarks to provoke a reaction. When I put my hand up and stepped back, the guy tilted the camera back really quickly and took a knee panning it up at me, and started saying things like "you hit me! That's assault". To this day I have no idea what ended up being shown, if anything, but it was an eye opening experience about the abject dishonesty involved in reality TV. I can just as easily see that applied to TV journalism.
Could I ask what the CNN article got wrong? I'm curious how different their story was to the actual attack.
After getting in trouble with the law and getting the story in the paper as a kid, I realized people like a simple narrative which matches with their expectations. Reality is complicated and people just don't have time for it. Not the cops, not the media, and not the readers.
Having seen the inside of a few events and the reporting produced in response, I'd say a healthy dose of scepticism is usually warranted when reading about something you have no personal involvement in.
In fact one of the worst experience for me in terms of trust for the media was working at a startup. The willingness of journalists to produce puff pieces, or print press releases virtually verbatim, on the basis of 5 minutes of SQL queries cobbled together and cherry picked to produce the desired result was frightening.
In fact one of the worst experience for me in terms of trust for the media was working at a startup. The willingness of journalists to produce puff pieces, or print press releases virtually verbatim, on the basis of 5 minutes of SQL queries cobbled together and cherry picked to produce the desired result was frightening.
News organisations pander to their audience, so I think it's really important to understand what that audience is. If you happen to be in that target audience, then of course there's a real risk you'll end up in an echo chamber that becomes increasingly far away from anything resembling a consensus reality.
I've come up with several strategies to try and minimise this. One is to read multiple sources with different target audiences. I occasionally read the Daily Mail (my mother gets it, don't judge) and the Guardian. My main source of general news is the BBC news site, but I also regularly read The Economist. From time to time I pop on to the Fox News site, partly to remind myself that the Daily Mail could actually be a lot worse. I listen to LBC in the car (A London based politics and current affairs talk radio show).
Genuine question - I'd be interested in how others approach this. Is my set of sources too skewed one way or another? Am I missing a decent balanced source, or should I add a credible source on any particular political leaning?
I've come up with several strategies to try and minimise this. One is to read multiple sources with different target audiences. I occasionally read the Daily Mail (my mother gets it, don't judge) and the Guardian. My main source of general news is the BBC news site, but I also regularly read The Economist. From time to time I pop on to the Fox News site, partly to remind myself that the Daily Mail could actually be a lot worse. I listen to LBC in the car (A London based politics and current affairs talk radio show).
Genuine question - I'd be interested in how others approach this. Is my set of sources too skewed one way or another? Am I missing a decent balanced source, or should I add a credible source on any particular political leaning?
One underrated option is to just not read the news:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-ro...
Getting the news from "both sides" is just getting two bullshit spins on the same topic, but the truth isn't in the middle.
You can get "just the facts" from outlets like Reuters. You may find that this isn't really entertaining and that really you do consume news for other reasons than getting informed. You may recognize that you actually want "the spin", you want the emotional turmoil, the sensation.
From that perspective, consuming news is more like a consuming a drug: A guilty pleasure that should not be overindulged in.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-ro...
Getting the news from "both sides" is just getting two bullshit spins on the same topic, but the truth isn't in the middle.
You can get "just the facts" from outlets like Reuters. You may find that this isn't really entertaining and that really you do consume news for other reasons than getting informed. You may recognize that you actually want "the spin", you want the emotional turmoil, the sensation.
From that perspective, consuming news is more like a consuming a drug: A guilty pleasure that should not be overindulged in.
For example, you can come to a very different centre point for "both sides" by just choosing which representatives you have for both sides. The centre point of the NYT and the Guardian is very different from the centre point of the Washington Post and Breitbart.
(See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window )
(See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window )
For UK sources, I'd suggest adding The Spectator. They're not perfect (some of their columnists strike me as fairly obvious shills), but overall I've found them the most intelligent right-of-centre source.
For the Americans reading, they have a US site too, might be worth checking out?
For the Americans reading, they have a US site too, might be worth checking out?
This is not true, the spectator is a very right wing newspaper which our current pm used to edit (who was undeniably on the right wing of our the Tory party, which if you run the numbers on voting must put him in the rightmost 20% of the country).
It’s probably well written though, the irony is that the right wing press is often externally funded, not intrinsically profitable, and so has more cash in the bank to maintain high production quality, if completely destroying any pretense of neutrality.
It’s probably well written though, the irony is that the right wing press is often externally funded, not intrinsically profitable, and so has more cash in the bank to maintain high production quality, if completely destroying any pretense of neutrality.
I don't think The Spectator claims to be neutral? Everyone knows that it's a right-leaning magazine and it doesn't pretend otherwise. I'd describe myself as centre-left but I agree with GP that The Spectator is one of the better sources for a right-of-centre perspective. (I also agree with GP that there are exceptions... God I can't stand James Delingpole.)
Just because a source has an editorial slant doesn't mean it doesn't provide any insight. The problem is when journalists push their opinions on you while pretending to be impartial.
Just because a source has an editorial slant doesn't mean it doesn't provide any insight. The problem is when journalists push their opinions on you while pretending to be impartial.
The Spectator is not only profitable (rare amongst newspapers) but has seen a surge in subscriptions. It's given back its COVID support money from the government.
It's actually the left wing papers that tend to lose money, as they're reluctant to go behind a paywall. They prioritise influence over profits. The Guardian is the clearest case of this.
It's actually the left wing papers that tend to lose money, as they're reluctant to go behind a paywall. They prioritise influence over profits. The Guardian is the clearest case of this.
Most news is worthless. What's important will have more perspective available six months from now (or, better, six years from now); what's not important is just parlor room gossip.
Reading e.g. the politics section of the NYT religiously for the past couple years, your biggest takeaway would be that Trump is an idiot who doesn't belong in office. Which, as far as it goes, is true, but there's no need to pick up a bad habit like reading the NYT in order to know that.
It's probably necessary to know enough about this week's going-ons for social reasons, to the same extent that it's necessary to know who's playing in the Super Bowl, but there are more useful ways to spend your energies.
Reading e.g. the politics section of the NYT religiously for the past couple years, your biggest takeaway would be that Trump is an idiot who doesn't belong in office. Which, as far as it goes, is true, but there's no need to pick up a bad habit like reading the NYT in order to know that.
It's probably necessary to know enough about this week's going-ons for social reasons, to the same extent that it's necessary to know who's playing in the Super Bowl, but there are more useful ways to spend your energies.
Reminds me of when I was in elementary and one day I was sick and all my classmates met the governor. The media was obviously there and one classmate was asked to write something to say to the governor. The media claimed he was 11 but his age was 12. The teacher taught us that the media isnt always necessarily telling you the truth. There is way more bias in the media these past few years than I have ever seen so confirming sources is more important than anything. I dont usually trust "anonymous sources" unless there is accompanying hard evidence.
They should use the Slashdot epithet. “An anonymous coward familiar with the discussion said ...”
I learned this in college. I was head of an organization that supported a lot of activities around sports and I was interviewed by the school paper.
Had a nice conversation and then the story came out. He used 2 sentences from a 30 minute conversation to insert out of context in a piece totally unrelated to what we were talking about.
I’ve been on guard ever since.
Had a nice conversation and then the story came out. He used 2 sentences from a 30 minute conversation to insert out of context in a piece totally unrelated to what we were talking about.
I’ve been on guard ever since.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -Cardinal Richelieu
This is a pretty easy conclusion to come to theoretically, too. Any position of power is going to tend towards abuse and incompetence if there's not some sort of filter in hiring for or sustaining the institution. Newspapers live or die by clicks and subscribers: There's no incentive towards any notion of "journalistic integrity", there's no filter ensuring that journalists are especially intelligent or honest, and there's no reason to believe that the typical journalist is any less likely to abuse their position than the typical police officer.
Just as there are individual dedicated, ethical police who believe deeply in fulfilling their mission the right way, there are good journalists out there who make the world better. But for every Ronan Farrow, there are a thousand Farhad Manjoos and Cade Metzes; for every Foreign Affairs, there are a hundred New York Times or Fox News. The net effect is the same as with police: understand that we've got a horridly imperfect system chock full of dishonest actors and engage with it on those terms. Don't talk to cops without a lawyer; don't talk to a journalist without a PR person and/or a specific plan for what you're getting out of the exchange and how to protect yourself from exploitation[1].
The Internet has greatly accelerated this trend. Pre-Internet, if by some miracle you managed to get enough honest, intelligent people together in a single paper, you could establish a culture of journalistic ethics under the aegis of the slack afforded by your local monopoly on distribution. But in the Internet era, you need to be fully competitive on the terms defined by the market, which, as described above, don't point towards honest, ethical reporting at all.
The tragedy with journalism is that government is usually a useful tool to address this problem: well-crafted regulation can shape incentives such that you don't need to rely on wishing for good cops, which is the direction that police reform discussions are taking. A heavy government hand, however, is anathema to the role that journalists are supposed to play in modern society, so this tool is off the table.
I've thought about this for a very long time, and I don't know how to solve this.
[1] This obviously doesn't apply in narrow cases like "observation from man on the street"
Just as there are individual dedicated, ethical police who believe deeply in fulfilling their mission the right way, there are good journalists out there who make the world better. But for every Ronan Farrow, there are a thousand Farhad Manjoos and Cade Metzes; for every Foreign Affairs, there are a hundred New York Times or Fox News. The net effect is the same as with police: understand that we've got a horridly imperfect system chock full of dishonest actors and engage with it on those terms. Don't talk to cops without a lawyer; don't talk to a journalist without a PR person and/or a specific plan for what you're getting out of the exchange and how to protect yourself from exploitation[1].
The Internet has greatly accelerated this trend. Pre-Internet, if by some miracle you managed to get enough honest, intelligent people together in a single paper, you could establish a culture of journalistic ethics under the aegis of the slack afforded by your local monopoly on distribution. But in the Internet era, you need to be fully competitive on the terms defined by the market, which, as described above, don't point towards honest, ethical reporting at all.
The tragedy with journalism is that government is usually a useful tool to address this problem: well-crafted regulation can shape incentives such that you don't need to rely on wishing for good cops, which is the direction that police reform discussions are taking. A heavy government hand, however, is anathema to the role that journalists are supposed to play in modern society, so this tool is off the table.
I've thought about this for a very long time, and I don't know how to solve this.
[1] This obviously doesn't apply in narrow cases like "observation from man on the street"
There is no way to fix advertising funded, it's the problem with facebook and google too.
Advertising means the consumers aren't customers to be served but eyeballs to be harvested and served up.
Advertising means the consumers aren't customers to be served but eyeballs to be harvested and served up.
The Times wrote a story about a play written about my life (long story) and there was a mistake in every line - most trivial and inexplicable, like guessing an age for people and getting it wrong, and some mistakes actively annoying.
Also, I once appeared in the Post and the Times in the same day when my friend and I got blown up in a steam pipe explosion (we were covered in mud but undamaged). The Times made us seem suave and hip (they mentioned my natty tie covered by mud) and the Post made us seem like victims of a tragedy. Such different pictures!
All very educational.
Also, I once appeared in the Post and the Times in the same day when my friend and I got blown up in a steam pipe explosion (we were covered in mud but undamaged). The Times made us seem suave and hip (they mentioned my natty tie covered by mud) and the Post made us seem like victims of a tragedy. Such different pictures!
All very educational.
In underprivileged communities in the UK, kids are raised from a young age not to trust a "journo".
> I stopped trusting reporters about 35 years ago
This. Sometimes we joke that "all news is fake news"; but it is actually true!
This. Sometimes we joke that "all news is fake news"; but it is actually true!
The problem is that the press drives policy decisions, so you cannot disengage completely. You would need to find a direct line of communication towards representatives without the press. We have the means for that theoretically, but it needs a lot of engagement. I think most people would benefit when cutting out classical papers.
A book that opened my eyes is
Stop Reading the News: A Manifesto for a Happier, Calmer and Wiser Life by Rolf Dobelli.
Just by luck I've been interviewed on camera a few times, and each time Im astounded, how im not really beeing interviewed, im rather beeing asked questions phrased a certain way, so they have a certain response that fits a narrative.
In 2005, The Australian newspaper published an article claiming that Macquarie University IT Services was going to make redundant 50-60 staff. (I can't find the text of the article online, but I can find a citation for it [1].)
I remember being amused by this article, because I actually worked there at the time, and we didn't actually have 50-60 staff to make redundant. If they'd let go of 50-60 staff from our department, we would have had a negative number of employees remaining (the actual number of employees was a bit over 40). It also reinforced my tendency to distrust journalists, who often fail to get even basic facts right.
(There was an element of truth behind the story – they did plan a significant round of job cuts, 15 years later I can't recall exactly how big, but it could have been a third of the department – it was just the numbers in the article had been impossibly inflated. And the plan was never to lay off the entire department, just a significant chunk of it.)
[1] https://trove.nla.gov.au/version/121830411
I remember being amused by this article, because I actually worked there at the time, and we didn't actually have 50-60 staff to make redundant. If they'd let go of 50-60 staff from our department, we would have had a negative number of employees remaining (the actual number of employees was a bit over 40). It also reinforced my tendency to distrust journalists, who often fail to get even basic facts right.
(There was an element of truth behind the story – they did plan a significant round of job cuts, 15 years later I can't recall exactly how big, but it could have been a third of the department – it was just the numbers in the article had been impossibly inflated. And the plan was never to lay off the entire department, just a significant chunk of it.)
[1] https://trove.nla.gov.au/version/121830411
That was bad journalism. Would you also stop trusting all doctors after meeting a bad one?
* What if every hospital had an overt political stance and forced doctors to make diagnoses based on those politics?
* What if the hospitals had a financial incentive to sensationalise public health?
* What if independent doctors only got into medicine in the first place to make decisions based on their own partisan politics?
Unfortunately all US media, and most international media, is equally bad and built on bad intentions for varying levels of nefarious purposes.
* What if the hospitals had a financial incentive to sensationalise public health?
* What if independent doctors only got into medicine in the first place to make decisions based on their own partisan politics?
Unfortunately all US media, and most international media, is equally bad and built on bad intentions for varying levels of nefarious purposes.
This is interesting to me. In central Europe, or at least my country, the serious media keep very high standards.
Basically the only people who find the largest publications "bad" here are conspiracy nuts, fascists and politicians involved in uncovered corruption scandals.
I find our independent media to be a key element of our democracy and I am worried when I hear the US media don't work quite the same.
Edit: I thought I might as well reply with our solutions to your bullet points
- Our newspapers don't force their views on their journalists. The bosses require quality and factfulness, but topics are up to the journalist. The newspaper as an organisation is equally hostile to all the politicians.
- The financial incentive is to continue to hold their image, because they live from subscription fees paid by people who view them as essential for our society. (+ ads ofc)
- If one wants power to change things the far superior strategy in my country is to do the actual politics and not to report on it.
Basically the only people who find the largest publications "bad" here are conspiracy nuts, fascists and politicians involved in uncovered corruption scandals.
I find our independent media to be a key element of our democracy and I am worried when I hear the US media don't work quite the same.
Edit: I thought I might as well reply with our solutions to your bullet points
- Our newspapers don't force their views on their journalists. The bosses require quality and factfulness, but topics are up to the journalist. The newspaper as an organisation is equally hostile to all the politicians.
- The financial incentive is to continue to hold their image, because they live from subscription fees paid by people who view them as essential for our society. (+ ads ofc)
- If one wants power to change things the far superior strategy in my country is to do the actual politics and not to report on it.
A very eye-opening event for me was when I visited Berlin in 2003 (?). We watched ZDF (government-financed German TV) news and saw a huge crowd protesting against Bush’s war in Iraq. Wanting to join them, we found a mostly empty square with a much smaller group of protestors standing in a triangle-formation in front of the cameras, which were setup such that the crowd would appear massive on TV.
So if you think European media are free of political bias and distortions, think again.
So if you think European media are free of political bias and distortions, think again.
Not to detract from your point, but there have been big protests against the Iraq war in Europe. I was there.
My grievance is more how the media, including the government financed ones swallowed said war.
My grievance is more how the media, including the government financed ones swallowed said war.
I don't particularly think that German media is anything better, but let's not fall into the anecdote=data trap.
Yes, let's not fall into anecdata trap and wait for quality data why should we blindly trust media.
I know nothing of ZDF, but right now our state public tv is also in a very bad shape.
It used to have high quality, but in the previous government period one of the ruling parties changed the management and now it's not objective at all. In fact, all the respected journalists left for other media and the reputation of the organisation is tarnished (polls show people don't trust it anymore).
Fortunately we have independent media as well.
It used to have high quality, but in the previous government period one of the ruling parties changed the management and now it's not objective at all. In fact, all the respected journalists left for other media and the reputation of the organisation is tarnished (polls show people don't trust it anymore).
Fortunately we have independent media as well.
Independent objective media are the lifeblood of democracy. You literally cannot have a healthy democracy without a strong and independent fourth estate.
For a long time I underestimated how much of a bedrock requirement this is. It's easy to dismiss the media as entertainment at best or noise at worst.
But at best they model fairness, balance, and rationality, and if you have no one doing that in public the quality of discourse soon crashes.
For a long time I underestimated how much of a bedrock requirement this is. It's easy to dismiss the media as entertainment at best or noise at worst.
But at best they model fairness, balance, and rationality, and if you have no one doing that in public the quality of discourse soon crashes.
I often wonder if the news/media has been purposefully weakened as an institution over time, so as to keep the populace more ignorant and controllable by people in power.
I guess it goes in cycles though. Apparently in the 1890s it was _actually worse_!?
I guess it goes in cycles though. Apparently in the 1890s it was _actually worse_!?
I don't think the media has been weakened. I think that the media has always been this bad. Perhaps even worse. The public just didn't know about it, because it was a lot harder to verify the facts through other means.
Same here but eastern Europe. Heck, American newspapers even endorse candidates which I find insane, it's like psychiatrists encouraging suicide.
> The newspaper as an organisation is equally hostile to all the politicians
The news (public service) I consume from time to time does this too. However while they try to not favor a particular political side they often instead fail towards trying to find dissent where there is none.
They invite some people with supposedly “opposing” views and then spend the time trying to provoke a fight. Usually it’s just people highlighting different perspectives with no interest in representing some kind of conflict over the matter.
The news (public service) I consume from time to time does this too. However while they try to not favor a particular political side they often instead fail towards trying to find dissent where there is none.
They invite some people with supposedly “opposing” views and then spend the time trying to provoke a fight. Usually it’s just people highlighting different perspectives with no interest in representing some kind of conflict over the matter.
Would you mind sharing which country are you talking about? I'm from another country in central Europe and the situation is same as in the USA or western Europe.
I'm talking about Slovak SME, Denník N, Aktuality, HN, Markíza and Czech DVTV and Reflex.
Ok, I'm not expert on Slovak media, but quick search shows that SME is owned by Penta (Gorilla), HN by Andrej Babis (Berlusconi-like figure), Dennik N is listed on wikipedia as newspaper having liberal slant, Reflex liberal-conservative slant, Markiza is noted as historically being criticized for being against former owner enemies (owner changed, but did journalists?), DVTV as internet tv isn't great example of mainstream medium, also just cursory search revealed that one of their moderators, Emma Smetana, is well known for not being exactly professional.
The fact that you consider those media unbiased doesn't mean they are really unbiased. Plenty of people consider Fox News and Huffington Post as paragons of objectivity.
The fact that you consider those media unbiased doesn't mean they are really unbiased. Plenty of people consider Fox News and Huffington Post as paragons of objectivity.
I'm not interested in defending all of this rapid fire as it would take too much effort on both of our sides.
I can tell you the story of the first one (SME) and you may take what you wish from it.
Penta is a shady investment group linked to heavy corruption scandals across the political spectrum. [0]
As a power move they decided to buy the medium they've seen as their main public opponent — SME. Half of the journalists from SME left, raised money and founded Denník N, which is pretty similar to SME. The other half stayed and convinced the previous shareholders to keep a majority.
45% of SME is owned by Penta but they have no effect on the content and SME critisizes Penta all the time. Penta knows that if they did anything about it, redactors would speak up and leave and they would be left with a worthless company.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla_scandal
I can tell you the story of the first one (SME) and you may take what you wish from it.
Penta is a shady investment group linked to heavy corruption scandals across the political spectrum. [0]
As a power move they decided to buy the medium they've seen as their main public opponent — SME. Half of the journalists from SME left, raised money and founded Denník N, which is pretty similar to SME. The other half stayed and convinced the previous shareholders to keep a majority.
45% of SME is owned by Penta but they have no effect on the content and SME critisizes Penta all the time. Penta knows that if they did anything about it, redactors would speak up and leave and they would be left with a worthless company.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla_scandal
Out of curiosity, for Central European media, how many of them reported on the damning half-dozen OPCW leaks[0] that create turbulence for Central European foreign policy in Syria?
[0] https://thegrayzone.com/2020/02/11/new-leaks-shatter-opcws-a...
[0] https://thegrayzone.com/2020/02/11/new-leaks-shatter-opcws-a...
The BBC didn't even mention it, at least not initially.
The Guardian article mentioned Russia 5 or 6 times (why?), the rest of the article didn't have any useful info.
The NYT article mentioned Russia 4 times IIRC, and had two half sentances of useful info.
Reuters only mentioned Russia once (hooray!), and actually had a reasonable amount good detail in there.
It pays well to do a 'deep dive' on something like the Syrian conflict, to better understand how the media /really/ works, then the lessons learned can be re-applied going forward. I spent some time studying the initial OPCW report, and independently came to the same conclusion that the OPCW leaks did. A few independent journalists, including Robert Fisk, shed light on some of the other aspects.
A more recent matter is the initial denials of the efficacy of face masks in helping reduce the spread of coronavirus. This was done largely for political reasons IMHO, and became part of advice that was muddled, illogical, and inconsistent.
The best source of advice was highly ranked medical experts in countries that had successfully dealt with SARS, their advice was clear, logical and consistent, right from the beginning back in late Jan. Of course for some reason they're almost never featured in western media, who prefer some celebrity GP or health adviser who's only real interest seems to be their appearence fee!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/5188155...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcbJdRb6mds
The Guardian article mentioned Russia 5 or 6 times (why?), the rest of the article didn't have any useful info.
The NYT article mentioned Russia 4 times IIRC, and had two half sentances of useful info.
Reuters only mentioned Russia once (hooray!), and actually had a reasonable amount good detail in there.
It pays well to do a 'deep dive' on something like the Syrian conflict, to better understand how the media /really/ works, then the lessons learned can be re-applied going forward. I spent some time studying the initial OPCW report, and independently came to the same conclusion that the OPCW leaks did. A few independent journalists, including Robert Fisk, shed light on some of the other aspects.
A more recent matter is the initial denials of the efficacy of face masks in helping reduce the spread of coronavirus. This was done largely for political reasons IMHO, and became part of advice that was muddled, illogical, and inconsistent.
The best source of advice was highly ranked medical experts in countries that had successfully dealt with SARS, their advice was clear, logical and consistent, right from the beginning back in late Jan. Of course for some reason they're almost never featured in western media, who prefer some celebrity GP or health adviser who's only real interest seems to be their appearence fee!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/5188155...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcbJdRb6mds
It makes sense if you consider modern news a form of entertainment which is arguably is.
The media report on it, but this is hardly something I can properly investigate myself.
A domain where they thrive is domestic politics and in such a small country it's not that difficult to verify whether they lie and manipulate or not.
A domain where they thrive is domestic politics and in such a small country it's not that difficult to verify whether they lie and manipulate or not.
It’s not a matter of verifying the accuracy, I’m curious if it was reported on at all. The OPCW was the driving force behind Central European foreign policy on Syria which has included everything from arming militias through to sanctions. This conflict has also exposed Central Europe to dozens of terrorist attacks and threatened the safety of everyone. This is arguably one of the biggest leaks about international corruption in the last decade.
So I’m curious if the media there has made much of a fuss with the exposé of OPCW producing falsified reports. American media hasn’t, neither has British or Australian media. But we already know those groups are corrupt.
With this I’m trying to find out (and so can you) if Central European media is as objective (and independent) as what it’s being made out to be.
So I’m curious if the media there has made much of a fuss with the exposé of OPCW producing falsified reports. American media hasn’t, neither has British or Australian media. But we already know those groups are corrupt.
With this I’m trying to find out (and so can you) if Central European media is as objective (and independent) as what it’s being made out to be.
I don't wish to be uncharitable, but this line indicates to me that there's likely bias involved in the media you described:
>Basically the only people who find the largest publications "bad" here are conspiracy nuts, fascists and politicians involved in uncovered corruption scandals.
Something that seems to be quite common in modern media is to paint anybody who disagrees as a conspiracy theorist or fascist. Are there truly no other groups who have grievances with the news? Communists? The opposition party? Another news outlet that is partisan? It seems unlikely to me that only the groups that modern (left-leaning) media likes to blame everything on would have a problem with it.
On another point, I wish to address this:
>Our newspapers don't force their views on their journalists. The bosses require quality and factfulness, but topics are up to the journalist.
You don't need to control what a journalist writes to create biased news. You simply need to control who you hire. Want a news organization that's biased towards right wingers? Hire a bunch of right wingers to be your staff. They will naturally gravitate towards stories that are biased.
>The financial incentive is to continue to hold their image, because they live from subscription fees paid by people who view them as essential for our society.
The same is true for a lot of biased news outlets elsewhere. It still doesn't change that people like reading news that affirms their view of the world.
I don't wish to be uncharitable, but I believe based on this that perhaps you don't notice much of the bias. I could be wrong, but it just seems very difficult to believe that Europe has such a gem hidden in it. The news in my European country aren't quite as bad as in the US, but they're certainly not unbiased and politics certainly involves the media.
>Basically the only people who find the largest publications "bad" here are conspiracy nuts, fascists and politicians involved in uncovered corruption scandals.
Something that seems to be quite common in modern media is to paint anybody who disagrees as a conspiracy theorist or fascist. Are there truly no other groups who have grievances with the news? Communists? The opposition party? Another news outlet that is partisan? It seems unlikely to me that only the groups that modern (left-leaning) media likes to blame everything on would have a problem with it.
On another point, I wish to address this:
>Our newspapers don't force their views on their journalists. The bosses require quality and factfulness, but topics are up to the journalist.
You don't need to control what a journalist writes to create biased news. You simply need to control who you hire. Want a news organization that's biased towards right wingers? Hire a bunch of right wingers to be your staff. They will naturally gravitate towards stories that are biased.
>The financial incentive is to continue to hold their image, because they live from subscription fees paid by people who view them as essential for our society.
The same is true for a lot of biased news outlets elsewhere. It still doesn't change that people like reading news that affirms their view of the world.
I don't wish to be uncharitable, but I believe based on this that perhaps you don't notice much of the bias. I could be wrong, but it just seems very difficult to believe that Europe has such a gem hidden in it. The news in my European country aren't quite as bad as in the US, but they're certainly not unbiased and politics certainly involves the media.
> What if every hospital had an overt political stance and forced doctors to make diagnoses based on those politics?
At least in the US, this is standard. Try getting your local Catholic hospital to deal with complications with your IUD and this isn't a "what if." There are plenty of stories of people who discover that their primary care network has an avowed ideological stance on certain procedures and they need to switch doctors and perhaps go out of network for full care.
> What if the hospitals had a financial incentive to sensationalise public health?
Don't they? There is no shortage of for-profit hospitals, and thanks to insurance, Medicaid, etc., they can often increase profit at no cost to the patient by just seeing the patient more and treating them kn more ways that might be strictly speaking unnecessary.
> What if independent doctors only got into medicine in the first place to make decisions based on their own partisan politics?
Isn't this approximately the backstory of Planned Parenthood?
Basically, everyone has an ideology, a reason to do what they do. Sometimes it's based on their view of the world and a desire to make it better in some way. Sometimes it's profit. Neither of these is necessary nefarious.
At least in the US, this is standard. Try getting your local Catholic hospital to deal with complications with your IUD and this isn't a "what if." There are plenty of stories of people who discover that their primary care network has an avowed ideological stance on certain procedures and they need to switch doctors and perhaps go out of network for full care.
> What if the hospitals had a financial incentive to sensationalise public health?
Don't they? There is no shortage of for-profit hospitals, and thanks to insurance, Medicaid, etc., they can often increase profit at no cost to the patient by just seeing the patient more and treating them kn more ways that might be strictly speaking unnecessary.
> What if independent doctors only got into medicine in the first place to make decisions based on their own partisan politics?
Isn't this approximately the backstory of Planned Parenthood?
Basically, everyone has an ideology, a reason to do what they do. Sometimes it's based on their view of the world and a desire to make it better in some way. Sometimes it's profit. Neither of these is necessary nefarious.
Me, sure. From then on they'd have to earn my trust - not just get it because they're doctors...
If you buy a frozen pizza and it tastes terrible, should you continue buying and eating them for a week until you have enough data points?
If a single sample of corn in a shipment is contaminated with aflatoxin should you keep testing it and trying to find the good corn?
If a program corrupts your data on first use should you keep trying it on different data before rejecting it?
If a single sample of corn in a shipment is contaminated with aflatoxin should you keep testing it and trying to find the good corn?
If a program corrupts your data on first use should you keep trying it on different data before rejecting it?
Would you trust a hospital with a reputation for employing doctors that never get pulled up or fired for their bad work?
The bar to be a doctor is higher than having internet and a blog.
Not that much higher.
One of these things requires 20 minutes and €5.
The other requires more than half a decade of intense education, internships, tests and further verifications. (Not to mention thousands of Euros in education costs, if not state sponsored)
I cannot think of a larger difference in terms of barrier to entry.
The other requires more than half a decade of intense education, internships, tests and further verifications. (Not to mention thousands of Euros in education costs, if not state sponsored)
I cannot think of a larger difference in terms of barrier to entry.
Half a decade?
In France Medical Doctors require 6 years of externship, 4 years of internship + various amount of years depending on the specialization up to 5 (?) for example for neurology.
It's also the population that lead to the most suicides due to how intense the expectations are and failure will lead you to tenures you don't want (There is a spot for everyone but not where you want and on the speciality you want, even though we are lacking doctors ...)
In France Medical Doctors require 6 years of externship, 4 years of internship + various amount of years depending on the specialization up to 5 (?) for example for neurology.
It's also the population that lead to the most suicides due to how intense the expectations are and failure will lead you to tenures you don't want (There is a spot for everyone but not where you want and on the speciality you want, even though we are lacking doctors ...)
I wanted to say decade but I know someone would say "you don't need to do 10 years, you are only in school 6 in my country".
So, I said 'more than half-a-decade' because that is essentially the absolute minimum that nobody can be pedantic about.
So, I said 'more than half-a-decade' because that is essentially the absolute minimum that nobody can be pedantic about.
You don't seem to understand, that under capitalism, mostly any work or study has to be backed up with money. Doctors don't become doctors a different way a reporter becomes one. What they teach you in universities it's not whay you end up doing. A reporter doesn't mean to do bad when they start studying, neither does a doctor. The results are totally different.
How many bad doctors do you need to meet before deciding that they're also human? As the saying goes, "trust, but verify".
Can you find any recent examples of good journalism?
Doctors are heavily regulated. Journalists aren't.
I'd expect a doctor that failed to maintain professional standards to be struck off, and I'd expect the professional management services to proactively get them struck off before they could do anything dangerous.
Professional journalism has a long, long track record of opposing any consequences to their actions whatsoever.
I love the idea of professional journalists. But the reality of them just does not work in practice in our current media industries.
I'd expect a doctor that failed to maintain professional standards to be struck off, and I'd expect the professional management services to proactively get them struck off before they could do anything dangerous.
Professional journalism has a long, long track record of opposing any consequences to their actions whatsoever.
I love the idea of professional journalists. But the reality of them just does not work in practice in our current media industries.
>I'd expect a doctor that failed to maintain professional standards to be struck off, and I'd expect the professional management services to proactively get them struck off before they could do anything dangerous.
Unfortunately expectations do not match reality. 10% of deaths are due to medical errors [0]. Then look at how the rest of the medical establishment are failing us. CDC is prohibited from naming the hospitals that have this error. The only thing they report on is trends [1]. If you have a hospital in your neighborhood, can you find out anything about it? From the medical error rate, to the spread of Candida Auris[2] is there any dangerous news about your local hospital/healthcare system that is public?
[0]: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_su... [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db118.htm [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/health/drug-resistant-can...
Unfortunately expectations do not match reality. 10% of deaths are due to medical errors [0]. Then look at how the rest of the medical establishment are failing us. CDC is prohibited from naming the hospitals that have this error. The only thing they report on is trends [1]. If you have a hospital in your neighborhood, can you find out anything about it? From the medical error rate, to the spread of Candida Auris[2] is there any dangerous news about your local hospital/healthcare system that is public?
[0]: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_su... [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db118.htm [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/health/drug-resistant-can...
My wife and I have a combined >20 years experience in microbiology and medical research, so we’re feeling the pain of “this journalist has no idea what they’re talking about” more than usual these days.
The coverage of COVID has been more distressing than the actual disease. (Hint: epidemiologists specialize in studying the spread of diseases after the fact; asking them about an ongoing epidemic is like asking an expert on Roman architecture to build an office building.)
Here’s some example nonsense in the news. I regularly see the same story argue both points in each bullet:
- Sweden has had too many cases (deaths), and too few cases (people with antibodies).
- Last week 5% of 1000 confirmed cases died; this week 0.5% of 10,000 estimated cases died. “Experts” “baffled” but we are winning and can reopen (the same publication will flip the numbers and conclusion tomorrow)
- Antibodies might not lead to immunity, but the vaccine (which does nothing but cause your body to create antibodies) will be a panacea.
Bonus gem from yesterday:
New study shows kids don’t spread COVID. The numbers are based on studies of areas where schools and daycares were closed, and the kids were quarantined. Adults were more likely to catch COVID at work than from their quarantined kids. There was one (just one) school where the kids spread COVID amongst themselves, but that was probably an outlier. No one really understands how it happened.
Note that the high-level conclusion of this last article was probably right: kids usually don’t get symptoms, and asymptomatic people are less likely to cough / spread it. A stopped clock is right twice a day, I guess.
The coverage of COVID has been more distressing than the actual disease. (Hint: epidemiologists specialize in studying the spread of diseases after the fact; asking them about an ongoing epidemic is like asking an expert on Roman architecture to build an office building.)
Here’s some example nonsense in the news. I regularly see the same story argue both points in each bullet:
- Sweden has had too many cases (deaths), and too few cases (people with antibodies).
- Last week 5% of 1000 confirmed cases died; this week 0.5% of 10,000 estimated cases died. “Experts” “baffled” but we are winning and can reopen (the same publication will flip the numbers and conclusion tomorrow)
- Antibodies might not lead to immunity, but the vaccine (which does nothing but cause your body to create antibodies) will be a panacea.
Bonus gem from yesterday:
New study shows kids don’t spread COVID. The numbers are based on studies of areas where schools and daycares were closed, and the kids were quarantined. Adults were more likely to catch COVID at work than from their quarantined kids. There was one (just one) school where the kids spread COVID amongst themselves, but that was probably an outlier. No one really understands how it happened.
Note that the high-level conclusion of this last article was probably right: kids usually don’t get symptoms, and asymptomatic people are less likely to cough / spread it. A stopped clock is right twice a day, I guess.
Even if the reporter was half decent (let's assume he/she was), it would most likely be the Editor that have twisted the story around, for whatever reason or excuse. It happens in all kinds of business. Go talk to an auditor (ANY) auditor and they will have plenty of horror stories where the reviewer rewrote a paragraph "to better reflect the message", in which rewrite the message was changed.
Genuine question, how do you (or others) check the facts? Where do you get facts from?
Professionally relevant information - insider sources, other information that is important for you for whatever reason - from original sources. If there aren't any original sources (e.g. politics, history etc) - cross reference multiple interpretations that present story from different angles, e.g. Fox vs CNN, Guardian vs BBC, Washington Post vs Al Jazeera vs Russia Today. Of course for some stories there are sources that are better suited than others due to their focus (e.g. throw in Democracy Now for anything about grassroots movements, various scientific/medical news are discussed most in-depth by specialized podcasts, etc).
And then there is information that isn't important (it doesn't affect you and you can't act on it) and you're just seeking it out of habit (addiction really).
And then there is information that isn't important (it doesn't affect you and you can't act on it) and you're just seeking it out of habit (addiction really).
I would like to caution anyone reading the comments to be skeptical of posts that push to erode your faith in journalism. There has been an alarming trend of people pushing a narrative that news organizations cannot be trusted. It is a toxic attack on one of the most important components in a functional democratic republic.
I don’t know if I’ll really be able to add to this conversation, but two cents anyway:
I became a journalist more than 10 years ago because of a similar sentiment - I thought “mainstream media” was pretty terrible, and yet influential in society, and I wanted to know how it could be better.
I was a reporter for several years, an editor for a few, and now I teach journalism.
1. News angles are the fundamental part of news writing - probably the source of most of these problems, of overselling (or “beating up”) a story. It’s basically an effort to get straight to the point, a point as sharp as the facts will allow. You’ll go to the same press conference as a room full of journalists, and you’d better come out with the strongest piece of news. When you’re new, you’ll miss the most interesting or important piece of information, or you’ll bury it halfway down your story, and your competitor will make you look like you can’t do your job. Sooner or later you’re all thinking the same way and picking the same angles.
(This process seems to happen quite organically - the problems of social media look similar. But I’ll stick to personal experience, since that’s probably all I have to add.)
2. My least favorite aspect of the stereotypical personality of a journalist is a sense of self-importance. You start to believe you’re important because you talk to important people and write about important things. And some of it is a defense mechanism and hard to live without. Frequently, you need to challenge people - ask hard questions of the government, say. And that’s one of the most important things you can do as a journalist. A bit of bravado as armor really helps, because you will get attacked all the time. This feeling of “it’s us against the world” just crops when you’re doing accountability journalism. You need to be willing to piss anyone off, especially because everyone will be trying to manipulate you and spin their story, even in an innocent way, and you’ve got to try to stay independent. And when you get it wrong, you’re just acting like a sociopath.
3. A big part of journalism is “for the record.” You call people up and write it down - it doesn’t need to be this great investigation - and then other people can form opinions and bigger analyses out of it. There’s a lot this, and it’s pretty helpful.
That’s long enough, and I won’t add any conclusions, just leave an impression of what you deal with when you’re in it.
I became a journalist more than 10 years ago because of a similar sentiment - I thought “mainstream media” was pretty terrible, and yet influential in society, and I wanted to know how it could be better.
I was a reporter for several years, an editor for a few, and now I teach journalism.
1. News angles are the fundamental part of news writing - probably the source of most of these problems, of overselling (or “beating up”) a story. It’s basically an effort to get straight to the point, a point as sharp as the facts will allow. You’ll go to the same press conference as a room full of journalists, and you’d better come out with the strongest piece of news. When you’re new, you’ll miss the most interesting or important piece of information, or you’ll bury it halfway down your story, and your competitor will make you look like you can’t do your job. Sooner or later you’re all thinking the same way and picking the same angles.
(This process seems to happen quite organically - the problems of social media look similar. But I’ll stick to personal experience, since that’s probably all I have to add.)
2. My least favorite aspect of the stereotypical personality of a journalist is a sense of self-importance. You start to believe you’re important because you talk to important people and write about important things. And some of it is a defense mechanism and hard to live without. Frequently, you need to challenge people - ask hard questions of the government, say. And that’s one of the most important things you can do as a journalist. A bit of bravado as armor really helps, because you will get attacked all the time. This feeling of “it’s us against the world” just crops when you’re doing accountability journalism. You need to be willing to piss anyone off, especially because everyone will be trying to manipulate you and spin their story, even in an innocent way, and you’ve got to try to stay independent. And when you get it wrong, you’re just acting like a sociopath.
3. A big part of journalism is “for the record.” You call people up and write it down - it doesn’t need to be this great investigation - and then other people can form opinions and bigger analyses out of it. There’s a lot this, and it’s pretty helpful.
That’s long enough, and I won’t add any conclusions, just leave an impression of what you deal with when you’re in it.
Unfortunately every single media outlet has a narrative to propagate. Being that an imposed one or from their own convictions. Can't find a single source of information being totally objective.
May as well ask here, I pretty much only read the weekly Economist to get my news at this point. I think I have their slight biases dialed in at this point. Anyone want to make a case for a different primary news source/argue that The Economist is bad?
For context, I like The Economist because it's mostly unemotional, information-dense, and the magazine comes in a single weekly thing to read.
For context, I like The Economist because it's mostly unemotional, information-dense, and the magazine comes in a single weekly thing to read.
The Economist is the rare case of a news source that's not too bad, at least at present. We can't let ourselves become complacent, however - just see what's happening to the NYT.
Well, I personally witnessed an occurrence, where a reporter WASN'T at the scene, and yet I later read what she had written about it in the newspaper as if she had been present.
It was a really nice review of a show that... was cancelled.
It was a really nice review of a show that... was cancelled.
How do you get the news? Who do you trust?
For me, it’s difficult to “trust”. I assume I know next to nothing about India vs Pakistan or the Mexican drug war and that Journalism isn’t going to change that. At best it’s a source of stories like any novel, at worst it’s trying to mislead.
In the case of Mexico’s drug war, most Americans are probably very misguided as to how dangerous it is for tourists and also how much of it is seen by the average Mexican on a given day. I feel I’ve learned infinitely more in one conversation on Tandem with someone who lives in Mexico than I ever will from a newspaper.
If I read about riots in my city, I know there was something going on but I can’t really trust that the news correctly identified the place, people, or motive. I may have the desire to learn more and so I will reach out to someone who was there our lives in that neighborhood.
I had a waking up moment in 2003 during the Iraq war protests. I learned that the NYT, which was my favorite because each issue was a literary work that could be read from front to back, reported as though they’d never been to NYC. If they couldn’t get basic details right when the story was literally on the same street (Broadway) then I don’t know what they’re actually capable of reporting.
In the case of Mexico’s drug war, most Americans are probably very misguided as to how dangerous it is for tourists and also how much of it is seen by the average Mexican on a given day. I feel I’ve learned infinitely more in one conversation on Tandem with someone who lives in Mexico than I ever will from a newspaper.
If I read about riots in my city, I know there was something going on but I can’t really trust that the news correctly identified the place, people, or motive. I may have the desire to learn more and so I will reach out to someone who was there our lives in that neighborhood.
I had a waking up moment in 2003 during the Iraq war protests. I learned that the NYT, which was my favorite because each issue was a literary work that could be read from front to back, reported as though they’d never been to NYC. If they couldn’t get basic details right when the story was literally on the same street (Broadway) then I don’t know what they’re actually capable of reporting.
oh ok
How do you stay informed?
Same here to some degree. Those who wield actual power will never be criticized or exposed, which means that journalists are inherently useless or closer to being a corpse.
Daphne Caruana Galizia, Tim Pool, Andy Ngo are some who are constantly attacked both verbally and physically and thus I have bit more faith in them than I do for others "journalists".
Always keep Reverse Gell-Man Amnesia in mind.
Daphne Caruana Galizia, Tim Pool, Andy Ngo are some who are constantly attacked both verbally and physically and thus I have bit more faith in them than I do for others "journalists".
Always keep Reverse Gell-Man Amnesia in mind.
I woke up to the fact that most newspapers are like that in the last 2-3 years. That resulted in me eliminating one publication after the other.
Today only one has remained, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, a german-language publication from Switzerland. Lets see how long it holds up.
Today only one has remained, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, a german-language publication from Switzerland. Lets see how long it holds up.
But living in a bubble doesn't sound that great either. I prefer the Economist - they clearly have a very strong bias in some political & economical stories, but that bias is predictable and consistent. At least their factual reporting seems on the point.
> But living in a bubble doesn't sound that great either.
I'd call myself an "accidental moderate" in PG's terms, and there are lots of good accounts on Twitter that look at both sides of the issue.
You don't need to follow lots of accounts on a wide range of the political spectrum, but simply avoid the partisan/"belief bunching" preachers, and pick the smartest and most rational ones instead. This has been the biggest source of education for me recently.
I'd call myself an "accidental moderate" in PG's terms, and there are lots of good accounts on Twitter that look at both sides of the issue.
You don't need to follow lots of accounts on a wide range of the political spectrum, but simply avoid the partisan/"belief bunching" preachers, and pick the smartest and most rational ones instead. This has been the biggest source of education for me recently.
I've always found that when they cover something I'm familiar with they do at least a credible job of it.
> "I don't trust anything they write without checking the facts."
I am not sure you are aware but your statement makes no sense whatsoever.
How do you "check the facts" if you don't trust professional journalists?
What sources do you use for those facts, say on the outcome of a political meeting, the current best advice on how to avoid catching covid, the economic situation or impact of new legislation on a specific economic sector?
The world is complex, fast-moving and there are trillions of possible information sources. With your expressed view you have to either live in conscious avoidance of any kind of news and only go to perceived primary sources (which journalists might help you understand the biases of...) or, more likely, you simply believe whatever sounds right to your existing views and biases.
The latter in fact is the cheap and lazy way out and typically justified by a view like yours - "I don't trust journalists" translates in most cases to "I don't trust journalists unless their writing exactly reflects my viewpoint."
This is a really dangerous approach and the root cause of most current problems in developed countries. Instead the best course of action would be to be conscious of inherent biases, try to read different press to get s wholistic picture rather than just whatever reinforces your viewpoint and then, when something is really important, try to look for primary information.
Journalists are doing an important service to society. There are bad apples (and it seems you met one) and tasteless apples or apples that want to do the right thing but just get it wrong (eg because budgets are so tight that not enough apples can be hired...), that doesn't mean you should distrust all apples.
I am not sure you are aware but your statement makes no sense whatsoever.
How do you "check the facts" if you don't trust professional journalists?
What sources do you use for those facts, say on the outcome of a political meeting, the current best advice on how to avoid catching covid, the economic situation or impact of new legislation on a specific economic sector?
The world is complex, fast-moving and there are trillions of possible information sources. With your expressed view you have to either live in conscious avoidance of any kind of news and only go to perceived primary sources (which journalists might help you understand the biases of...) or, more likely, you simply believe whatever sounds right to your existing views and biases.
The latter in fact is the cheap and lazy way out and typically justified by a view like yours - "I don't trust journalists" translates in most cases to "I don't trust journalists unless their writing exactly reflects my viewpoint."
This is a really dangerous approach and the root cause of most current problems in developed countries. Instead the best course of action would be to be conscious of inherent biases, try to read different press to get s wholistic picture rather than just whatever reinforces your viewpoint and then, when something is really important, try to look for primary information.
Journalists are doing an important service to society. There are bad apples (and it seems you met one) and tasteless apples or apples that want to do the right thing but just get it wrong (eg because budgets are so tight that not enough apples can be hired...), that doesn't mean you should distrust all apples.
Gell-Mann amnesia effect:
""" Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
- Michael Crichton, Why Speculate (26 April 2002) """
This isn’t to say that all journalists are “bad apples”, but as the full aphorism says, “A few bad apples spoils the whole barrel”.
""" Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
- Michael Crichton, Why Speculate (26 April 2002) """
This isn’t to say that all journalists are “bad apples”, but as the full aphorism says, “A few bad apples spoils the whole barrel”.
> How do you "check the facts" if you don't trust professional journalists?
"Professional journalist" shouldn't invoke any more trust than "professional fund manager".
Surely they're not all bad apples, but they're not inherently incentivized to have integrity, so you must assume that they do not have integrity, for your own safety.
"Professional journalist" shouldn't invoke any more trust than "professional fund manager".
Surely they're not all bad apples, but they're not inherently incentivized to have integrity, so you must assume that they do not have integrity, for your own safety.
You know what's even more sad? Journalists on average, are more intelligent than an average human being.
An average journalist distorts the truth knowingly and is a scumbag. An average person parrots lies and is convinced of them, and if you point it out, he/she'll be upset with you.
This is how religions continue even in the face of the best thinkers for centuries, coming up with the most considerate, foolproof arguments for why it's bullshit. At some point we have to ask: do people even want to be able to tell truth apart from bullshit, or do they just want to be led and told what to do by someone they like?
An average journalist distorts the truth knowingly and is a scumbag. An average person parrots lies and is convinced of them, and if you point it out, he/she'll be upset with you.
This is how religions continue even in the face of the best thinkers for centuries, coming up with the most considerate, foolproof arguments for why it's bullshit. At some point we have to ask: do people even want to be able to tell truth apart from bullshit, or do they just want to be led and told what to do by someone they like?
Historically many well regarded news sources have had a public editor[1] or ombudsman who takes complaints from readers and looks into matters of ethics. It is the public editor of the New York Times whom one would ideally complain to about something like this.
The New York Times didn’t have one for most of its history, though they had one from 2003 to 2017. Other cash-strapped newspapers have been removing or weakening the position too (eg the Washington post replaced their ombudsman position with a “readers’ representative” position; the guardian have a public editor who spends most of their time on holiday). Some broadcasters (eg npr, pbs) do have public editors.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_editor
The New York Times didn’t have one for most of its history, though they had one from 2003 to 2017. Other cash-strapped newspapers have been removing or weakening the position too (eg the Washington post replaced their ombudsman position with a “readers’ representative” position; the guardian have a public editor who spends most of their time on holiday). Some broadcasters (eg npr, pbs) do have public editors.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_editor
"Cash-strapped" is a disingenuous way to describe them. The NYTimes is a $6 billion dollar media corporation with $800million in annual recurring revenue, and the Washington Post is owned by the richest man on the planet, whose company is currently worth 1.3 TRILLION dollars.
Neither of them can afford 200k a year for either a public editor or ombudsman?
Neither of them can afford 200k a year for either a public editor or ombudsman?
There are many newspapers that do not have as much money as the New York Times or Washington post, and many of them struggle with tight margins.
It also seems likely that there would be other costs than the salary of a public editor: typically they would have a column which costs space on paper and the results of the editor’s opinions on ethics could increase other costs for the paper (higher standards, more discarded stories, being slower to print because of higher standards, possibly higher employee turnover or hiring difficulties or exposure to lawsuits)
It also seems likely that there would be other costs than the salary of a public editor: typically they would have a column which costs space on paper and the results of the editor’s opinions on ethics could increase other costs for the paper (higher standards, more discarded stories, being slower to print because of higher standards, possibly higher employee turnover or hiring difficulties or exposure to lawsuits)
All these seem like "fake becauses"[0].
Forget the rest, the NYTimes and the WaPo can certainly afford a team of public editors, if nothing else but for the long-term credibility of their own institutions, never mind the side benefit of keeping them honest.
[0]: https://www.scottadamssays.com/2016/01/28/the-fake-because/
Forget the rest, the NYTimes and the WaPo can certainly afford a team of public editors, if nothing else but for the long-term credibility of their own institutions, never mind the side benefit of keeping them honest.
[0]: https://www.scottadamssays.com/2016/01/28/the-fake-because/
Public editors have been for some years really just doing the same job as community managers in games companies. They're there as ablative armour for public criticism to hide people doing bad things and do not facilitate any change or improvement.
That's a really toxic model. Such editors/managers inevitably get toxic levels of abuse from a frustrated public (and suffer bad burnout and terrible real life consequences), bad things keep happening regardless and overall trust by the public goes down.
That's a really toxic model. Such editors/managers inevitably get toxic levels of abuse from a frustrated public (and suffer bad burnout and terrible real life consequences), bad things keep happening regardless and overall trust by the public goes down.
This was in a piece specifically about the blog that was going to be positive, which makes this all the more inexplicable.
A lot of political extremists hate people like Scott, and it has caused him a lot of trouble in the past. This is why anonymity is more important now than ever, because just writing a scientific blog about interesting topics can make you the target of witch hunts designed to ruin your life and kill you.
It's hard to describe how bad these things can get out of nowhere without having been through some of it or seeing it yourself. But, having your real name attached to posts that are against certain political topics or narrives, can be borderline-lethal in 2020, and I can't blame him for what he's chosen to do. There's been plenty of scary situations and chilling effects in the past, and they're obviously only getting worse recently.
He's scared, and rightfully so.
It's hard to describe how bad these things can get out of nowhere without having been through some of it or seeing it yourself. But, having your real name attached to posts that are against certain political topics or narrives, can be borderline-lethal in 2020, and I can't blame him for what he's chosen to do. There's been plenty of scary situations and chilling effects in the past, and they're obviously only getting worse recently.
He's scared, and rightfully so.
It doesn't even need to be about political stuff.
I'm a moderator on Reddit for a gaming related television-show-turned-into-internet-streaming company with various shows and format.
The related circle jerk subreddit is very vocal and after some minor discussions about normal moderator actions of removing insulting posts, it kind of spiraled out of control and all of a sudden, lots of postings on the circle jerk appear, targeting me.
Somewhat amusing in the beginning but some of those posts were somewhat disturbing enough to let me actually consider for the first time how much information is out there for identifying me or persons in my personal circle.
My real name is easy enough to find out (I never tried to hide it) but it is kind of generic enough to have lots of hits so you can't go from there to where I live or work. But for other people which might even have different personas on the internet, this can be much more difficult.
Was certainly a chilling moment and this only on the topic of something completely apolitical.
I'm a moderator on Reddit for a gaming related television-show-turned-into-internet-streaming company with various shows and format.
The related circle jerk subreddit is very vocal and after some minor discussions about normal moderator actions of removing insulting posts, it kind of spiraled out of control and all of a sudden, lots of postings on the circle jerk appear, targeting me.
Somewhat amusing in the beginning but some of those posts were somewhat disturbing enough to let me actually consider for the first time how much information is out there for identifying me or persons in my personal circle.
My real name is easy enough to find out (I never tried to hide it) but it is kind of generic enough to have lots of hits so you can't go from there to where I live or work. But for other people which might even have different personas on the internet, this can be much more difficult.
Was certainly a chilling moment and this only on the topic of something completely apolitical.
Is there any public figure on the internet who doesn't receive death threats? You could maintain a blog for photos of puppies, and some lunatic would have a deadly-serious problem with it. The web isn't working. The saner and wiser a person is, the less likely they are to contribute content. The design of the web selects for morons with neither any reputation to lose, nor foresight to worry.
A close friend and I have run a blog about 09/11/2001 since ~2009, timewise it's easily one of the longest in existance (~2004 911blogger.com/faq), and some odd stuff has happened, but never a death threat. The previous owner as far as I know has the same experience. There is a vid in my profile if anyone is curious.
Confounding factors are the subject is self-insulating and it breaks traditional party lines. Also, people who experienced that Tuesday are exceptionally good at avoiding it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23571449 ... I certinally was.
Confounding factors are the subject is self-insulating and it breaks traditional party lines. Also, people who experienced that Tuesday are exceptionally good at avoiding it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23571449 ... I certinally was.
It's extremely random. There are plenty of public figures that don't get that stuff and whom don't get what the fuss it about and plenty of other otherwise indistinguishable people that get piles of it.
> The saner and wiser a person is, the less likely they are to contribute content. The design of the web selects for morons with neither any reputation to lose, nor foresight to worry.
Absolutely.
> The saner and wiser a person is, the less likely they are to contribute content. The design of the web selects for morons with neither any reputation to lose, nor foresight to worry.
Absolutely.
Anonymity cuts both ways. You can keep your personal details secret for a while. It's becoming more and more difficult the more well known you become. On the other hand anonymous people are able to continue making threats, call for violence or otherwise making your life more difficult basically forever without consequences.
There are many problems with the way the Internet works. Having anonymous people with nothing to lose broadcasting political opinions and threats is one of them. This creates anonymous angry mob which is very successful at silencing interesting authors and ruining lives of those who have even slightly controversial thoughts.
I don't know what the solution is. It's not clear to me more anonymity is going to solve anything. I believe the world would be a better place if you had to work to have your opinion heard. Do something interesting, work in certain industry for a few years, achieve something, live through something. Just because you are able to make an account on a website doesn't make what you have to say in any way interesting or worthwhile.
There are many problems with the way the Internet works. Having anonymous people with nothing to lose broadcasting political opinions and threats is one of them. This creates anonymous angry mob which is very successful at silencing interesting authors and ruining lives of those who have even slightly controversial thoughts.
I don't know what the solution is. It's not clear to me more anonymity is going to solve anything. I believe the world would be a better place if you had to work to have your opinion heard. Do something interesting, work in certain industry for a few years, achieve something, live through something. Just because you are able to make an account on a website doesn't make what you have to say in any way interesting or worthwhile.
> But, having your real name attached to posts that are against certain political topics or narrives, can be borderline-lethal in 2020
It's also unavoidable in 2020 to be doxxed eventually if you have a lot of enemies, unless you take care not to publish any personal details and hide your identity with the best methods available from the beginning. But when you make it easy to identify you with details such as those on the RationalWiki page, all bets are off and it's a bit late to mourn now.
It's also unavoidable in 2020 to be doxxed eventually if you have a lot of enemies, unless you take care not to publish any personal details and hide your identity with the best methods available from the beginning. But when you make it easy to identify you with details such as those on the RationalWiki page, all bets are off and it's a bit late to mourn now.
What kind of "people like Scott", and what kind of political extremists?
I see a dead comment has cited "racial science" and "conservatives", seemingly out of nowhere. Has Scott written something "controversial" that I missed? Something that would offend the left wing?
If so, I can well believe that NYT would take it into their heads to write a semi-hit-piece on someone they perceive to be some sort of Jordan Peterson type.
I see a dead comment has cited "racial science" and "conservatives", seemingly out of nowhere. Has Scott written something "controversial" that I missed? Something that would offend the left wing?
If so, I can well believe that NYT would take it into their heads to write a semi-hit-piece on someone they perceive to be some sort of Jordan Peterson type.
Scott in his open thread a few weeks ago [0], posted a brief request for help by Steve Hsu, an MSU professor who endorses research into using genetic modification to increase human intelligence and blogs on scientific racism [1].
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20200617034621/https://slatestar...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hsu
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20200617034621/https://slatestar...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hsu
Is there an author in the United States who has been killed in 2020?
EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Murdered_American_wri...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Assassinated_American...
EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Murdered_American_wri...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Assassinated_American...
I don't think it's about being murdered. There are very real, non-lethal consequences to writing certain uncomfortable opinions. Just having one's name attached to controversial articles, tweets and posts would be enough for some employers to think "nope, not worth the effort / PR hit" and not hire that person.
E.g. I have written a bunch of outlandish stuff in my comment history, and some of it would cause people a lot of offense. Enough for them to want to call my employer out of some motivation and escalate to some sort of public/twitter witch hunt. But I promise you, I am not a bad person, and would not hurt a fly. That is the part that's missing here. Reasonable, innocent people are potentially being treated as if they're inciting violence.
E.g. I have written a bunch of outlandish stuff in my comment history, and some of it would cause people a lot of offense. Enough for them to want to call my employer out of some motivation and escalate to some sort of public/twitter witch hunt. But I promise you, I am not a bad person, and would not hurt a fly. That is the part that's missing here. Reasonable, innocent people are potentially being treated as if they're inciting violence.
I mean he has had people put out bounties to find him on reddit. No doubt it was for violent purposes, but losing your job or clients because of it can be just a slower death. I hope he finds a way to convince the NYT to not wreck his life.
This is the correct take. It's not so much about a worry of violence but the far more prolonged concern of never being able to have a normal job and provide for your family again.
[deleted]
Journalists obviously never tell their subject their piece is going to be negative. In fact, as far as I can tell from the few people I know who have been in that situation, they appear to routinely say the opposite.
No doubt, it would be just as interesting of an article without his real name.
...and who would know if they'd just used his pseudonym?
It's not like a large % of the NYT readers are going to know straight away that no one exists with the name used in the article deviate from it at all?
It's not like a large % of the NYT readers are going to know straight away that no one exists with the name used in the article deviate from it at all?
In the News, to normal people reading an article, it's more interesting to hear about about a real person with a real life, with a real family, home etc than a pseudonym with no background. It sucks but that is how the News usually works, and how people like reading stories about other humans. Hopefully in this case they might see the damage that this might do.
I'm pretty sure Scott would have been more keen to share details about his personal life if his pseudonymity had been guaranteed; I know I personally would have in his stead.
Why are you so sure about this? Because the journalist who wanted to disclose his name said so? I've also been interviewed once by a magazine that assured me (and the marketing folks) that it would be a positive piece when in fact it was a hit piece apparently initiated by a major advertiser.
Journalists almost always tell the people they're interviewing that the piece will be positive. It means nothing.
I see no particular reason to believe that the piece was going to be positive.
Can such assurances really be trusted?
No. There is a slightly higher chance with NYT than say TMZ but still. I've read many people saying the journalist told them it was for a fluff piece or positive article.
It becomes a lot more explicable if you assume that the journalist was lying and the piece was not going to be positive.
mostly positive
What is an appropriate theory of when a journalist should reveal the name of someone who doesn't want that name revealed?
Some simplistic possibilities:
1. Never.
2. Always.
3. Don't, if they're a 'good' person. Do, if they're a 'bad' person.
My theory is that it's a sliding scale, depending on one's judgement of the following:
Where does this person fit on the public/private scale? The more public a person, the less right to privacy.
How influential is this person? The more influential, the less right to privacy.
How much of what brought them into public interest was of their own choice?
What threats might the person come under if the name is revealed. The greater the threat, the more right to privacy. Also, are these threats physical, economic, or social?
How sophisticated is the person? Do they know what reporters do for a living? Do they understand the conventions of "off the record" and "pre-interview negotiations"?
I'd like to see more discussion of this and less of "cancel my subscription."
Some simplistic possibilities:
1. Never.
2. Always.
3. Don't, if they're a 'good' person. Do, if they're a 'bad' person.
My theory is that it's a sliding scale, depending on one's judgement of the following:
Where does this person fit on the public/private scale? The more public a person, the less right to privacy.
How influential is this person? The more influential, the less right to privacy.
How much of what brought them into public interest was of their own choice?
What threats might the person come under if the name is revealed. The greater the threat, the more right to privacy. Also, are these threats physical, economic, or social?
How sophisticated is the person? Do they know what reporters do for a living? Do they understand the conventions of "off the record" and "pre-interview negotiations"?
I'd like to see more discussion of this and less of "cancel my subscription."
As others have noted, NYTimes had dozens of articles about Banksy, whose identity has been known by many and could easily be discovered by the NYTimes (if they don't already know it - I suspect they do).
By any possible scale, Scott's real identity deserves less publicity than Banksy's.
The "cancel my subscription" wave is well warranted, because that's the only vote people have with the NYTimes.
By any possible scale, Scott's real identity deserves less publicity than Banksy's.
The "cancel my subscription" wave is well warranted, because that's the only vote people have with the NYTimes.
How much does it add to reveal the name?
If it's about a blog and its content, I don't see what is won by adding the name of the author if they don't agree. Quite the opposite literally in this case.
If it's about a blog and its content, I don't see what is won by adding the name of the author if they don't agree. Quite the opposite literally in this case.
Original title: "NYT Is Threatening My Safety By Revealing My Real Name, So I Am Deleting The Blog"
HN title as of this writing: "I Am Deleting The Blog"
I propose we change the HN title to match the original title. If length is a problem, then I propose "NYT About To Doxx Me, So I Am Deleting The Blog".
HN title as of this writing: "I Am Deleting The Blog"
I propose we change the HN title to match the original title. If length is a problem, then I propose "NYT About To Doxx Me, So I Am Deleting The Blog".
He updated the title of the blog post after this link was posted to HN. The title of the HN post is reflective of the original title of the blog post.
Amateur hour over at NYT. What happened to the whole protect your source journalism ethos there?
But he isn't a source - he's the subject of the story. Finding out the identity of a pseudonymous public figure used to be considered good old-fashioned journalistic sleuthing rather than "doxxing".
The NYT's institutional values died when A.G. Sulzberger became publisher at the beginning of 2018.
In 2015 their columnists were arguing for arming ISIS as a ‘homegrown Sunni resistance’ and the “last Sunni bulwark” against Iran[0]. That’s in the print edition too.
It’s not like their ethos were suddenly made worse in 2018 with Sulzberger.
As a bonus, that same columnist argued for arming a Kurdish-Shiite anti-Sunni militia in 2005 and fawning over a civil war.
He’s got three Pulitzer Prizes.
The cream of the crop.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/opinion/go-ahead-ruin-my-...
It’s not like their ethos were suddenly made worse in 2018 with Sulzberger.
As a bonus, that same columnist argued for arming a Kurdish-Shiite anti-Sunni militia in 2005 and fawning over a civil war.
He’s got three Pulitzer Prizes.
The cream of the crop.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/opinion/go-ahead-ruin-my-...
The NYT published Walter Duranty’s denials of the Ukrainian Holocaust, and other warmed over Soviet propaganda. They were full on in their support for the Iraq war. Far less has changed about them than about your knowledge of them.
Whilst true[1], that's history wholly irrelevant to the pressent story.
The Times has explored and admitted its error.[2]
________________________________
Notes:
1. Generally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Holodomor
2. One of numerous articles: "Times Should Lose Pulitzer From 30's, Consultant Says" (2003) https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/us/times-should-lose-puli...
The Times has explored and admitted its error.[2]
________________________________
Notes:
1. Generally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Holodomor
2. One of numerous articles: "Times Should Lose Pulitzer From 30's, Consultant Says" (2003) https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/us/times-should-lose-puli...
An apology and some pro-forma introspection doesn't render its past deeds irrelevant. This is part of a pattern, and it persists to this day.
People in the thread are really gravitating towards using this as a damning piece of evidence for the entire system, and regardless of that might be a fair thing to do, I think this demonstrates opportunity. So the NYT does not have a blanket policy of unmasking everyone, but it does make better stories when sources are named. A reporter with more scruples is going to act differently in this situation and it's all about pushiness & how you present this (do you work with the source? do you push them and pretend like there's no option? do you realize you can wrap your article in EVEN MORE MYSTIQUE by having an anonymous person angle?). Having an independent record of how individual actors in a distributed system act would be incredibly helpful as an interviewee to have before meeting to know what they're getting into. And it'd also help readers to understand more about the kind of person who's writing their news and how that might bias their angle.
I have to wonder why no one here seems to be ignoring the most obvious interpretation: Scott Alexander's identity is probably newsworthy. We might very well know him or her from other associations and the authorship of this blog would be notable and interesting.
I mean, obviously it's not the case that newspaper policy demands identifying sources. The Times writes about anonymous people all the time. If this article about a pseudonymous blog was going to stand alone, they'd run it.
My strong suspicion is that they have a juicier story about why Someone Important is writing a pseudonymous blog.
And that changes things, IMHO.
I mean, obviously it's not the case that newspaper policy demands identifying sources. The Times writes about anonymous people all the time. If this article about a pseudonymous blog was going to stand alone, they'd run it.
My strong suspicion is that they have a juicier story about why Someone Important is writing a pseudonymous blog.
And that changes things, IMHO.
His real identity is not particularly hard to find, and as far as I know, he is actually just a psychiatrist and the author of SSC (among other things).
That assertion seems rather at odds with "NYT Is Threatening My Safety By Revealing My Real Name", doesn't it?
Again, the idea that journalists routinely burn their sources as a matter of course is clearly wrong. Source anonymity is inviolate, especially at the level of papers like the Times. They just don't do what is being alleged here.
If they want to tell us who he is, it's because his identity IS the story.
Again, the idea that journalists routinely burn their sources as a matter of course is clearly wrong. Source anonymity is inviolate, especially at the level of papers like the Times. They just don't do what is being alleged here.
If they want to tell us who he is, it's because his identity IS the story.
He has fairly good reasons for caring about the distinction between “possible to discover” and “connected to the blog via the NYT”.
The story that does or doesn’t get published will tell us how central his identity is, I suppose!
The story that does or doesn’t get published will tell us how central his identity is, I suppose!
Again, I'm just struck by how much credence you're giving an anonymous blogger vs. the Times here. I mean... do you have a good example of an article where the Times burned a source in a situation where the story was about something other than the source's identity?
I'll say it the last time: what is being alleged here (that the Times is "doxxing" someone for political reasons) simply Does Not Happen in real journalism. It just doesn't.
I'll say it the last time: what is being alleged here (that the Times is "doxxing" someone for political reasons) simply Does Not Happen in real journalism. It just doesn't.
I’ve read most of what’s been written on SSC for the last several years, so I don’t exactly think of him as an anonymous blogger. And the Times is made up of people, most of whom I’m sure are very talented and conscientious, but people nonetheless.
Journalists, as people, make mistakes. I suppose I would be equally incredulous if I hadn’t read so much of what Scott has written. And I think you have a very good point about “real journalism,” which is why I’m very interested to see what happens.
Journalists, as people, make mistakes. I suppose I would be equally incredulous if I hadn’t read so much of what Scott has written. And I think you have a very good point about “real journalism,” which is why I’m very interested to see what happens.
He isn’t a source, he’s the subject. Your argument makes no sense.
First, there is no difference in the context of journalistic ethics. If you promise someone anonymity then you keep that promise. They don't do what is being alleged.
Second: you don't actually know that. All we have is what Scott tells us he understood the reporter to have represented as the subject of the story. Reporters don't break promises of anonymity, but they routinely lie to sources if they think it will get them to disclose facts worth reporting.
All I'm saying here is that if this is escalating to a "shut it all down" level, there's pretty clearly more afoot here than a mere unmasking.
Second: you don't actually know that. All we have is what Scott tells us he understood the reporter to have represented as the subject of the story. Reporters don't break promises of anonymity, but they routinely lie to sources if they think it will get them to disclose facts worth reporting.
All I'm saying here is that if this is escalating to a "shut it all down" level, there's pretty clearly more afoot here than a mere unmasking.
A few relevant articles about how the New York Times claims to treat sources:
[0]: "The Times sometimes agrees not to identify people who provide information for our articles...Sources often fear for their jobs or business relationships — sometimes even for their safety."
[1] "If compassion or the unavoidable conditions of reporting require shielding an identity, the preferred solution is to omit the name and explain the omission. (That situation might arise, for example, in an interview conducted inside a hospital or a school governed by privacy rules.) "
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/reader-center/how-the-tim...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/guidelines-on-in...
[0]: "The Times sometimes agrees not to identify people who provide information for our articles...Sources often fear for their jobs or business relationships — sometimes even for their safety."
[1] "If compassion or the unavoidable conditions of reporting require shielding an identity, the preferred solution is to omit the name and explain the omission. (That situation might arise, for example, in an interview conducted inside a hospital or a school governed by privacy rules.) "
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/reader-center/how-the-tim...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/guidelines-on-in...
Given the preferred solution was not to omit the name, and given that reporting the name was avoidable, modus tollens implies that the NYT did not feel that compassion was required.
He wasn't really a source or a person in a hospital or elsewhere governed by privacy rules. As he says himself, his online persona is very lightly pseudonymous. It sucks that he's inconvenienced in this way but it's hard to see how these articles are relevant to his situation. If anyone actually wished him harm, they could probably find his name just as the reporter did before ever talking to him.
I don't agree that he wasn't a source. He seems to be the subject of the article, but he made contact with the reporter and claimed to explain his concerns which were not heeded.
I've seen the New York Times omit the names of refugees who face persecution in their home countries. (I'm trying to find an example, but it's surprisingly hard to search for.) This is a different case, but I think it's broadly comparable.
I've seen the New York Times omit the names of refugees who face persecution in their home countries. (I'm trying to find an example, but it's surprisingly hard to search for.) This is a different case, but I think it's broadly comparable.
I replied to these concerns at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23611034 [so we don't keep two parallel threads of the same going]
But he is a medical professional that explains that releasing his identity is possibly detrimental for those he treats. Is "hospital" the important part of that policy we should be focusing on, instead of the implications of why they might not want to report that person's name?
He didn't say releasing his name would be detrimental to those he treats. If there was a serious medical ethical concern here about just his full name he would never have used his real first names to begin with - no medical professional would take such a risk. I'm sure he takes the utmost care with whatever obligations he has as a medical practitioner.
I think it’s plausible that if I became a national news figure under my real name, my patients – who run the gamut from far-left anarchists to far-right gun nuts – wouldn’t be able to engage with me in a normal therapeutic way. I also worry that my clinic would decide I am more of a liability than an asset and let me go, which would leave hundreds of patients in a dangerous situation as we tried to transition their care.
I'm pretty sure that is exactly the "possibly detrimental for those he treats" I was referring to. I'm not sure why you sat he didn't state that, unless you're referring to how you dropped the "possibly" from my statement, but that would make your reply a non-sequitur, so I don't think that makes sense either.
> If there was a serious medical ethical concern here about just his full name he would never have used his real first names to begin with - no medical professional would take such a risk.
Not everyone publishes their middle name. Without that middle name being fairly public and a little foreknowledge about that being likely what was done, there's little chance of finding the correct person.
Hell, my first name is a very rare spelling, and middle name is common, probably about as common as his. You won't find a single thing about me searching for that combo, because I've never included my middle name in anything that would be published online.
There's also the possibility he doesn't go by his first name. He could go my his middle name (Alex) and we that would also confound most searching. He didn't even specifically say whether the first and middle name were in the correct order, so you can't really assume anything from that, since they are both very common first names and he was trying to maintain some anonymity.
As a simple example, his full name could be Scott Alexander Papageorgio, and I doubt you would get very far finding what you thought were useful results from any variations of Scott and Alexander.
I'm pretty sure that is exactly the "possibly detrimental for those he treats" I was referring to. I'm not sure why you sat he didn't state that, unless you're referring to how you dropped the "possibly" from my statement, but that would make your reply a non-sequitur, so I don't think that makes sense either.
> If there was a serious medical ethical concern here about just his full name he would never have used his real first names to begin with - no medical professional would take such a risk.
Not everyone publishes their middle name. Without that middle name being fairly public and a little foreknowledge about that being likely what was done, there's little chance of finding the correct person.
Hell, my first name is a very rare spelling, and middle name is common, probably about as common as his. You won't find a single thing about me searching for that combo, because I've never included my middle name in anything that would be published online.
There's also the possibility he doesn't go by his first name. He could go my his middle name (Alex) and we that would also confound most searching. He didn't even specifically say whether the first and middle name were in the correct order, so you can't really assume anything from that, since they are both very common first names and he was trying to maintain some anonymity.
As a simple example, his full name could be Scott Alexander Papageorgio, and I doubt you would get very far finding what you thought were useful results from any variations of Scott and Alexander.
D'oh, you're right, I got sidetracked reading the Sci Am article he linked and then probably forgot to go back and read the rest of his thing after skimming. But to me, that makes his argument weaker. Either he was naive about this obvious and ostensibly grave risk to his patients, which seems at a minimum reckless. Or he assessed the risk and considered it acceptable, which seems both more charitable and plausible.
As to the name, I don't think we really need a convoluted hypothetical - it's not his first brush with exposure and people have found his full name before. He was lightly pseudonymous and aware of it.
As to the name, I don't think we really need a convoluted hypothetical - it's not his first brush with exposure and people have found his full name before. He was lightly pseudonymous and aware of it.
There really is no reason for the NYT to expose his therapist-name. Scott is far from anonymous in any sense that matters - his identity as a blogger is very public, everything he does online is connected, and people can and do scrutinize and criticize it when appropriate. The public's interest is well served.
Scott's blog will be sorely missed. Some of the best writing on the internet.
Scott's blog will be sorely missed. Some of the best writing on the internet.
What exactly does naming him fully add to the article? Is there any journalistic reason to do it? The only way I could see it possibly being relevant is if Scott is a heavyweight in his field or is famous or well known for some other non blogging reason. But that doesn't appear to be the case if he lives with 10 roommates and is fearful of being fired from his job.
Wielding the spotlight of your publication as a weapon sounds like an interesting business model too. Like a private detective being payed by a group of subscribers, interested in finding wrongthink.
Given the current climate and the pretty safe assumption that the NYT author knows that the general public would never read through SSC (because the posts are too long and you actually have to make an effort to "consume" that blog) make me suspicious of the "positive" piece.
Given the current climate and the pretty safe assumption that the NYT author knows that the general public would never read through SSC (because the posts are too long and you actually have to make an effort to "consume" that blog) make me suspicious of the "positive" piece.
Scott is such a clear and important voice today. I really hope the NYT sees their error and corrects it, with apology to Scott, asap and Scott comes back online.
>He told me it would be a mostly positive piece about how we were an interesting gathering place for people in tech, and how we were ahead of the curve on some aspects of the coronavirus situation. (emphasis mine)
That sounds like the reporter was buttering him up before dropping the hit-piece.
That sounds like the reporter was buttering him up before dropping the hit-piece.
Some time ago, I mentally reformulated the journalism industry as an information processing engine which ferrets out and then publicizes secrets -- any secrets -- for advertising revenue. Your secrets: our clickthrough bucks.
While this was pointed at government corruption, this had some kind of utility. When it was used to find a neglected neighborhood bistro of thirty years that was going under due to the loss of foot traffic, this was laudable.
Now it seems as if any sort of secret at all is fair game, and the more you want to hide something the more they want at it, whether or not it is of value, privacy be damned. Right now, these secrets are hunted, devoured, and excreted for the howling Twitter mob to fixate on in a permanent hurricane of outrage, bashing its way up and down the coast, as a result of the temperature of the Internet climbing up, and it has been incredibly convenient for these journos to at least try to guide the storm to whatever targets they've had their eye on in the long march through the institutions, but the collateral damage is immense. We're seeing it here.
While this was pointed at government corruption, this had some kind of utility. When it was used to find a neglected neighborhood bistro of thirty years that was going under due to the loss of foot traffic, this was laudable.
Now it seems as if any sort of secret at all is fair game, and the more you want to hide something the more they want at it, whether or not it is of value, privacy be damned. Right now, these secrets are hunted, devoured, and excreted for the howling Twitter mob to fixate on in a permanent hurricane of outrage, bashing its way up and down the coast, as a result of the temperature of the Internet climbing up, and it has been incredibly convenient for these journos to at least try to guide the storm to whatever targets they've had their eye on in the long march through the institutions, but the collateral damage is immense. We're seeing it here.
This is really sad. I hope SSC comes back. What the NYT is doing here is almost incomprehensibly shitty. I can't imagine why they would think it's so important to publish Scott's real name.
I am confused about how the New York Times and journalism in general treats the pseudonymous and anonymous. I am continually annoyed at how often articles use unnamed "sources close to" a matter. It fosters a culture of government unaccountability. But the post says that it is "New York Times policy to include real names". Are there some subtle rules involved here that are not obvious to me?
If you can give a reporter ongoing "access" to less-public information, you can extract concessions from them. Scott Alexander doesn't have enough weight for them to worry about burning a bridge with him.
Personally not a fan of ssc but this does seem unfair. I guess I had the impression most reporters respect when someone wants to remain anonymous, why doxx the fellow?
If you have not read Scott Alexander blog posts before I only can say you are missing out of an internet gem. Some personal favorites:
- Meditations On Moloch
- I can tolerate anything except the outgroup
I was a journalist for 20 years working in the B2B IT magazine sector in the UK. We took what we did seriously, strove for accuracy and took pride in informative reporting. There are lots of journalists like this, so I am sad to see how many people are dismissive of the work.
I can understand the anger at the NYT journalist's stance here, but I suppose I would say that we only have the blog author's view at the moment. I can think of situations where exposing an identity would be justified.
I can understand the anger at the NYT journalist's stance here, but I suppose I would say that we only have the blog author's view at the moment. I can think of situations where exposing an identity would be justified.
> I can think of situations where exposing an identity would be justified.
Sure, but is this one of them?
I can think of situations where killing a guy would be justified - that doesn't mean it's justified in any other circumstance, though.
Sure, but is this one of them?
I can think of situations where killing a guy would be justified - that doesn't mean it's justified in any other circumstance, though.
> Sure, but is this one of them?
I don't know - I don't know who the guy is, or what the journalistic justification may be. Hopefully the journalists's editor does.
I don't know - I don't know who the guy is, or what the journalistic justification may be. Hopefully the journalists's editor does.
I support good journalism when I can, but I wish the profession as a whole would stop taking so much damnable pride. It's clearly edged over into widespread hubris.
I mean no insult to you personally, but I think the worse a journalist is the less money there is to pay them with. Pride is still free though. I'd like to see journalists practice some professional humility.
I mean no insult to you personally, but I think the worse a journalist is the less money there is to pay them with. Pride is still free though. I'd like to see journalists practice some professional humility.
Journalists are an essential gear of society and democracy that's why we need to defend them and encourage them to be better.
I feel that we don't give any value to journalism anymore, ie people don't want to pay for articles or newspaper but they still want journalist to deliver valuable reporting and will trash journalist at the first occasion.
As citizens, we should encourage journalism as a profession and value it.
As citizens, we should encourage journalism as a profession and value it.
I clicked on this expecting it to be Scott Alexander blogging about somebody else getting doxxed. I flipped like a boat when I realized what I was reading. Holy shit!
I was just in SSC's Open Thread a few hours ago opening comment permalinks in tabs to respond to them.
That NYT writer should be fired. I hope Scott recovers soon. SSC is my favorite place on the Web.
I was just in SSC's Open Thread a few hours ago opening comment permalinks in tabs to respond to them.
That NYT writer should be fired. I hope Scott recovers soon. SSC is my favorite place on the Web.
I don't think, given Scott's recent defense of Steve Hsu, that he'd really want people fired for doing ill-advised things, even if they could be reasonably construed as dangerous, unless harm was demonstrated. It's still disappointing that the journalist is making this choice.
Point taken regarding the Hsu case. Maybe I jumped the gun there.
I don't want it to be the norm for any journalistic organ/employee to function/perform the way this one did. There are many ways to accomplish adoption of that norm, including (but certainly not limited to) firing people who do that.
I don't want it to be the norm for any journalistic organ/employee to function/perform the way this one did. There are many ways to accomplish adoption of that norm, including (but certainly not limited to) firing people who do that.
There is a clear division to be made between firing someone for what they do on their own time vs. actions they take in the course of their employment for you.
When being a responsible journalist is your job, it's not unreasonable to expect to get fired for not being a responsible journalist.
When being a responsible journalist is your job, it's not unreasonable to expect to get fired for not being a responsible journalist.
I think it’s completely unreasonable to fire someone for one instance of wrong behavior (with very narrow exceptions for something like stealing or sexual abuse).
I’m very happy to live in a country where you cannot fire people just like that, even if they do something wrong. You have to give people second chances. I don’t get this “fire them” approach to anything wrong something does.
People make mistakes. That just happens. To always fire people because of that makes no sense to me.
I’m very happy to live in a country where you cannot fire people just like that, even if they do something wrong. You have to give people second chances. I don’t get this “fire them” approach to anything wrong something does.
People make mistakes. That just happens. To always fire people because of that makes no sense to me.
Of course people make mistakes, but it's a mistake to confuse a deliberate and fully informed action with a mistake. The journalist knows Scott's concerns and has plenty of time to think through things and come to a decision, and came to the wrong one.
If I was a janitor and spilled a bucket of water on the floor it would be wrong and cruel to fire me for that mistake. On the other hand, if I saw a customer come in to our store and said "Yo customer, we hate you, get out and never come back!" And then grabbed a bucket of water and dumped it on the customer... Well then I think firing me would make sense. The former was a mistake. The latter is an intentional and deliberate bad action.
If I was a janitor and spilled a bucket of water on the floor it would be wrong and cruel to fire me for that mistake. On the other hand, if I saw a customer come in to our store and said "Yo customer, we hate you, get out and never come back!" And then grabbed a bucket of water and dumped it on the customer... Well then I think firing me would make sense. The former was a mistake. The latter is an intentional and deliberate bad action.
Deliberate bad actions can also be mistakes.
If people don’t accept that they made I mistake then yeah, that’s an issue – and one where firing should again become an option, sure (basically that unwillingness to accept that is then the second offense).
I do agree that the situation here is bit more complex since the public is involved.
This seems serious enough that, I think, the challenge is more about the NYT making transparent their process, their decisions and what they did.
I think that’s even more valuable than just firing someone. They should investigate which processes, guidelines, rules, etc. contributed to that behavior and how and wether they plan to change that. They should outline what they communicated to that reporter. They should apologize.
I want an explanation and improvements, not someone to be fired. Also because I think more often than not people who actually did make a mistake are unlikely to do that again.
They could be the problem and actually toxic, sure, that’s always a risk. But I think that’s ok.
If people don’t accept that they made I mistake then yeah, that’s an issue – and one where firing should again become an option, sure (basically that unwillingness to accept that is then the second offense).
I do agree that the situation here is bit more complex since the public is involved.
This seems serious enough that, I think, the challenge is more about the NYT making transparent their process, their decisions and what they did.
I think that’s even more valuable than just firing someone. They should investigate which processes, guidelines, rules, etc. contributed to that behavior and how and wether they plan to change that. They should outline what they communicated to that reporter. They should apologize.
I want an explanation and improvements, not someone to be fired. Also because I think more often than not people who actually did make a mistake are unlikely to do that again.
They could be the problem and actually toxic, sure, that’s always a risk. But I think that’s ok.
You seem to be attributing all sorts of malice to the journalist that Scott himself sees no reason to
https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/he95ak/blog...
https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/he95ak/blog...
I read him as saying the NYT is being "dumb and evil". I think it's an open question if they are dumb or cunning. I think they may intend or prefer a result like this.
https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/he95ak/comm...
https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/he95ak/comm...
I think it's just in general dangerous and disruptive for the entire world to know who you are online. They will find you and threaten you and everyone you love. Sure only 1% of them are actually dangerous but it only takes one bullet or knife in the back from a psychotic person to end everything. Or just someone doing some crazy made up nonsense like pizzagate. The loonies are out there.
> That NYT writer should be fired.
I don't think this is a "that one writer" issue; I don't think Scott is saying this is a "that one writer" issue. Any such choice is down to newspaper-wide policy.
I don't think this is a "that one writer" issue; I don't think Scott is saying this is a "that one writer" issue. Any such choice is down to newspaper-wide policy.
> I don't think this is a "that one writer" issue.
I think the problems with journalism are bigger than this one writer. Simultaneously, I would like to see NYT take a stance against its writers doing what this one did to Scott.
> I don't think Scott is saying this is a "that one writer" issue.
Point taken, but I didn't claim to speak for him.
> Any such choice is down to newspaper-wide policy.
Agreed. I wrote another comment in response to 'rachelshu, adjusting my original comment to something more reflecting my actual views.
I think the problems with journalism are bigger than this one writer. Simultaneously, I would like to see NYT take a stance against its writers doing what this one did to Scott.
> I don't think Scott is saying this is a "that one writer" issue.
Point taken, but I didn't claim to speak for him.
> Any such choice is down to newspaper-wide policy.
Agreed. I wrote another comment in response to 'rachelshu, adjusting my original comment to something more reflecting my actual views.
Proposition: The NYTimes editorial board has long addressed the matter of revealing identity of anonymous bloggers on interent.
From a political point of view, anonymous (and more critcally, independent) bloggers are a threat to the (local/global) establishment's propaganda organs. This may in fact be editorial policy, as you suggest. It doesn't matter of the blogger is 'friendly' in terms of political views.
From a political point of view, anonymous (and more critcally, independent) bloggers are a threat to the (local/global) establishment's propaganda organs. This may in fact be editorial policy, as you suggest. It doesn't matter of the blogger is 'friendly' in terms of political views.
Furthermore, Scott has repeatedly argued against trying to get other people fired as a way of expressing disagreement.
Response to my own comment because I can't edit it:
Scott Alexander has been giving more information in the SSC subreddit, including the comment I've quoted below. Having read what he has to say, I've changed my mind, and don't think the journalist should be fired.
https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/he95ak/blog...
> I honestly got the impression that the reporter liked my blog and wanted to write a nice story about it.
> When I told him I didn't want my real name in the article, he talked to his editor and said the editor said it was NYT policy all articles must include real names.
> I got the impression he felt bad about it but had spent weeks writing the article and wasn't going to throw out all that work just for my sake.
> When I threatened to take down the blog, I think he did the decision-theoretically correct move of not giving in to threats.
> Overall I think this is a story about the NYT having overly strict real-name policies that unfortunately put a guy in a bad situation.
Scott Alexander has been giving more information in the SSC subreddit, including the comment I've quoted below. Having read what he has to say, I've changed my mind, and don't think the journalist should be fired.
https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/he95ak/blog...
> I honestly got the impression that the reporter liked my blog and wanted to write a nice story about it.
> When I told him I didn't want my real name in the article, he talked to his editor and said the editor said it was NYT policy all articles must include real names.
> I got the impression he felt bad about it but had spent weeks writing the article and wasn't going to throw out all that work just for my sake.
> When I threatened to take down the blog, I think he did the decision-theoretically correct move of not giving in to threats.
> Overall I think this is a story about the NYT having overly strict real-name policies that unfortunately put a guy in a bad situation.
Fired? Let's not repeat the same mistakes we're complaining about. How about: that NYT writer should be persuaded and treated empathetically.
It's not the writer anyhow. It's the editor and probably a policy, though I'm sure they'd have no trouble bending their policy if they wanted to.
https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/he95ak/blog...
It's not the writer anyhow. It's the editor and probably a policy, though I'm sure they'd have no trouble bending their policy if they wanted to.
https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/he95ak/blog...
Please see my revised position in a comment to 'rachelshu.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23611133
That said: I don't understand how I'm repeating a mistake here. "Cancel culture" has become a problem because people get fired from their day jobs (or suffer other consequences) for opinions not pertaining to their day jobs, which are expressed outside their work hours.
In contrast, the NYT writer engaged in crappy professional conduct.
I agree that the writer is not the root problem. I've changed my mind about whether firing should happen; other solutions addressing journalistic incentives, or this journalist's team, or whatever, would probably go further.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23611133
That said: I don't understand how I'm repeating a mistake here. "Cancel culture" has become a problem because people get fired from their day jobs (or suffer other consequences) for opinions not pertaining to their day jobs, which are expressed outside their work hours.
In contrast, the NYT writer engaged in crappy professional conduct.
I agree that the writer is not the root problem. I've changed my mind about whether firing should happen; other solutions addressing journalistic incentives, or this journalist's team, or whatever, would probably go further.
More background:
https://freebeacon.com/media/well-known-blogger-shuts-down-s...
NYT has a history of selective doxxing.
https://freebeacon.com/media/well-known-blogger-shuts-down-s...
NYT has a history of selective doxxing.
I scrolled to the bottom of the discussion, and have been scrolling up... THIS article is the best article on the subject I've read so far (including cited comparisons to other situations that are similar but slightly different) and I regret that I have but one upvote to give it.
It was predictable that Scott Alexander would be called out for his blog and the people attracted to it. For people driving change in society today, he's the most problematic type of person of all: reasonable, moderate, thoughtful, and a fair minded person who equips intelligent and charismatic people with critical tools for deflecting histrionics.
Journalism is broken. What was news in its imagined golden age, and what news is now are very different things. The essential ingredient that makes a story news is conflict. If there is no conflict, there is no news story. Without it, it's a puff or a think piece, or a listicle, or comment, it's not news. What's missing in news is the legitimacy of the conflict.
The problem, and the reason editors and journalists themselves can't understand it, is that what people popularly call "fake news," is not necessarily about fabricated facts. Reporters and editors will say stuff like a quote is a quote, those were your own words (basically) and you don't get to define context or how people interpret them.
The problem of "fake news" is that it is not necessarily the facts, but the conflict itself that is manufactured. Setting up the subject of a story in opposition to someone who doesn't have standing in their field, elevating fringe views to being on an equal shared platform with mainstream ones, propping up a weak straw man to represent unpopular opinions vs. a protected establishment figure, are all examples of standard news items that people reject as fake. Outing Scott Alexander's personal identity is a way to set up a manufactured conflict between the individual psychiatrist as an imperfect man, and a mob who see his charitable views as equipping their opposition.
What once may have been an interesting battle of ideas among public intellectuals is now just a series of predictable fixed fights, using the same hackneyed tropes, and the same story line over and over again of victims and their oppressors, with the same stock underdog characters triumphing over the same cast of cliche villains. Throwing people to an angry mob is manufactured conflict - and therefore I would argue, fake news.
It would be just as harmlessly entertaining as professional wrestling if it weren't the gate keeping institution for public discourse being reduced to a propaganda mouthpiece for an ideology that is predicated on belief in permanent struggle and conflict for its own sake.
Alexander is one of the more popular writers online and his view is important and essential to public discourse. It would be a shame to see him cancelled too, but it is a predictable stage in a path we've marched down before. If nothing else, his blog should be seen as a canary for some grim inevitabilities to come.
Journalism is broken. What was news in its imagined golden age, and what news is now are very different things. The essential ingredient that makes a story news is conflict. If there is no conflict, there is no news story. Without it, it's a puff or a think piece, or a listicle, or comment, it's not news. What's missing in news is the legitimacy of the conflict.
The problem, and the reason editors and journalists themselves can't understand it, is that what people popularly call "fake news," is not necessarily about fabricated facts. Reporters and editors will say stuff like a quote is a quote, those were your own words (basically) and you don't get to define context or how people interpret them.
The problem of "fake news" is that it is not necessarily the facts, but the conflict itself that is manufactured. Setting up the subject of a story in opposition to someone who doesn't have standing in their field, elevating fringe views to being on an equal shared platform with mainstream ones, propping up a weak straw man to represent unpopular opinions vs. a protected establishment figure, are all examples of standard news items that people reject as fake. Outing Scott Alexander's personal identity is a way to set up a manufactured conflict between the individual psychiatrist as an imperfect man, and a mob who see his charitable views as equipping their opposition.
What once may have been an interesting battle of ideas among public intellectuals is now just a series of predictable fixed fights, using the same hackneyed tropes, and the same story line over and over again of victims and their oppressors, with the same stock underdog characters triumphing over the same cast of cliche villains. Throwing people to an angry mob is manufactured conflict - and therefore I would argue, fake news.
It would be just as harmlessly entertaining as professional wrestling if it weren't the gate keeping institution for public discourse being reduced to a propaganda mouthpiece for an ideology that is predicated on belief in permanent struggle and conflict for its own sake.
Alexander is one of the more popular writers online and his view is important and essential to public discourse. It would be a shame to see him cancelled too, but it is a predictable stage in a path we've marched down before. If nothing else, his blog should be seen as a canary for some grim inevitabilities to come.
It’s clear that the NYTimes is in the wrong here & doxxing an anonymous blogger, possibly b/c some of his views don’t align with theirs.
Everyone: please take a minute & send a very polite email to the NYT so we can get SlaterCodex back.
Everyone: please take a minute & send a very polite email to the NYT so we can get SlaterCodex back.
Saying that this is merely an “amateur mistake” or “bureaucratic oversight” is naïve.
See Scott’s response on Reddit: https://imgur.com/PlXBJZI
See Scott’s response on Reddit: https://imgur.com/PlXBJZI
This is sad. Scott's writing is almost certainly more valuable than anything this NYT journalist will ever produce.
With this, the recent executive order suspending temporary work visas, the cancellation of Robert Hanson and Steve Hsu, the recession...
Not a great time to be part of the grey tribe right now.
Not a great time to be part of the grey tribe right now.
This is a shame. I've read Scott's blog for years and have always been impressed with his intelligence, decency, and intellectual honesty. It's unfortunate that the current environment is forcing out people like Scott and replacing him with others who aren't nearly so conscientious and fair.
Edit: I'm 50:50 on whether they take the negative press hit of publishing this anyway. If they publish without name included - everyone still finds out the name of the "flippant" writer. If they don't it just concedes that their attitude was wrong to begin with. They are in a tough spot now - hard to feel sorry for them given the asympathetic position they assumed.
~~~
SlateStarCodex shutting down in direct response to the hubris/disregard of one NYT reporter hungry for a story. This parasitic appetite for airtime come-what-may approach to journalism needs to be checked. There's no reason the writer couldn't leave the real full name out of the article once requested and with legitimate concern aired by the person hes naming.
I'm glad "Scott" is taking this stance if only for the fact that it puts the onus of hard/difficult decisions back on the NYT - i.e. why despite legitimate concerns are your writers comfortable doxxing people?
The key highlight for me -
"When I expressed these fears to the reporter, he just said that me having enemies was going to be part of the story. He added that “I have enemies too”. Perhaps if he was less flippant about destroying people’s lives, he would have fewer.
(though out of respect for his concerns, I am avoiding giving his name here.)
After considering my options, I decided on the one you see now. If there’s no blog, there’s no story. Or at least the story will have to include some discussion of NYT’s strategy of doxxing random bloggers for clicks."
~~~
SlateStarCodex shutting down in direct response to the hubris/disregard of one NYT reporter hungry for a story. This parasitic appetite for airtime come-what-may approach to journalism needs to be checked. There's no reason the writer couldn't leave the real full name out of the article once requested and with legitimate concern aired by the person hes naming.
I'm glad "Scott" is taking this stance if only for the fact that it puts the onus of hard/difficult decisions back on the NYT - i.e. why despite legitimate concerns are your writers comfortable doxxing people?
The key highlight for me -
"When I expressed these fears to the reporter, he just said that me having enemies was going to be part of the story. He added that “I have enemies too”. Perhaps if he was less flippant about destroying people’s lives, he would have fewer.
(though out of respect for his concerns, I am avoiding giving his name here.)
After considering my options, I decided on the one you see now. If there’s no blog, there’s no story. Or at least the story will have to include some discussion of NYT’s strategy of doxxing random bloggers for clicks."
It's not just the New York Times either. Take a look at what happened to the NightJack blog in the UK (and in that case, it turned out that the Times had illegally hacked the blogger's email to get their information and then lied about it in court to dodge an injunction).
Wow, had not read about that!
> why despite legitimate concerns are your writers comfortable doxxing people?
This is especially important to ask when a big complaint of the NYT staff about the Tom Cotton is editorial was that it was directly endangering their safety.
Apparently the NYT does not have the same concern about other’s safety.
This is especially important to ask when a big complaint of the NYT staff about the Tom Cotton is editorial was that it was directly endangering their safety.
Apparently the NYT does not have the same concern about other’s safety.
[deleted]
Or, as with much else in the woke lexicon[1], they don't use the word "safety" in the way that most people understand it.
[1] https://newdiscourses.com/translations-from-the-wokish/
[1] https://newdiscourses.com/translations-from-the-wokish/
I don't understand why traditional media still exists in modern days, when p2p communication between people is possible. In the best case, a journalist is a middleman who will misunderstand and garble information unintentionally, since they are working under deadline to get stuff published ASAP. Not only experts, but even enthusiasts spend much more time researching than journalists.
In the worst and most common case, they just push agenda or slander groups of people to attract hate clicks. I cringe every time when mainstream media article ends up on HN.
P2P information is not only "expert blogs". Expert and enthusiasts blogs are the media of niche communities. And believe it or not they can also be biased and push an "agenda". They don't have the monopoly of ethicsm, they are just less scrutenized.
The mainstream P2P communication is your Uncle of whatsapp and random people on Twitter. Journalism might not always be great but I'll take it over that.
The mainstream P2P communication is your Uncle of whatsapp and random people on Twitter. Journalism might not always be great but I'll take it over that.
You missed my point. Sure, blogs are written by "some guy on the internet", and anyone should be skeptical about anything they write. But journalists are also "some guys on the internet"! They should be kept in the same security ring. There's no difference in competence or accountability between a rando and an entitled journalist.
I didn't miss you point. I just very much disagree that there is no difference in competence between a rando and a journalist, and there are not just some guys on internet.
Reporting news and investigating is very complicated, so complicated that yes some people are professionals and paid to do it. This is type of job where people easily say "why they didn't say that", "why they reported it this way", "I would have done it better", truth is it's not that simple. I personally think it's a difficult job to do and try not to diminish it.
Reporting news and investigating is very complicated, so complicated that yes some people are professionals and paid to do it. This is type of job where people easily say "why they didn't say that", "why they reported it this way", "I would have done it better", truth is it's not that simple. I personally think it's a difficult job to do and try not to diminish it.
"Safe Ruthenium rain falls over Bashkortostan",
"27 police officers injured in a largely peaceful anti-racist protest"... -- how could I forget about these exceptional examples of very complicated news reporting job well done.
I have become increasingly frustrated with the NYT's reporting practices. They are very hypocritical about criticizing tech while continuing to advertise heavily on the same services they criticize to promote their journalism.
A lot of what they publish nowadays is often "technically correct" but misleading to the point of being dangerous. That, combined with the philosophy of the younger journalists working there to refuse having any contrasting opinions published (I say this as someone under 30), and it's clear that the NYT feeds off of bipartisan hatred and conflict in order to make money. It's astounding that the same practices they criticize others of they engage in themselves. The nation is becoming ever more deeply polarized, and I put much of the blame on the NYT and similar publications.
A lot of what they publish nowadays is often "technically correct" but misleading to the point of being dangerous. That, combined with the philosophy of the younger journalists working there to refuse having any contrasting opinions published (I say this as someone under 30), and it's clear that the NYT feeds off of bipartisan hatred and conflict in order to make money. It's astounding that the same practices they criticize others of they engage in themselves. The nation is becoming ever more deeply polarized, and I put much of the blame on the NYT and similar publications.
It's Fox News for psuedo-intellectuals. My mother is a subscriber so I read a bit and it is absolutely atrociously biased and blatantly misleading in a similar way to how Fox News operate. The main difference is NYT add a minor sheen of intellectual language over the top to try obfuscate it.
Do you have any links to articles you find particularly egregious?
Would you ask the same question about Fox News? It's a little redundant no?
I wouldn't only because I've already seen enough examples of them impugning their credibility that I've been able to form my own conclusions.
I wasn't aware that the NYT was considered equivalently and oppositely biased. The articles I have read have not put up any red flags for me, but I'm not closed off to the possibility that I've missed the signs or haven't read the right articles. Hence my question.
I take it you think virtually all their reporting is sufficiently biased so as not to be considered trustworthy?
I wasn't aware that the NYT was considered equivalently and oppositely biased. The articles I have read have not put up any red flags for me, but I'm not closed off to the possibility that I've missed the signs or haven't read the right articles. Hence my question.
I take it you think virtually all their reporting is sufficiently biased so as not to be considered trustworthy?
Yes I would consider all reporting from NYT to be biased. However what they choose to print in their editorials is worth particular scrutiny.
The NYT should be seen as a tech company. The New York Times Company is a multibillion dollar multinational. One can argue that its monetisation has improved even as its audience has narrowed.
It’s not neutral. A direct competitor is not a neutral arbiter. $NYT is one of the hottest tech stocks this year.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2020-05-28/five-t...
> One that's doing phenomenally well is the New York Times itself. It's well known that many big tech companies (or at least their shares) are booming amid the Covid crisis. But so far this year, the NYT is doing better than names like Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft. Of the tech megacaps, only Amazon is doing better. If it hasn't been clear before, it should be obvious to everyone now that the NYT is a tech company and a tech stock. It benefits from network effects and accelerating economies of scale like any other tech company. It's booming in the podcast space. It's got popular apps for cooking and games. It's even rolling out its own proprietary platform for online ad targeting next year, cutting off third-party players.
It’s not neutral. A direct competitor is not a neutral arbiter. $NYT is one of the hottest tech stocks this year.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2020-05-28/five-t...
> One that's doing phenomenally well is the New York Times itself. It's well known that many big tech companies (or at least their shares) are booming amid the Covid crisis. But so far this year, the NYT is doing better than names like Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft. Of the tech megacaps, only Amazon is doing better. If it hasn't been clear before, it should be obvious to everyone now that the NYT is a tech company and a tech stock. It benefits from network effects and accelerating economies of scale like any other tech company. It's booming in the podcast space. It's got popular apps for cooking and games. It's even rolling out its own proprietary platform for online ad targeting next year, cutting off third-party players.
> the philosophy of the younger journalists working there to refuse having any contrasting opinions published
These are the same journalists who are coworkers with Bret Stephens, Bari Weiss, Ross Douthat, etc.?
Or, wait, are you referring to Bret Stephens himself? https://twitter.com/wajahatali/status/1268973742811684864
These are the same journalists who are coworkers with Bret Stephens, Bari Weiss, Ross Douthat, etc.?
Or, wait, are you referring to Bret Stephens himself? https://twitter.com/wajahatali/status/1268973742811684864
> NYT feeds off of bipartisan hatred and conflict in order to make money
This is how every newspaper that is reliant on ad views for revenue operates. You'll notice the ones that depend more on subscriptions, like Financial Times and WSJ, are noticeably less clickbaity or intentionally provocative.
Also, I'll go out on a limb and guess that you work at Facebook - aren't you guilty of the same thing? Sowing ideological division to increase "engagement"?
This is how every newspaper that is reliant on ad views for revenue operates. You'll notice the ones that depend more on subscriptions, like Financial Times and WSJ, are noticeably less clickbaity or intentionally provocative.
Also, I'll go out on a limb and guess that you work at Facebook - aren't you guilty of the same thing? Sowing ideological division to increase "engagement"?
Edit: OP originally I said "I work at one of the companies that nyt constantly disparages," hence my last line. He edited that out after I posted my reply, so my comment now sounds snipey and out of place. I figure FB is a fair guess for the intersection of his remark and HN audience.
Wow, those are effing serious reasons to stay pseudonymous. If that doesn't convince a reporter to not publish that name, they should really ask themselves how mercenary they've become.
Dark ages are upon us and NYT leads the way. This is the most significant blog in the last decade plus. NYT should be canceled before they cancel every shred of independent thinking in the country.
hn_check(1)
This blog and its insights into the workings of the human brain has been a great source of comfort to me and helped me get past several places in my life that I was stuck.
Wow, screw the new york times. I was recently directed to this site by an HN commenter, and found that there was quite a nice community of smart people who wanted to discuss different ideas and potentially even change their minds. A piece by the new york times covering that would destroy it. And it's irresponsible for a reporter to insist on publishing a name in a situation like this "becAUsE PolIcY".
It would be a little less galling if the NYT didn’t let anonymous sources throw shade on people so readily. It shows the class divide here.
Reminiscent of CNN threatening the creator of a GIF that Trump retweeted with doxing if he didn't behave: https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/7/5/15922224/cnn-blackmail-...
In addition to any emails one might send the relevant editor at the NYT, you may also email your concerns to [email protected]
The Columbia Journalism Review does a lot of "reporting on reporting," and has a very high profile in their field. I CC'd them on my email to the NYT section editor.
The Columbia Journalism Review does a lot of "reporting on reporting," and has a very high profile in their field. I CC'd them on my email to the NYT section editor.
This is a very smart and calculated move on his behalf.
One that is surely unexpected by the scumbag reporter. I predict the reporter will be forced to back off, he'll keep his job and go on shitting on other people's lives for a living, but SSC gets to keeps his privacy, for a while longer.
One that is surely unexpected by the scumbag reporter. I predict the reporter will be forced to back off, he'll keep his job and go on shitting on other people's lives for a living, but SSC gets to keeps his privacy, for a while longer.
Thank you for all you have written, Scott. Hopefully this will be resolved quickly. I wish you the best.
I unsubscribed from the NYT after the Tom Cotton editorial. That's when it became clear to me that their ethics were driven by a need to drive traffic to their site and I wanted no part in it.
Stuff like this just reaffirms my decision. Good riddance.
Stuff like this just reaffirms my decision. Good riddance.
I think that decision was worse than a sign that they have given in to market forces. They have given in to internal activists who have no desire to learn, think, or report the truth, merely use the paper as a weapon for social change.
> They have given in to internal activists who have no desire to learn, think, or report the truth.
I am shocked and saddened this is where we are as a society. Literally one man's opinion distressed so many people, in such a way, they felt the need to raise an army and then descend on their employer and demand they remove, recant and say it will never happen again?
We have arrived at a time in place where you cannot have your own opinion without fear of the rage mob coming after you.
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
George Orwell
-1984
I am shocked and saddened this is where we are as a society. Literally one man's opinion distressed so many people, in such a way, they felt the need to raise an army and then descend on their employer and demand they remove, recant and say it will never happen again?
We have arrived at a time in place where you cannot have your own opinion without fear of the rage mob coming after you.
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
George Orwell
-1984
That man was a United States Senator who suggested using the military to suppress political dissent. The suggestion that this is some minor newspeak squabble or a brief outbreak of political correctness grossly underplays how dangerous this suggestion was and the seeing you try to use Orwell to support your point is even more ridiculous.
Actually, the op-ed states:
> Some elites have excused this orgy of violence in the spirit of radical chic, calling it an understandable response to the wrongful death of George Floyd. Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants. But the rioting has nothing to do with George Floyd, whose bereaved relatives have condemned violence.
Setting aside whether using the Insurrection Act to respond to rioting and looting is an appropriate response, it is quite clear that Tom Cotton is not advocating the use of the the military to "suppress political dissent", which would obviously violate the First Amendment.
> Some elites have excused this orgy of violence in the spirit of radical chic, calling it an understandable response to the wrongful death of George Floyd. Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants. But the rioting has nothing to do with George Floyd, whose bereaved relatives have condemned violence.
Setting aside whether using the Insurrection Act to respond to rioting and looting is an appropriate response, it is quite clear that Tom Cotton is not advocating the use of the the military to "suppress political dissent", which would obviously violate the First Amendment.
This gets confusing, because many (including cotton elsewhere) intentionally blurred the lines between protestors and "rioters", and stood behind plans that served to suppress peaceful protest.
People on this forum are usually quick to remark that free speech is powerful and important and worth protecting even at great cost to individuals. Property damage caused by a small number of violent actors falls into this category, especially when the majority of the protests were peaceful and actively discouraged property damage.
So yes, Cotton's plan would have served to suppress political dissent and therefore probably violated the first amendment (and the third). Printing a sitting senator advocating for violating multiple constitutional rights without a disclaimer to that effect is a disservice to nyts readers.
People on this forum are usually quick to remark that free speech is powerful and important and worth protecting even at great cost to individuals. Property damage caused by a small number of violent actors falls into this category, especially when the majority of the protests were peaceful and actively discouraged property damage.
So yes, Cotton's plan would have served to suppress political dissent and therefore probably violated the first amendment (and the third). Printing a sitting senator advocating for violating multiple constitutional rights without a disclaimer to that effect is a disservice to nyts readers.
Destroying things that do not belong to you is not free speech.
Bringing the military in on stopping it is crossing the Rubicon. In as literal a sense as you can get without living in Italy. Regardless of feelings on the current situation, the idea of getting the military involved should be extremely unsettling to anyone living in a democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Rubicon
For a more contemporary quote from battlestar galactica:
Adama: There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Rubicon
For a more contemporary quote from battlestar galactica:
Adama: There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.
In 1992 the military was used to put an end to the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles.
There is a spectrum between peaceful protesting and violent insurrection. Burning down police stations, murdering police officers, and stealing rifles from police vehicles is very, very far down the line to violent insurrection. In retrospect I don’t think we were quite there, but we were getting close to it. And ultimately, one of the purposes of the military is to protect our republic from violent insurrection.
There is a spectrum between peaceful protesting and violent insurrection. Burning down police stations, murdering police officers, and stealing rifles from police vehicles is very, very far down the line to violent insurrection. In retrospect I don’t think we were quite there, but we were getting close to it. And ultimately, one of the purposes of the military is to protect our republic from violent insurrection.
Which is closer to violent insurrection: responding to police violence by attacking symbols of the police, or bringing an armed group into a statehouse with the express intent of intimidating lawmakers?
Keep in mind when answering that in most cases, escalations to violence by protests were in response to unnecessary escalating by police forces. We have to evaluate so called bad actors in the context of the response to them.
Are you confident that armed statehouse protests wouldn't have devolved to violence if met with teargas and rubber bullets? Are you confident that police protests would have had similar levels of violence if not pushed towards it by police?
Keep in mind when answering that in most cases, escalations to violence by protests were in response to unnecessary escalating by police forces. We have to evaluate so called bad actors in the context of the response to them.
Are you confident that armed statehouse protests wouldn't have devolved to violence if met with teargas and rubber bullets? Are you confident that police protests would have had similar levels of violence if not pushed towards it by police?
> Which is closer to violent insurrection: responding to police violence by attacking symbols of the police, or bringing an armed group into a statehouse with the express intent of intimidating lawmakers?
By “attacking symbols of the state”, you’re referring to burning down police stations and stealing police rifles from patrol vehicles. Those aren’t “symbols”, they are actual facilities and equipment. In the Seattle incident with the rifles, one of the rioters even opened fire on an abandoned patrol vehicle.
So yes, I would say stealing weapons from a public agency and opening fire with those weapons is much closer to “insurrection” than peacefully carrying your own weapons. For that matter, so do the killings of David Dorn and especially Dave Patrick Underwood.
> Keep in mind when answering that in most cases, escalations to violence by protests were in response to unnecessary escalating by police forces.
It’s clear that your biases are leading you to a very specific judgment of what happened and who is to blame, to the point that you’re bending over backwards to make excuses for arson and murder. To name a more recent incident, the police were not in any way responsible for the act of burning down a Wendy’s in Atlanta; certainly not to the same degree as the extremists who actually burned it down.
But that all distracts from the point. I find your views absurd and morally disgusting, but I would never dream of trying to stop you from expressing them. If you were an elected official who represented the interests and attitudes of some broad group of constituents, I would find value in hearing what you had to say even if I found it reprehensible.
By “attacking symbols of the state”, you’re referring to burning down police stations and stealing police rifles from patrol vehicles. Those aren’t “symbols”, they are actual facilities and equipment. In the Seattle incident with the rifles, one of the rioters even opened fire on an abandoned patrol vehicle.
So yes, I would say stealing weapons from a public agency and opening fire with those weapons is much closer to “insurrection” than peacefully carrying your own weapons. For that matter, so do the killings of David Dorn and especially Dave Patrick Underwood.
> Keep in mind when answering that in most cases, escalations to violence by protests were in response to unnecessary escalating by police forces.
It’s clear that your biases are leading you to a very specific judgment of what happened and who is to blame, to the point that you’re bending over backwards to make excuses for arson and murder. To name a more recent incident, the police were not in any way responsible for the act of burning down a Wendy’s in Atlanta; certainly not to the same degree as the extremists who actually burned it down.
But that all distracts from the point. I find your views absurd and morally disgusting, but I would never dream of trying to stop you from expressing them. If you were an elected official who represented the interests and attitudes of some broad group of constituents, I would find value in hearing what you had to say even if I found it reprehensible.
> For that matter, so do the killings of David Dorn and especially Dave Patrick Underwood.
Dorn's killing wasn't obviously connected to protests, and Underwood was killed by far-right "Boogaloo Boys"[0]. Who would be explicitly and vehemently unwelcome at most BLM protests. I'd once again ask you to take the time to re-examine your preconceptions here.
> So yes, I would say stealing weapons from a public agency and opening fire with those weapons is much closer to “insurrection” than peacefully carrying your own weapons.
You've missed the point. I'll reiterate in more detail. There's a respect given to white right-wing protestors carrying your own weapons, both by police and many people that isn't extended to the BLM protests.
For example, you claim that they were "peacefully carrying weapons". Let's ignore for a moment the question of whether "peacefully carrying weapons" is even possible[1], but instead focus on what that respect means.
Most importantly, police actively de-escalate when dealing with armed protestors, but actively escalated with BLM groups. If you take the time to watch videos, you'll see that the large protests are mostly peaceful and self-policing. It's only once police escalate, using weapons and force protestors to break up and lose the civility that was present.
At that point you no longer have a protest but a confused, scared mob. Your solution is to further escalate to requesting military intervention. Mine is to treat unarmed black protestors the same way you treat armed white ones: don't escalate in the first place. Let them protest, peacefully assemble, and leave. In locations where police have allowed that to happen, almost without fail protests have been peaceful, only escalating in direct response to new examples of police violence (Atlanta).
> If you were an elected official who represented the interests and attitudes of some broad group of constituents, I would find value in hearing what you had to say even if I found it reprehensible.
I'm not clear what the point of saying this is. I'm not saying anything about any representatives, not that they should be silenced. If anything, I'm suggesting you listen to even more people: directly listen to those who are oppressed and aren't represented. In the words of Dr. King, "A riot is the voice of the unheard." When you see one, take some time to listen. Not to the system which is clearly not doing a good job of listening, but directly to the people who felt the need to riot.
[0]: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-17/far-righ...
[1]: Consider that brandishing is a crime in many jurisdictions and open carry isn't legal everywhere. Open carry is an implicit threat, and calling it "peaceful" implies that there's a sort of peaceful intimidation which seems like a questionable premise. Intimidation basically requires the threat of force or harm.
Dorn's killing wasn't obviously connected to protests, and Underwood was killed by far-right "Boogaloo Boys"[0]. Who would be explicitly and vehemently unwelcome at most BLM protests. I'd once again ask you to take the time to re-examine your preconceptions here.
> So yes, I would say stealing weapons from a public agency and opening fire with those weapons is much closer to “insurrection” than peacefully carrying your own weapons.
You've missed the point. I'll reiterate in more detail. There's a respect given to white right-wing protestors carrying your own weapons, both by police and many people that isn't extended to the BLM protests.
For example, you claim that they were "peacefully carrying weapons". Let's ignore for a moment the question of whether "peacefully carrying weapons" is even possible[1], but instead focus on what that respect means.
Most importantly, police actively de-escalate when dealing with armed protestors, but actively escalated with BLM groups. If you take the time to watch videos, you'll see that the large protests are mostly peaceful and self-policing. It's only once police escalate, using weapons and force protestors to break up and lose the civility that was present.
At that point you no longer have a protest but a confused, scared mob. Your solution is to further escalate to requesting military intervention. Mine is to treat unarmed black protestors the same way you treat armed white ones: don't escalate in the first place. Let them protest, peacefully assemble, and leave. In locations where police have allowed that to happen, almost without fail protests have been peaceful, only escalating in direct response to new examples of police violence (Atlanta).
> If you were an elected official who represented the interests and attitudes of some broad group of constituents, I would find value in hearing what you had to say even if I found it reprehensible.
I'm not clear what the point of saying this is. I'm not saying anything about any representatives, not that they should be silenced. If anything, I'm suggesting you listen to even more people: directly listen to those who are oppressed and aren't represented. In the words of Dr. King, "A riot is the voice of the unheard." When you see one, take some time to listen. Not to the system which is clearly not doing a good job of listening, but directly to the people who felt the need to riot.
[0]: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-17/far-righ...
[1]: Consider that brandishing is a crime in many jurisdictions and open carry isn't legal everywhere. Open carry is an implicit threat, and calling it "peaceful" implies that there's a sort of peaceful intimidation which seems like a questionable premise. Intimidation basically requires the threat of force or harm.
> In 1992 the military was used to put an end to the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles.
Yes, we've been wrong more than once.
Yes, we've been wrong more than once.
[deleted]
I never said it was. I said it was a cost to protect free speech. Do you believe that Cotton, the Police, or the National guard will be able to stop only those looting without accidentally arresting, shooting or otherwise harassing anyone who is simply protesting?
Do you believe deployment of the national guard won't have a chilling effect on people protesting? If you want to protect the speech (or in this case assembly) of the many, you have to be willing to suffer the consequences of the few who will abuse that right.
Otherwise, implicitly, what you're saying is that (a relatively small amount of) property is more valuable than the right to protest an unjust government.
Do you believe deployment of the national guard won't have a chilling effect on people protesting? If you want to protect the speech (or in this case assembly) of the many, you have to be willing to suffer the consequences of the few who will abuse that right.
Otherwise, implicitly, what you're saying is that (a relatively small amount of) property is more valuable than the right to protest an unjust government.
> Destroying things that do not belong to you is not free speech.
Note: that's exactly what the Boston Tea Party did. Protesting by destroying things that do not belong to you has a long, celebrated history in America.
Note: that's exactly what the Boston Tea Party did. Protesting by destroying things that do not belong to you has a long, celebrated history in America.
> it is quite clear that Tom Cotton is not advocating the use of the the military to "suppress political dissent"
That's wrong. Regardless of how you feel about the tactics used by the protesters, their dissent is clearly political in nature, and Cotton was advocating stopping their demonstrations with the military. It's a terrible mistake to misunderstand or sugar-coat his message and you shouldn't do it.
That's wrong. Regardless of how you feel about the tactics used by the protesters, their dissent is clearly political in nature, and Cotton was advocating stopping their demonstrations with the military. It's a terrible mistake to misunderstand or sugar-coat his message and you shouldn't do it.
I thought it was fairly clear "suppress political dissent" was referring to the suppression of peaceful political dissent, and I was responding to that claim.
>...their dissent is clearly political in nature, and Cotton was advocating stopping their demonstrations with the military.
Calling the burning of buildings, the vandalism of public buildings and monuments, and the violence we've seen "political in nature" is really quite something. It's very revealing in terms of what the end goal is.
Calling the burning of buildings, the vandalism of public buildings and monuments, and the violence we've seen "political in nature" is really quite something. It's very revealing in terms of what the end goal is.
> It's very revealing in terms of what the end goal is.
I wonder what "end goal" you believe has been revealed, beyond the obvious: the reduction in unjustified police violence that is the subject of the protests. My sense is that you might have misinterpreted my comment.
Protesting police abuses is a political act, i.e., relating to the government or the public affairs of a country. This is true whether you're talking about a purely nonviolent demonstration or one that gets completely out of control.
I wonder what "end goal" you believe has been revealed, beyond the obvious: the reduction in unjustified police violence that is the subject of the protests. My sense is that you might have misinterpreted my comment.
Protesting police abuses is a political act, i.e., relating to the government or the public affairs of a country. This is true whether you're talking about a purely nonviolent demonstration or one that gets completely out of control.
>> A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants.
> ...it is quite clear that Tom Cotton is not advocating the use of the the military to "suppress political dissent"...
Eh, I'm not totally convinced. The devil is in the details, and there have been many cases recently where clearly peaceful protesters were treated like rioters when it was convenient to some of Cotton's allies.
> ...it is quite clear that Tom Cotton is not advocating the use of the the military to "suppress political dissent"...
Eh, I'm not totally convinced. The devil is in the details, and there have been many cases recently where clearly peaceful protesters were treated like rioters when it was convenient to some of Cotton's allies.
The insidious part of suppressing dissenting opinions is that it gives carte blanche to lie about what those opinions were.
>...who suggested using the military to suppress political dissent.
This, of course, is not what he actually said - but it's what you heard that he said. Because that is the nature of the time that we're in, and why what Orwell said is relevant.
This, of course, is not what he actually said - but it's what you heard that he said. Because that is the nature of the time that we're in, and why what Orwell said is relevant.
> This, of course, is not what he actually said
This is false, unless you're contesting he did not literally write "we should use the military to suppress political dissent" in that exact sequence of words.
I cannot figure out whether you don't think deploying troops in cities under the Insurrection Act counts as "using the military," whether stopping the protests is not "suppression," or whether you're suggesting the protests should not be defined as "political dissent." All these things are false.
The relevant Orwell quote would seem to be "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."
This is false, unless you're contesting he did not literally write "we should use the military to suppress political dissent" in that exact sequence of words.
I cannot figure out whether you don't think deploying troops in cities under the Insurrection Act counts as "using the military," whether stopping the protests is not "suppression," or whether you're suggesting the protests should not be defined as "political dissent." All these things are false.
The relevant Orwell quote would seem to be "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."
I'm pointing out the words he literally wrote on the page because there's a bunch of people in this thread who are doing what you're doing, which is making a blanket proclamation that Cotton wanted the military to essentially attack protestors, which isn't true. That actual quote is all over this thread.
The rest of your argument is a careless strawmanning, or projection, since the words on the page have actual meaning, words which you can put in front of your nose at your own pleasure.
The rest of your argument is a careless strawmanning, or projection, since the words on the page have actual meaning, words which you can put in front of your nose at your own pleasure.
> making a blanket proclamation that Cotton wanted the military to essentially attack protestors, which isn't true
I question whether you've actually read his editorial.
I question whether you've actually read his editorial.
I question whether you are actually able to draw a distinction between "peaceful protestors" and "rioters and looters". Your entire argument hinges on tricking people into thinking "subdue rioters and looters with the military if police can't or won't do it" is equivalent to "shoot protestors".
> Your entire argument hinges on tricking people into thinking "subdue rioters and looters with the military if police can't or won't do it" is equivalent to "shoot protestors".
I'm not sure what you think my argument is, since you appear to be conducting a separate but closely related debate entirely in your own mind.
To circle back to the original point of contention, using the military to suppress political dissent, the course Cotton discussed in his op ed (and which you accused evgen of making up), is using the military to suppress political dissent whether or not the protesters are peaceful, whether or not you think the protesters' message is legitimate, and whether or not the troops do anything more than stand in the street looking threatening.
(perhaps we're in violent agreement on these points, in which case I don't understand your objection to evgen's comment, except as a reflexive action)
I'm not sure what you think my argument is, since you appear to be conducting a separate but closely related debate entirely in your own mind.
To circle back to the original point of contention, using the military to suppress political dissent, the course Cotton discussed in his op ed (and which you accused evgen of making up), is using the military to suppress political dissent whether or not the protesters are peaceful, whether or not you think the protesters' message is legitimate, and whether or not the troops do anything more than stand in the street looking threatening.
(perhaps we're in violent agreement on these points, in which case I don't understand your objection to evgen's comment, except as a reflexive action)
> Literally one man's opinion distressed so many people, in such a way, they felt the need to raise an army and then descend on their employer
That one man's opinion was that we should raise an army and then descend on me and my friends.
Paradox of Tolerance.
That one man's opinion was that we should raise an army and then descend on me and my friends.
Paradox of Tolerance.
So?
Maybe you and your friends are doing something wrong. Maybe I should be able to learn about an alternate opinion, and then decide that the opinion is dumb, using my own brain and reasoning.
Do you not see how dangerous it is to stop people from discussing a topic openly and freely? What happens when this censorship and attempt at controlling the narrative is aimed at you? Do you want to be the recipient of this treatment?
Maybe you and your friends are doing something wrong. Maybe I should be able to learn about an alternate opinion, and then decide that the opinion is dumb, using my own brain and reasoning.
Do you not see how dangerous it is to stop people from discussing a topic openly and freely? What happens when this censorship and attempt at controlling the narrative is aimed at you? Do you want to be the recipient of this treatment?
You and your friends were smashing windows and stealing weapons from police vehicles?
That's Matt Taiabbis proposition too.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-i...
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-i...
Awesome! Another reader of Taibbi's.
By the way, the Post Gazette seems to have stolen that article, so maybe don't drive business their way. https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1274747185507246081?s=20
Instead, here is Taibbi's substack. If you're off a mind, a subscription is only $40 per year, but the stolen article is nevertheless free. https://taibbi.substack.com/
By the way, the Post Gazette seems to have stolen that article, so maybe don't drive business their way. https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1274747185507246081?s=20
Instead, here is Taibbi's substack. If you're off a mind, a subscription is only $40 per year, but the stolen article is nevertheless free. https://taibbi.substack.com/
Hey thanks! I just grabbed from the first google link. That's SUPER messed up. I hope he sues. Will update. Love Taibbi!
Interesting and good point.
I could see how people could think that it's good idea to censor violent extremist viewpoints.
I tend towards Taibbi's interpretation of publishing anything because I would rather err on the side of releasing dangerous info and let people decide for themselves, than having a media police that police what we read.
Just a hunch but the overlap between the group that abhorred the Cotton editorial and the group that is against doxxing is probably pretty small.
I understand you are in it, but not many people are, I would wager.
I understand you are in it, but not many people are, I would wager.
Traditionally, newspapers' Opinion and Editorial sections have solicited contributions from major political figures. The Wall Street Journal, for instance, has run the following:
"The Change We Need" (by Barack Obama)
"A Partisan Impeachment, a Profile in Courage" (by Mike Pence)
"I Can Defeat Trump and the Clinton Doctrine" (by Tulsi Gabbard)
"Blame the Fed for the Financial Crisis" (by Ron Paul)
"How Short-Termism Saps the Economy" (by Joe Biden)
"Why I Support the Ryan Roadmap" (by Sarah Palin)
"Why Americans Are So Angry" and "Trump Is the Worst Kind of Socialist" (by Bernie Sanders)
"Companies Shouldn’t Be Accountable Only to Shareholders" (by Elizabeth Warren)
Readers of the Journal typically value these pieces as the newsworthy opinions of important figures, even if they disagree with the authors and the politics therein quite vehemently. Very few readers would mistake these pieces' publication for an endorsement, or for depraved and wanton profit-seeking. Rather, publication of these opinions is itself a form of journalism.
Readers of the Times today, however, seem to expect that the ethics of the Times ought to be driven by the Times waging total war on their common political enemies, and that to do otherwise is an offense against decency. The Times does a good job of waging such a war in the general case, sometimes quite laudably; when it does make its exceptions, however, allowing things like the Cotton editorial, it has generally been in the service of Journalism as well, communicating the newsworthy opinions of important figures.
You should not fear, my erstwhile Times-reading comrade! All signs indicate that the Times has capitulated, and your victory over the forces of Journalism has been secured.
(edit: Added the Bernie Sanders and Warren editorials to the list)
"The Change We Need" (by Barack Obama)
"A Partisan Impeachment, a Profile in Courage" (by Mike Pence)
"I Can Defeat Trump and the Clinton Doctrine" (by Tulsi Gabbard)
"Blame the Fed for the Financial Crisis" (by Ron Paul)
"How Short-Termism Saps the Economy" (by Joe Biden)
"Why I Support the Ryan Roadmap" (by Sarah Palin)
"Why Americans Are So Angry" and "Trump Is the Worst Kind of Socialist" (by Bernie Sanders)
"Companies Shouldn’t Be Accountable Only to Shareholders" (by Elizabeth Warren)
Readers of the Journal typically value these pieces as the newsworthy opinions of important figures, even if they disagree with the authors and the politics therein quite vehemently. Very few readers would mistake these pieces' publication for an endorsement, or for depraved and wanton profit-seeking. Rather, publication of these opinions is itself a form of journalism.
Readers of the Times today, however, seem to expect that the ethics of the Times ought to be driven by the Times waging total war on their common political enemies, and that to do otherwise is an offense against decency. The Times does a good job of waging such a war in the general case, sometimes quite laudably; when it does make its exceptions, however, allowing things like the Cotton editorial, it has generally been in the service of Journalism as well, communicating the newsworthy opinions of important figures.
You should not fear, my erstwhile Times-reading comrade! All signs indicate that the Times has capitulated, and your victory over the forces of Journalism has been secured.
(edit: Added the Bernie Sanders and Warren editorials to the list)
This is stunning false equivalence. None of the opinions you offered are similar to Tom Cotton’s apologia for “sending in the tanks”. The NYT Opinions section is still, for better or worse, still quite diverse in its opinions. Ross Douthat and David Brooks are not leaving anytime soon.
> None of the opinions you offered are similar to Tom Cotton’s apologia for “sending in the tanks”
What makes this matter? Precisely, why?
Does not the radical character of this editorial highlight, as starkly as ever, that this is grossly at odds with the official opinion of the Grey Lady?
Do you somehow impute a net persuasive power to its appearance in those pages? Do you therefore believe the publication presents an increased risk that such a scheme will be carried out? How?
Do you perhaps believe that many dangerous racists will find themselves emboldened by its publication, as if racists with a military-police fetish were notorious for subscribing to the Times and justifying their opinions with what is written on its pages? I think not, sir, though you may find them watching Fox.
The Times could write a thousand opinion columns to their decent readers, warning that Republicans aspire to quash protests with the military; their combined weight would be as nothing compared to the Republican himself telling you in his own words, putting to rest the possibility of doubt.
What makes this matter? Precisely, why?
Does not the radical character of this editorial highlight, as starkly as ever, that this is grossly at odds with the official opinion of the Grey Lady?
Do you somehow impute a net persuasive power to its appearance in those pages? Do you therefore believe the publication presents an increased risk that such a scheme will be carried out? How?
Do you perhaps believe that many dangerous racists will find themselves emboldened by its publication, as if racists with a military-police fetish were notorious for subscribing to the Times and justifying their opinions with what is written on its pages? I think not, sir, though you may find them watching Fox.
The Times could write a thousand opinion columns to their decent readers, warning that Republicans aspire to quash protests with the military; their combined weight would be as nothing compared to the Republican himself telling you in his own words, putting to rest the possibility of doubt.
Precisely why it matters is that the debates you cite in the WSJ are in a completely different realm where you can have reasonable people disagree. I don’t think Cotton’s Op-Ed is novel territory for either the NYT or WSJ, but I think it’s a reasonable position that the NYT should not legitimize calls to violence as a resolution to an ongoing domestic issue.
The NYT operates on links, this is not cable news. Of course it will be shared on FB and elsewhere, so not getting your point at all.
As for the final point, I think there’s a reasonable debate to be had there! I don’t know exactly where I stand on it, I personally find the piece disturbing and it crosses the line in a functioning democracy. However, it certainly informed me beyond a doubt to Cotton’s and his colleagues’ opinions, so I just have to trust others felt similarly.
The NYT operates on links, this is not cable news. Of course it will be shared on FB and elsewhere, so not getting your point at all.
As for the final point, I think there’s a reasonable debate to be had there! I don’t know exactly where I stand on it, I personally find the piece disturbing and it crosses the line in a functioning democracy. However, it certainly informed me beyond a doubt to Cotton’s and his colleagues’ opinions, so I just have to trust others felt similarly.
> the debates you cite in the WSJ are in a completely different realm where you can have reasonable people disagree
I began to write by discussing one of those pieces in the WSJ as a moral equivalent or worse, discussing how I would like to say that no reasonable person could disagree — yet in fact, I must admit that they could.
But forget that. My real point is about journalism.
We are met, on one side, by those like Cotton, who fête thuggish, authoritarian, militaristic oppression, as you are well aware. It is one threat to our freedom. Journalism by itself will not save us, of course, but at the same time, I do not see how we can be saved without journalism.
But those who oppose it, especially the journalists? They are cut from grain of Senator Joseph Raymond McCarthy. Did you learn in your history lessons about the Red Scare? There were once bona fide Communist spies in our nation's government, in great number, and he set out to bring them down — and yet, when we speak today of the House Unamerican Activities Committee, and when we speak of McCarthyism, it is not because they saved us from these spies. It is because they fomented a culture of repression, paranoia and fear which chilled our freedoms and harmed our democracy — and, incidentally, did a poor job of rooting the spies.
Today we do not have the benefit of a single leader like McCarthy to illustrate in so concentrated a manner the disgusting nature of what is being done. We have no singular Mr. Welch to ask him, "Have you left no sense of decency?" when, for nothing more than his own self-aggrandizement, this leader smears an innocuous nobody in a Congressional hearing. But we do have the Washington Post, smearing an absolute nobody in the national press for not being refused from a non-company holiday party two years prior. We have the self-righteousness of those would-be crusaders, and we have the self-censorship for fear of bringing down their wrath.
And in particular, we save a special set of poisons, not for the overt racists, nor even for those who fail to oppose them, but for those who would dare temper their opposition with some other principle. James Bennett's true crime was poisoning the purity of his allegiance to the cause by favoring Journalism. For this he was ejected from the paper. He is far from the only one who will lose his job or be blacklisted in the purges.
So good on you and everyone else for unsubscribing in the name of purity.
I began to write by discussing one of those pieces in the WSJ as a moral equivalent or worse, discussing how I would like to say that no reasonable person could disagree — yet in fact, I must admit that they could.
But forget that. My real point is about journalism.
We are met, on one side, by those like Cotton, who fête thuggish, authoritarian, militaristic oppression, as you are well aware. It is one threat to our freedom. Journalism by itself will not save us, of course, but at the same time, I do not see how we can be saved without journalism.
But those who oppose it, especially the journalists? They are cut from grain of Senator Joseph Raymond McCarthy. Did you learn in your history lessons about the Red Scare? There were once bona fide Communist spies in our nation's government, in great number, and he set out to bring them down — and yet, when we speak today of the House Unamerican Activities Committee, and when we speak of McCarthyism, it is not because they saved us from these spies. It is because they fomented a culture of repression, paranoia and fear which chilled our freedoms and harmed our democracy — and, incidentally, did a poor job of rooting the spies.
Today we do not have the benefit of a single leader like McCarthy to illustrate in so concentrated a manner the disgusting nature of what is being done. We have no singular Mr. Welch to ask him, "Have you left no sense of decency?" when, for nothing more than his own self-aggrandizement, this leader smears an innocuous nobody in a Congressional hearing. But we do have the Washington Post, smearing an absolute nobody in the national press for not being refused from a non-company holiday party two years prior. We have the self-righteousness of those would-be crusaders, and we have the self-censorship for fear of bringing down their wrath.
And in particular, we save a special set of poisons, not for the overt racists, nor even for those who fail to oppose them, but for those who would dare temper their opposition with some other principle. James Bennett's true crime was poisoning the purity of his allegiance to the cause by favoring Journalism. For this he was ejected from the paper. He is far from the only one who will lose his job or be blacklisted in the purges.
So good on you and everyone else for unsubscribing in the name of purity.
Ok, I think we just disagree on what is journalism and that’s fine. The Opinion page is not journalistic, it’s just other people’s op-eds selected by an editorial board and said board is not immune from either bias nor criticism.
The rest of the paper is generally outstanding, though they have some high profile screw ups. Can’t trust anything 100% ever, but I don’t think this incident reflects on the rest of the paper. Regular NYT subscribers (myself included) already know what they’re getting in Opinion, and I personally think it’s trash.
The rest of the paper is generally outstanding, though they have some high profile screw ups. Can’t trust anything 100% ever, but I don’t think this incident reflects on the rest of the paper. Regular NYT subscribers (myself included) already know what they’re getting in Opinion, and I personally think it’s trash.
If you go back in time, the NY Times used to print a lot more conservative op-eds. For example, here's a classic, where William F Buckley, a well known conservative (from a different vein than modern conservatives) proposes tattooing a red letter A on the buttons of gay men infected with HIV:
http://movies2.nytimes.com/books/00/07/16/specials/buckley-a...
Cotton could have written a far better editorial and people would complain a lot less. I tried to read it giving him the best intentions but it didn't take long to realize that he really just wanted to send out the military to beat people up.
http://movies2.nytimes.com/books/00/07/16/specials/buckley-a...
Cotton could have written a far better editorial and people would complain a lot less. I tried to read it giving him the best intentions but it didn't take long to realize that he really just wanted to send out the military to beat people up.
Yep I’m not defending the NYT Opinions page or editorial board, in my opinion it’s an embarrassment for an otherwise solid paper of record (not defending NYT in general, either - they have made some serious mistakes).
However, the poster is trying to put the Cotton op-Ed in the same league as fairly mild policy debates in the WSJ. I find that dangerously close to legimitizing it.
However, the poster is trying to put the Cotton op-Ed in the same league as fairly mild policy debates in the WSJ. I find that dangerously close to legimitizing it.
The NYT has published op-eds from Vladimir Putin and the Taliban.
And that’s infinitely more on-point than some relatively mild policy debates in the WSJ! The difference in those cases would be the foreign policy concerns vs a domestic debate, so there’s still some context to discuss, but the comment I’m replying to is blowing this out of proportion and also legitimizing Cotton’s op-Ed by comparing it the prior ones.
I stopped trusting reporters when I was 14. Did some cool CS shit that got national press - reporters wrote ridiculous made up things in articles all over. Most common was putting words in my mouth, less common was using my words without attribution.
That's about when I started reading multiple sources to figure out wtf happened anywhere.
It's super prevalent. If a reporter wants to chat, tell them to fuck off.
That's about when I started reading multiple sources to figure out wtf happened anywhere.
It's super prevalent. If a reporter wants to chat, tell them to fuck off.
Some highlights of Slate Star Codex over the years (I'm missing archives for two of these, and I'd appreciate anyone linking to archives if you have them):
Mediations on Moloch: https://web.archive.org/web/20200516181754/https://slatestar...
I Can Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup: https://web.archive.org/web/20200516181754/https://slatestar...
Proving too Much: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/13/proving-too-much/
Mediations on Moloch: https://web.archive.org/web/20200516181754/https://slatestar...
I Can Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup: https://web.archive.org/web/20200516181754/https://slatestar...
Proving too Much: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/13/proving-too-much/
I would encourage people to stop linking to and submitting New York Times articles, I didn’t read Slate Star Codex but having just read the clear reasons Scott wanted to keep his anonymity I am disgusted the NYT would abuse someone’s trust like this. I’m going to pretend they don’t exist from now on and I expect a lot of others will too. I won’t read another article by the New York Times no matter how click baity the headline. It won’t really make a difference but this sort of immoral shit seems to happen everywhere now. Once an institution of quality journalism it’s now click baiting with peoples livelihoods. Fuck them.
[deleted]
I never believe the newspaper and hard to trust the TV news you have to investigate and get the Truth always,they all want headlines and ratings, so always check it out before you believe
Truth with a capital "T" is a myth. If you ever think you've found it then you've lost your way.
Can you be an influential character and asked to remain anonymous? If you have opinions and you've broadcasted them you can assume them. We blame politics, journalist but at least they sign their articles. Don't you think they receive death treats all the time ?
You can blame NYT but at least they have a clear policy, whether you agree with it or not. I feel a lot of people here are reacting emotionally, as part of the SSC community.
Is the problem a journalist revealing a name, or is it virtual trolls and mobs?
You can blame NYT but at least they have a clear policy, whether you agree with it or not. I feel a lot of people here are reacting emotionally, as part of the SSC community.
Is the problem a journalist revealing a name, or is it virtual trolls and mobs?
> We blame politics, journalist but at least they sign their articles. Don't you think they receive death treats all the time ?
1. They are professionals. SSC is a hobbyist.
2. No, I don't think they receive a lot of threats. This days people expect very very little of journalists. Many consider journos to be the lowest form of life.
1. They are professionals. SSC is a hobbyist.
2. No, I don't think they receive a lot of threats. This days people expect very very little of journalists. Many consider journos to be the lowest form of life.
> You can blame NYT but at least they have a clear policy, whether you agree with it or not.
Given that NYT has been happy to preserve Banksy's anonymity in their reporting, or that of Virgil Texas, their policy certainly isn't clear to me.
Given that NYT has been happy to preserve Banksy's anonymity in their reporting, or that of Virgil Texas, their policy certainly isn't clear to me.
I am cancelling my NYT subscription.
This is so frustrating and rage inducing!
I enjoy reading blogs like gwern and SSC. The fact that the blog has just gone away because somebody threatened to doxx the author against his will is sad and a loss to the community.
Scott, on Reddit[1], has mentioned that there is a possibility for the blog to come back but it all depends on how things pan out in the next few months. So I hope NYT just dumps the story, apologises and reevaluate their ethics.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/he95ak/blog...
I enjoy reading blogs like gwern and SSC. The fact that the blog has just gone away because somebody threatened to doxx the author against his will is sad and a loss to the community.
Scott, on Reddit[1], has mentioned that there is a possibility for the blog to come back but it all depends on how things pan out in the next few months. So I hope NYT just dumps the story, apologises and reevaluate their ethics.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/he95ak/blog...
This is a tragedy, Scott Alexander is such a thoughtful writer.
I wish journalists would come up with some professional standards and make the title licensed, like doctor or lawyer. Right now we all recognize how important journalism is but journalists themselves run the gamut from ethical investigative journalists to clickbait manufacturers. Imagine if journalists also had to adhere to the equivalent of attorney client privilege for sources.
I wish journalists would come up with some professional standards and make the title licensed, like doctor or lawyer. Right now we all recognize how important journalism is but journalists themselves run the gamut from ethical investigative journalists to clickbait manufacturers. Imagine if journalists also had to adhere to the equivalent of attorney client privilege for sources.
I 100% agree and talked about this a lot in j school. Would love to see some type of society body emerge with a coalition of Pulitzer Prize winners (the only real framework that possibly stands to live past the inevitable calls about its legitimacy from the News Corp -owned bodies of media, honestly) and ideally backed by the biggest news media companies in the world. I would love to see a further membership based element where members of the public and journalists could critique reportage and possible ethical lapses all publicly, adhering to principles set by the society itself.
Honestly I think it's time journalists take back some of the responsibility and importance of their roles that's been stripped by colleague and company malpractice (and the side effects of a business model twisted inside out in rapid succession), as many DO recognize their importance. But like politics any real "talk" of media quickly devolves into sports-like tribalism and never gets beyond hating the 'players' not the game itself.
Honestly I think it's time journalists take back some of the responsibility and importance of their roles that's been stripped by colleague and company malpractice (and the side effects of a business model twisted inside out in rapid succession), as many DO recognize their importance. But like politics any real "talk" of media quickly devolves into sports-like tribalism and never gets beyond hating the 'players' not the game itself.
> society body emerge with a coalition of Pulitzer Prize winners ... backed by the biggest news media companies
If biggest media companies were interested in upholding any ethical standards - the would have been doing that already. Allowing them to create a coalition and giving that coalition any more power would make things only worse.
If biggest media companies were interested in upholding any ethical standards - the would have been doing that already. Allowing them to create a coalition and giving that coalition any more power would make things only worse.
Pulitzers have lost a lot of credibility because of Hannah Jones/1619.
You don't have a self-governing body for journalism?
There's this, but I don't see much discussion about it: https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
It's fine to have a standards committee with the power of suggestion. However something like that could just as easily become something for countries with dictators to use to attempt to silence reporters who they don't like so I suspect that's why there's no "governing body" just some organizations who recommend best practices. One man's "standards" is another one's opportunity to cull rebellious journalists.
I don't, but the Canadian Association of Journalists and the Canadian Journalism Foundation both exist.
CAJ particularly has done some good explanations in the past (though I haven't read it since I was forced to, in university!) https://caj.ca/Ethics
CAJ particularly has done some good explanations in the past (though I haven't read it since I was forced to, in university!) https://caj.ca/Ethics
A standards body maybe. But do you not see some ethical concerns of licensing that tells people how to conduct journalism? Freedom of the Press, but only for those who the governing body deems fit?
The whole point of a license is to reduce the gamut of people who can practice a profession to just those people who do it the way the license specifies. In a world such as ours, and a country such as the US, it will inevitably become the target of corruption and a position of immense power over the media. Even if it could be a good idea, I don't believe we live in a world where it would be executed in a way that maintains freedom of the press.
The whole point of a license is to reduce the gamut of people who can practice a profession to just those people who do it the way the license specifies. In a world such as ours, and a country such as the US, it will inevitably become the target of corruption and a position of immense power over the media. Even if it could be a good idea, I don't believe we live in a world where it would be executed in a way that maintains freedom of the press.
I don’t see it as much different than the general societal norms that we tend to teach children, like “try to be nice” and “it’s okay to avoid people who aren’t nice.” Is that a violation of freedom of speech, or some top-down regulation? I don’t think so.
It probably shouldn’t be “licensing” in the sense of using state or otherwise organized violence to seek out people who violate the norms. We generally don’t teach people to punch anyone in the face who is rude. But having general standards of conduct don’t seem to bad to me.
It probably shouldn’t be “licensing” in the sense of using state or otherwise organized violence to seek out people who violate the norms. We generally don’t teach people to punch anyone in the face who is rude. But having general standards of conduct don’t seem to bad to me.
Licensing or regulation is a very particular construct in relation to employment, and nothing like education of ethics.
I am on board with ethics education as a way to impart societal values. I'm pretty sure it's a component in most journalism degrees, but perhaps it should be part of early education more distinctly as well.
I am on board with ethics education as a way to impart societal values. I'm pretty sure it's a component in most journalism degrees, but perhaps it should be part of early education more distinctly as well.
There is no accountability, no repercussions [1] for causing any amount of personal and economic damage. No real need to offer retraction and corrections even when reporting isn't just unethical, but also blatantly wrong.
If you want an easy example look at this Super Micro spy chip story [2] by Bloomberg Businessweek. It's absolutely unsubstantiated [3], caused 40% drop for SM share price, but two years later it's still up.
[1] except that one time Tiel funded a lawsuit
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-h...
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2018/10/22/super_micro_chinese_s...
If you want an easy example look at this Super Micro spy chip story [2] by Bloomberg Businessweek. It's absolutely unsubstantiated [3], caused 40% drop for SM share price, but two years later it's still up.
[1] except that one time Tiel funded a lawsuit
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-h...
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2018/10/22/super_micro_chinese_s...
I'm not saying there aren't consequences to the freedom, and the effects of social media make me wish we could ban entire publications at will, but it's the wrong direction to be thinking.
I must admit, the ability to sway stock prices is pretty far from what I worry about when I think of bad ethics in press, but it does happen to be the kind of thing that would make licensing prone to corruption. The money influencing that kind of corruption would be right at the door of the licensing body, just waiting for the first person to crack the door open.
I must admit, the ability to sway stock prices is pretty far from what I worry about when I think of bad ethics in press, but it does happen to be the kind of thing that would make licensing prone to corruption. The money influencing that kind of corruption would be right at the door of the licensing body, just waiting for the first person to crack the door open.
For me this particular story was notable because it was the first time I had (barely) enough expertise to realise that story is really implausible and enough interest to follow it up.
It's not that rogue journalist influencing stock market is bad, it's bad, but that's not the point. What really bothers me is that that there are no mechanisms on media company level to punish or at least disincentivize faulty reporting.
We encounter misinformation on a daily basis, but can't do anything about it. We can't even notice it, unless topic in question happens to fall in our area of expertise.
It's not that rogue journalist influencing stock market is bad, it's bad, but that's not the point. What really bothers me is that that there are no mechanisms on media company level to punish or at least disincentivize faulty reporting.
We encounter misinformation on a daily basis, but can't do anything about it. We can't even notice it, unless topic in question happens to fall in our area of expertise.
I agree, it's going to be tough problem to navigate. I can't even come up with a vague ideological solution for it, let alone a good mechanism that is fair and robust against corruption. It's like being stuck inbetween one ideal and another. Freedom of information vs stopping the bad being caused by misinformation.
My optimistic side would hope that putting education in schools about misinformation and how to critically think about and analyze journalism could at least help the issue.
My optimistic side would hope that putting education in schools about misinformation and how to critically think about and analyze journalism could at least help the issue.
It seems to me that protecting sources and mandating some degree of truthfulness (like don't outright lie about verifiable facts, as some statements are not disprovable) are orthogonal to dictating the subject of the stories?
The AMA and bar associations are not without their issues either (they end up driving prices up since they have a monopoly on their service), but it seems to me that people don't have to worry about doctors doxxing their patients on social media or lawyers making deals behind a client's back as much. When it does happen, these professionals are usually ejected from their profession, which is a pretty big disincentive.
The AMA and bar associations are not without their issues either (they end up driving prices up since they have a monopoly on their service), but it seems to me that people don't have to worry about doctors doxxing their patients on social media or lawyers making deals behind a client's back as much. When it does happen, these professionals are usually ejected from their profession, which is a pretty big disincentive.
Maybe there could be an independent body like the EFF but capable of issuing penalties to the egregious companies, but not the individuals. Perhaps even cap the type of company that can receive penalties, in order to preserve the ability for small upstarts to succeed without giving a potentially corruptable governing body the tools to squash them under a veil of legitimacy.
If you license individuals, how do you categorize what is and is not journalism, and where do you stop? Photojournalists, blogs, for fun school magazines, local newspapers? Are radio shows journalism? Youtube channels? Do I become an unlicensed journalist if they hold misinformation? Thinking of the worst case, a corrupted governing body could quietly pick and choose who they want to take penalize for not practicing with a license, or penalize them out of existence even if they have one.
That benefits big news corps while stifling open/free journalism with risk. For one example of what I mean by that but in a different industry, I will never run a website that could have users upload media in my country, because we have no safe-harbour laws. If you are at risk of penalties, many people just won't start.
If you license individuals, how do you categorize what is and is not journalism, and where do you stop? Photojournalists, blogs, for fun school magazines, local newspapers? Are radio shows journalism? Youtube channels? Do I become an unlicensed journalist if they hold misinformation? Thinking of the worst case, a corrupted governing body could quietly pick and choose who they want to take penalize for not practicing with a license, or penalize them out of existence even if they have one.
That benefits big news corps while stifling open/free journalism with risk. For one example of what I mean by that but in a different industry, I will never run a website that could have users upload media in my country, because we have no safe-harbour laws. If you are at risk of penalties, many people just won't start.
First fix the economic incentives. They are badly broken after the paper press lost to internet news.
You can't expect the journalists to uphold ethical standards when the market rewards garbage rage-inducing clickbait.
You can't expect the journalists to uphold ethical standards when the market rewards garbage rage-inducing clickbait.
Licensing only works if you have to be in a certain jurisdiction to operate in it. Given that more "journalism" is online, if Murdoch or the Barclay Brothers or whoever don't like the restrictions of your licence, they can just employ journalists somewhere else. If they need boots on the ground, they can employ independent contractors.
How do you prevent independent journalists selling pieces to certain outlets without unfairly placing the burden on the journalist? Is it a list of proscribed publications? How does a publication get on the list? What happens to all the "good" journalists who work for an organisation when it gets put on the list?
What, exactly, is a journalist? Does it include columnists who write opinion pieces? If not, how do you prevent an outlet from running more and more "opinion pieces" masquerading as news? If you get defrocked for doing something your employer considers highly profitable, they can just rebrand you as a columnist.
What does it mean to be licensed? What does having a licence allow you to do that you can't do without one? Is this your "press pass" allowing you to ask questions at briefings? There have been cases recently when this has been revoked on a whim. Is it just to get a byline in a printed newspaper? Again, they can rebrand unlicensed journalists as runners, and print the piece under the name of a real journalist.
Journalism is not a terminal career like medicine or law. If you get thrown out of one of those professions, you lose your livelihood. There is nothing else that you are as well trained for that pays as well. You have to start at the bottom of something else. Most journalists are not particularly well paid. Former journalists can earn as much, if not more, writing press releases and advertising copy.
How do you prevent independent journalists selling pieces to certain outlets without unfairly placing the burden on the journalist? Is it a list of proscribed publications? How does a publication get on the list? What happens to all the "good" journalists who work for an organisation when it gets put on the list?
What, exactly, is a journalist? Does it include columnists who write opinion pieces? If not, how do you prevent an outlet from running more and more "opinion pieces" masquerading as news? If you get defrocked for doing something your employer considers highly profitable, they can just rebrand you as a columnist.
What does it mean to be licensed? What does having a licence allow you to do that you can't do without one? Is this your "press pass" allowing you to ask questions at briefings? There have been cases recently when this has been revoked on a whim. Is it just to get a byline in a printed newspaper? Again, they can rebrand unlicensed journalists as runners, and print the piece under the name of a real journalist.
Journalism is not a terminal career like medicine or law. If you get thrown out of one of those professions, you lose your livelihood. There is nothing else that you are as well trained for that pays as well. You have to start at the bottom of something else. Most journalists are not particularly well paid. Former journalists can earn as much, if not more, writing press releases and advertising copy.
Doctors were once upon a time not very highly trained, medicine was a crapshoot, now things have changed. I'm sure it was a tremendous upheaval at the time. That it's a lot of work doesn't mean it can't be done.
A more interesting argument against doing this is considering the tradeoffs if implemented:
* e.g. the AMA has pretty successfully restricted the supply of doctors and driven the prices of medicine up,
* people are so paranoid about giving medical or legal advice they have to say things like "I'm not a doctor but... I'm not a lawyer but..."
etc.
A more interesting argument against doing this is considering the tradeoffs if implemented:
* e.g. the AMA has pretty successfully restricted the supply of doctors and driven the prices of medicine up,
* people are so paranoid about giving medical or legal advice they have to say things like "I'm not a doctor but... I'm not a lawyer but..."
etc.
Whenever people mention licensing practitioners of some trade, the interesting question is always "licence to do what?". All too often, the answer tends to be a boring and poorly thought out "licence to call yourself an X". It fails to answer "what can an X legally do that a non-X cannot?"
In the case of doctors, pharmacists and lawyers,things like surgery, controlled drugs, rights of audience are easy to restrict. If you are not one and try to do the job anyway, you won't get very far.
As a client, I cannot use a partitioner who is not licensed in my jurisdiction. If I have a video consultation with a real foreign doctor, they still can't write me a prescription I can take to my local pharmacist. No matter how good the doctor is, they are made deficient by not being registered with the GMC.
A journalist writes and publishes articles about current affairs. You can't legally prevent people doing that without a catastrophic infringement of free speech.
Every day, I read articles from publications from many countries. Those articles are not made deficient by the fact that they are not written by NUJ members.
Plenty of people read and believe bunkum written by people who don't even pretend to be journalists. Sticking little "licenced by..." Logo on the real stuff won't make a difference there.
In the case of doctors, pharmacists and lawyers,things like surgery, controlled drugs, rights of audience are easy to restrict. If you are not one and try to do the job anyway, you won't get very far.
As a client, I cannot use a partitioner who is not licensed in my jurisdiction. If I have a video consultation with a real foreign doctor, they still can't write me a prescription I can take to my local pharmacist. No matter how good the doctor is, they are made deficient by not being registered with the GMC.
A journalist writes and publishes articles about current affairs. You can't legally prevent people doing that without a catastrophic infringement of free speech.
Every day, I read articles from publications from many countries. Those articles are not made deficient by the fact that they are not written by NUJ members.
Plenty of people read and believe bunkum written by people who don't even pretend to be journalists. Sticking little "licenced by..." Logo on the real stuff won't make a difference there.
There is already a sort-of licence. Being employed by a company as a journalist, especially if the company is a recognised media "name".
But the people this is deliberately not recognising is bloggers. And to be honest, I'm seeing better journalism being done by (some) bloggers than (some) paid journalists now (not their fault - the business model for journalism is a mess, while the model for blogging is working).
But the people this is deliberately not recognising is bloggers. And to be honest, I'm seeing better journalism being done by (some) bloggers than (some) paid journalists now (not their fault - the business model for journalism is a mess, while the model for blogging is working).
> There is already a sort-of licence. Being employed by a company as a journalist, especially if the company is a recognised media "name".
But this obviously fails as seen in this instance (and many others). Companies have interests that do not align with the public's interest of ethical standards. Much like we've generally understood (but unfortunately not really everywhere) that letting other industries regulate themselves isn't a good idea, I don't think it's any different in the media.
But this obviously fails as seen in this instance (and many others). Companies have interests that do not align with the public's interest of ethical standards. Much like we've generally understood (but unfortunately not really everywhere) that letting other industries regulate themselves isn't a good idea, I don't think it's any different in the media.
I totally agree. The sooner we can all stop reading ad-funded journalism, the better.
Personally, I'd rather journalism wasn't licensed in this way. I get the intention behind it, but it'd basically outlaw freelance journalists, independent journalism sites, blogging, etc, and make it easier to justify arresting people at protests because you don't like what they're recording.
Also an easy target to politicise, and dangerous to society if the far left/right end up running such a board and dictating that their opponents are wrong.
Also an easy target to politicise, and dangerous to society if the far left/right end up running such a board and dictating that their opponents are wrong.
Scott Alexander was not the source. Journalists generally don't reveal sources and some have gone to jail to avoid doing so.
Scott Alexander may not have been the original source, but he is a definitely _a_ source as it seems he was in touch with the reporter. The reporter has an undeniable ethical duty to decide whether to publish his full name after he raises concerns about his safety.
I see limited to no news value in publishing his name and substantial risk of harm, but I'm a frequent reader and admirer of the blog.
I see limited to no news value in publishing his name and substantial risk of harm, but I'm a frequent reader and admirer of the blog.
I don't think the 'substantial risk of harm' is established, at least, not by Scott Alexander's own behaviour - he says himself his pseudonymity was quite thin. Journalists tend to see their responsibility as being primarily to their readers, not the subjects of their stories. Subjects generally don't get to edit stories about themselves - that's considered non-journalism.
> I’ve received various death threats. I had someone on an antipsychiatry Reddit put out a bounty for any information that could take me down (the mods deleted the post quickly, which I am grateful for). I’ve had dissatisfied blog readers call my work pretending to be dissatisfied patients in order to get me fired.
I think anyone who is not a sociopath would consider this proof of a “substantial risk of harm”.
I think anyone who is not a sociopath would consider this proof of a “substantial risk of harm”.
Lots of people receive death threats and even more claim they receive threats or perceive types of loud criticism as threats. Being on the wrong end of these is no picnic but it is not, in itself, a substantial risk of harm. And again, his own efforts to protect his identity seem to have been relatively superficial. He just didn't think he was going to end up in the NYT and he was mistaken. As I said elsewhere, it's a bummer this is a disruption for him but it's not obvious we (let alone the journalist who actually figured out his name, as anyone wishing him harm could have) should take the claims of risk of harm at face value.
I don't disagree with your characterization that the obligation of the journalist is to inform, but what is the marginal utility of revealing his whole name? It's hard for me to come up with anything.
I wouldn't be opposed to the story running under a fictional name, even though that would probably not be to Scott's liking either.
I wouldn't be opposed to the story running under a fictional name, even though that would probably not be to Scott's liking either.
I think this is the critical point. The marginal utility is quite clear though: Readers can check all sorts of claims for themselves by looking up public details about the person. E.g. are they really a psychiatrist working at X as the reporter claims.
In the specific case though, given a really well established pseudonymous online identity, that is the central subject of the article, the marginal utility of the additional information you can check seems uniquely low. At least if the subject is just the pseudonymous activity of the author.
In the specific case though, given a really well established pseudonymous online identity, that is the central subject of the article, the marginal utility of the additional information you can check seems uniquely low. At least if the subject is just the pseudonymous activity of the author.
Maybe there's some case to publish his name if he's misrepresenting himself. It doesn't seem like that's the case. If the journalist finds discrepancies he can report on them too.
You're saying we should just trust the journalists to be truthful, no need for us to be able to check the journalists work.
He already has a sort-of fictional name. He's also a public figure with a substantial following. I think for the journalist reporting on him, this is a no brainer - identify the thing you're talking about. At the end of the day, I'm not some expert it journalistic ethics - maybe they don't have to publish his name. But the notion that they're committing some grave moral offense or journalistic malpractice by publishing it over his objections seems completely misplaced. It's journalists' job to publish things over subject's objections.
Suppose the National Review were doing a piece on a labor campaign and decided to publish the name of a major employee leader who had maintained his anonymity to protect his job. Would you be so blase about their journalistic ethics? After all, publishing true information about someone even if they don't want it published is just journalism at its finest.
It's not the sort of work the National Review does so I'm not sure I really understand the hypothetical. Do journalists sometimes omit details to protect subjects or sources from harm? Sure. But the bar for harm is usually higher than 'the subject wouldn't like it'.
Surely you'd agree that "trying to be pseudonymous but not taking it very seriously" and "being published in the new york times" are substantially different things, no? One can do the former and reasonably not expect it to lead to the latter.
Those expectations are reasonable when you are a blogger with little to no following. But at some point on the fame/popularity spectrum, those expectations become rather foolish.
At the point where the NY Times is reaching out to write an article about you, I think you have likely crossed that threshold. Scott's best move would have been to refuse an interview in the hopes that it would kill the story. But even that might not have mattered. If your goal is to be both famous/influential and pseudonymous, you probably need to work a little harder to protect your anonymity.
At the point where the NY Times is reaching out to write an article about you, I think you have likely crossed that threshold. Scott's best move would have been to refuse an interview in the hopes that it would kill the story. But even that might not have mattered. If your goal is to be both famous/influential and pseudonymous, you probably need to work a little harder to protect your anonymity.
You mean he didn't expect to get so popular? Sure, I can believe that but he's been popular for a while. My argument isn't really that he should have foreseen this, it's his own damn fault and that he deserves no sympathy. He has my sympathy, I just find his response unpersuasive and (perhaps understandably in his moment of distress) overwrought.
Scott Alexander was a source for the article. He just wasn't the source for his name.
And then there's Washington Post whose entire editorial board signed a letter asking the US Gov to arrest and charge their own source. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/edward-snowden-doesn...
Licensing seems like a solution to problems like this but the cure would be worse than the disease. Control over the licensing body would guarantee control over information, so it would become a prize to be fought for and the whole thing would be politicized. The best case scenario is we end up with the same mess we have now. Worst case is one side captures control and now their side gets to be the only "legitimate" one.
Same problem with so-called fact-checking. It's politicized, which means it adds nothing over the chaotic political debate we already have, except a false veneer of objectivity.
Same problem with so-called fact-checking. It's politicized, which means it adds nothing over the chaotic political debate we already have, except a false veneer of objectivity.
Licensing of reporters would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
> make the title licensed
This is possibly one of the easiest ways to create a police state if you make journalism "regulated" (i.e. government approved) ((or if you're a nutter, corporation approved))
This is possibly one of the easiest ways to create a police state if you make journalism "regulated" (i.e. government approved) ((or if you're a nutter, corporation approved))
People just don't buy newspapers anymore since the net is full of news articles. Your business model is basically attracting as many people as possible to your site. Advertisers were always the largest customers but today the reader is completely exempt from business relations.
I'm not really putting much on the table but journalist are in my low tier of respect, if there's any.
There's so many instances of abuse, lying and laziness that seems low standards are common through the profession and countries.
In general I tend to see them as activist, with very few exceptions of people that tries to approach truth.
Nowadays it really doesn't matter if they write for a local newspaper or WAPO, it's just so common that your default approach should be looking at every piece as propaganda.
There's so many instances of abuse, lying and laziness that seems low standards are common through the profession and countries.
In general I tend to see them as activist, with very few exceptions of people that tries to approach truth.
Nowadays it really doesn't matter if they write for a local newspaper or WAPO, it's just so common that your default approach should be looking at every piece as propaganda.
Aren’t they already a legally protected profession?
Not in some countries but it's the 1st amendment of the US Constitution that protects freedom of speech and the press. So it's considered pretty important here.
A journalism license? I struggle to come up with a worse solution... No.
Anyone that cared to try already knew Scott's real name. It was a simple Google dork away because of bad opsec from the beginning.
It's harder the other way around: starting with his real name and finding slatestarcodex, which is what he's concerned about since his patients will be googling his real name.
Now, for me google autocompletes "scott $REALNAME slatestarcodex", but it's not clear whether that is personalsied to me since I'm an avid slatestarcodex reader and have been googling this all over the place.
Now, for me google autocompletes "scott $REALNAME slatestarcodex", but it's not clear whether that is personalsied to me since I'm an avid slatestarcodex reader and have been googling this all over the place.
This really highlights the difference between sources and subjects in journalism. Has a 2-tier system been hiding in plain sight all this time? If so, this would indicate an almost systemic bias behind the facade of neutrality. One which escaped notice, even during an earlier period of debate about forcing use of real names on the Internet vs. handles or nicks.
There's quite a lot of scope for interpretation of this statement:
> Unfortunately, he told me he had discovered my real name and would reveal it in the article, ie doxx me.
It's not clear from the post whether there was any conversation with the journalist about this aspect of the planned article, and/or whether there were any requests not to include the person's full name.
I think most of us agree that staying well-informed is useful and important, and I'd argue that news organizations contribute effectively to that.
Blogging and tweeting are useful additional mediums, but they can't always achieve the same results as publications that have research teams, archives, experienced investigative reporters, and legal teams to defend them when they encounter powerful opposition.
It could be worth taking a pause and waiting for more details before attributing all of the blame to the NYT (or even more wildly, journalism as a whole) here.
Edit (append-only): as noted elsewhere (see child comments) there had been some two-way conversation with the journalist regarding publication of the author's name.
It could be useful to learn more about what the nature of NYT's policy on publishing real names is, and the intent and reasoning behind that.
> Unfortunately, he told me he had discovered my real name and would reveal it in the article, ie doxx me.
It's not clear from the post whether there was any conversation with the journalist about this aspect of the planned article, and/or whether there were any requests not to include the person's full name.
I think most of us agree that staying well-informed is useful and important, and I'd argue that news organizations contribute effectively to that.
Blogging and tweeting are useful additional mediums, but they can't always achieve the same results as publications that have research teams, archives, experienced investigative reporters, and legal teams to defend them when they encounter powerful opposition.
It could be worth taking a pause and waiting for more details before attributing all of the blame to the NYT (or even more wildly, journalism as a whole) here.
Edit (append-only): as noted elsewhere (see child comments) there had been some two-way conversation with the journalist regarding publication of the author's name.
It could be useful to learn more about what the nature of NYT's policy on publishing real names is, and the intent and reasoning behind that.
> It's not clear from the post whether there was any conversation with the journalist about this aspect of the planned article, and/or whether there were any requests not to include the person's full name.
There were; this has been made clear elsewhere. The reporter was also made aware that the blog would be shut down if it came to that, and still refused to redact OP's real name from their article.
(Allegedly, it seems that NYT general policy can allow a person to be anonymous if warranted, but it's less clear that pseudonimity is contemplated.)
There were; this has been made clear elsewhere. The reporter was also made aware that the blog would be shut down if it came to that, and still refused to redact OP's real name from their article.
(Allegedly, it seems that NYT general policy can allow a person to be anonymous if warranted, but it's less clear that pseudonimity is contemplated.)
Thank you - could you provide a link about those requests and discussion? I'd like to update my understanding (and comment) based on those.
Thanks. This is going to take a little time to digest.
Often in conflicts like this it's worth considering what the outcome of the battle will be and what the implications are.
The thread you linked to here sounds reasonable and it's good to see that it doesn't assign blame to the journalist and appreciates that they've been acting within what may be the confines of their workplace policy.
That said -- the real name policy probably exists for a reason, perhaps to ensure that subjects of news that is in the public interest find it more difficult to evade scrutiny. (edit: add word 'perhaps'; conjecture)
I'm not implying that scrutiny of the blog and community are necessarily a good thing. I honestly don't know how much influence they have. But policy changes can have lasting effects in other, potentially very different, circumstances, so I'll take a bit of time and update my comment based on this.
Often in conflicts like this it's worth considering what the outcome of the battle will be and what the implications are.
The thread you linked to here sounds reasonable and it's good to see that it doesn't assign blame to the journalist and appreciates that they've been acting within what may be the confines of their workplace policy.
That said -- the real name policy probably exists for a reason, perhaps to ensure that subjects of news that is in the public interest find it more difficult to evade scrutiny. (edit: add word 'perhaps'; conjecture)
I'm not implying that scrutiny of the blog and community are necessarily a good thing. I honestly don't know how much influence they have. But policy changes can have lasting effects in other, potentially very different, circumstances, so I'll take a bit of time and update my comment based on this.
From the blog post:
> When I expressed these fears to the reporter, he said that it was New York Times policy to include real names, and he couldn’t change that.
What more details are needed?
> When I expressed these fears to the reporter, he said that it was New York Times policy to include real names, and he couldn’t change that.
What more details are needed?
The intent and nature of the article could be important; and where it exists on various spectrums including newsworthiness, public importance, accuracy, information content.
It's also possible that the article - even if hardly read today - could become relevant in future in ways that we can't currently understand.
It could be argued that deleting the blog was an attempt to influence or close down aspects of the yet-unpublished article and reporting process. In other ways it may have actually added additional context.
It's also possible that the article - even if hardly read today - could become relevant in future in ways that we can't currently understand.
It could be argued that deleting the blog was an attempt to influence or close down aspects of the yet-unpublished article and reporting process. In other ways it may have actually added additional context.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Of interest, about that particular NYT journalist: https://medium.com/@garyweiss_86200/cade-metz-pulls-a-deep-c...
I applied for a job with the NYtimes a year ago and they treated me very poorly in the application process. Long waits for minimal communication, and then they just ghosted me. Then I read Taiabbis article and cancelled my subscription. It's becoming the Fox news of the left.
When political figures name specific media as being the 'enemy of the people', what seemed absurd rings true in this instance. So much insight, perspective and open discussion going away here. It's sad. This blog was a beacon to many, and I will surely miss it.
Isn't this a double standard? The NYT was one of the many papers that decided not to publish the name of the whistleblower in the Trump-Ukraine scandal. They published many articles on the scandal and his name is definitely known to them as they did a profile on the wistleblower without naming him and he has been named by the president's son and many others in government (and no, he was not a source for the NYT. He was a whistleblower who went through official channels to blow the whistle, he didn't go to the press).
I am not going to post his name here as it tends to get comments deleted. Youtube will even automatically delete your comment if it contains his name (maybe even relieving his gender goes too far, I guess we will find out). If anyone doubts this you can just try it yourself. Or just believe the company's own spokesperson https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/08/tech/facebook-whistleblower-n...
I am not going to post his name here as it tends to get comments deleted. Youtube will even automatically delete your comment if it contains his name (maybe even relieving his gender goes too far, I guess we will find out). If anyone doubts this you can just try it yourself. Or just believe the company's own spokesperson https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/08/tech/facebook-whistleblower-n...
[deleted]
The idea that the public "can't be trusted" with information like this has always deeply frustrated me. Information should be openly shared and this story serves as another demonstration that journalists are not a special class of citizens that can be trusted with the information.
His name is Eric Ciaramella for anyone else wondering. Took me a frustrating 30 minutes of googling to figure it out.
His name is Eric Ciaramella for anyone else wondering. Took me a frustrating 30 minutes of googling to figure it out.
I think it is more likely they are going after him over his support for Steve Hsu.
Surprised that P.Z. Myers is such a critic of SSC
https://twitter.com/pzmyers/status/1275381580182073346
https://twitter.com/pzmyers/status/1275381580182073346
I'm not. PZ Myers was on the Atheism+ side of the schism in online Atheism in 2011 (from which my pseudonym derives), and Scott was firmly on the other side. They've been on opposite sides of the culture war since either of them became aware of it.
But even if you didn't know that ancient history, Myers is orthodox progressive, Scott is heterodox. They're natural enemies.
But even if you didn't know that ancient history, Myers is orthodox progressive, Scott is heterodox. They're natural enemies.
Funny how an anti-ideology that purports to be not a religion but rather the absence of religion would spawn so many schisms and holy wars.
Took everyone involved by surprise, but it made sense in hindsight. Half the people were there because religion was oppressive, and half were there because religion was factually wrong.
These two groups were never the same, and they got along only until it became obvious that the first group didn't care about facts and (according to the first group) that the second group didn't care about justice (I would say they do, but not if it means lying about facts).
These two groups were never the same, and they got along only until it became obvious that the first group didn't care about facts and (according to the first group) that the second group didn't care about justice (I would say they do, but not if it means lying about facts).
P.Z. Myers has been a bullshit generator for several years now. Here's him on Steven Hsu:
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2020/06/18/look-for-...
Money quote:
> I’m with Kevin Bird. Seeing the oppressive capitalist foundations of American wealth inequality getting shaken up is a good start. It’s not quite the change we saw with the fall of the Berlin Wall, though — we’re going to need to see Wall Street dethroned from its power and influence on government to be comparable.
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2020/06/18/look-for-...
Money quote:
> I’m with Kevin Bird. Seeing the oppressive capitalist foundations of American wealth inequality getting shaken up is a good start. It’s not quite the change we saw with the fall of the Berlin Wall, though — we’re going to need to see Wall Street dethroned from its power and influence on government to be comparable.
That's a particularly polemical point, but the rest of the bullet points are clarifications on Soviet history of science, which seems substantiative.
the ability to speak pseuodononymously and or separate out your personal and professional life is critical.
we can try to help you - at least a bit - JoinDeleteMe.com
we can try to help you - at least a bit - JoinDeleteMe.com
Seems reasonable. If you can't deplatform someone than dox them. This looks like a service in favor NYT's increasingly rabid readership.
(Meta) I’m curious why this isn’t on the front page, given the number of upvotes. Has this been flagged or is it in some way being hidden?
What does he normally write about? It seemed to be a pretty popular blog but I never dug into the content and now the content is offline.
If all you're interested in is a list of topics he wrote about, the table of contents on that page serves that function reasonably well. Some of the links in it are even live because they are to places he wrote other than SSC.
I. Rationality and Rationalization
II. Probabilism
III. Science and Doubt
IV. Medicine, Therapy, and Human Enhancement
V. Introduction to Game Theory
VI. Promises and Principles
VII. Cognition and Association
VIII. Doing Good
IX. Liberty
X. Progress
XI. Social Justice
XII. Politicization
XIII. Competition and Cooperation
[0] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vwqLfDfsHmiavFAGP/the-librar...
I. Rationality and Rationalization
II. Probabilism
III. Science and Doubt
IV. Medicine, Therapy, and Human Enhancement
V. Introduction to Game Theory
VI. Promises and Principles
VII. Cognition and Association
VIII. Doing Good
IX. Liberty
X. Progress
XI. Social Justice
XII. Politicization
XIII. Competition and Cooperation
[0] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vwqLfDfsHmiavFAGP/the-librar...
> Or at least the story will have to include some discussion of NYT’s strategy of doxxing random bloggers for clicks.
In fairness, they overtly slandered a group of schoolchildren and sent a nationwide mob after them (including celebrities who made very thinly veiled threats against them on social media). That didn’t seem to drive much ethical change within the NYT, so I don’t have much hope for this (“merely” doxxing a psychiatrist/blogger) to reform them.
In fairness, they overtly slandered a group of schoolchildren and sent a nationwide mob after them (including celebrities who made very thinly veiled threats against them on social media). That didn’t seem to drive much ethical change within the NYT, so I don’t have much hope for this (“merely” doxxing a psychiatrist/blogger) to reform them.
I never trust the papers especially,or I am choosy on the news also you have to investigate and get the Truth always
Scott Alexander uses "hyper-rational critism" to push race science that borders on straight on bigotry. Even worse, he's allowed a community to build around him that views iq heritability as the main essentialist frame with which to view the world. This kind of mindset is unfortunately common in technology spaces, and the world will only be better as these kinds of people are pushed out of the overton window.
"...he's allowed a community to build around him that views iq heritability as the main essentialist frame with which to view the world"
This is complete nonsense. Anyone who has read SSC knows that both Scott Alexander's posts and the comments cover a very wide range of topics. Occasional mentions of scientific views of human biology that don't fit your ideological preconceptions are a dominant part of the blog/community only in your distorted perceptions.
This is complete nonsense. Anyone who has read SSC knows that both Scott Alexander's posts and the comments cover a very wide range of topics. Occasional mentions of scientific views of human biology that don't fit your ideological preconceptions are a dominant part of the blog/community only in your distorted perceptions.
I read this as "occasional dalliances with race realism are acceptable because he talks about other topics."
No. It means that anyone who is not a hopeless ideologue knows that a just and humane society cannot be created on the basis of compelling people to assert things that anyone sane understands are simply not true.
Relevant post (relevant to this incident even, as a sort of "Round 1" from about a year or so ago): https://web.archive.org/web/20190228161939/https://slatestar... — best to read the whole post, but if not then look for the text around “scarily conservative”, the part from “very easy to moderate comment sections” to “your brand” to “dominated by”.
Thanks for sharing, this post is a perfect example.
> Some people think Charles Murray and The Bell Curve were right about everything. Some people think Islam represents an existential threat to the West. Some people think women are biologically less likely to be good at or interested in technology. ... Each of these views has adherents who are, no offense, smarter than you are. ... I disagree with most of them but don’t want to be too harsh on any of them.
These kinds of people should be kept out of "marketplace" entirely. The world is better off without blogs like this.
> Some people think Charles Murray and The Bell Curve were right about everything. Some people think Islam represents an existential threat to the West. Some people think women are biologically less likely to be good at or interested in technology. ... Each of these views has adherents who are, no offense, smarter than you are. ... I disagree with most of them but don’t want to be too harsh on any of them.
These kinds of people should be kept out of "marketplace" entirely. The world is better off without blogs like this.
Thanks for making quite clear that you are an opponent of the Enlightenment, and wish to return to a dark age in which people were slaughtered for having the wrong opinions on religion, or anything else - "better of without blogs like this" easily turns into "better of without blog authors like this".
If you get your wish, you may be quite surprised when it turns out that you are one of those killed. Deluded ideologues who think they are virtuously persecuting the heretics are useful up to a point, but when they become inconvenient for those who are manipulating them to achieve power, they're eliminated.
If you get your wish, you may be quite surprised when it turns out that you are one of those killed. Deluded ideologues who think they are virtuously persecuting the heretics are useful up to a point, but when they become inconvenient for those who are manipulating them to achieve power, they're eliminated.
For those of us out of the loop could someone take 2 minutes to give us some context please? Thanks
Has the post been changed? I remember it containing some quotes from the journalist in question.
[deleted]
I have increasingly lost faith in NYT as my faith in WashPo has increased
Meh they also lost my respect with how they treated Snowden. Killed my account for digital subscription after this editorial. He revealed a far bigger evil than anything he ever did to get the info or what was revealed. They know if he comes back to the USA he will go to prison for life without parole. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/edward-snowden-doesn...
Where was NYT's policy of using real-names when they:
- quoted anonymous source behind the White House "Op-Ed",
- used "well-connected", (but anonymous) sources reporting on the "Russia collusion" news?
I must be missing something here?
- quoted anonymous source behind the White House "Op-Ed",
- used "well-connected", (but anonymous) sources reporting on the "Russia collusion" news?
I must be missing something here?
[deleted]
Sad times. I saw this coming. People are mean. :/
> my patients – who run the gamut from far-left anarchists to far-right gun nuts
This strikes me as an off way for a mental health professional to publicly refer to his patients, even anonymously ...
This strikes me as an off way for a mental health professional to publicly refer to his patients, even anonymously ...
"gun nut" isn't an insult to gun nuts.
neither is "anarchists" to anarchists. Not sure what's the point OP is making
Yes I suppose that's true.
Can someone tell this person that this site is probably still on way back machine? And he or she should request it to be removed.
Scott didn't delete his blog to remove all traces of it from the internet. He deleted it so that if the NYT publishes the article, they'll be forced to include the story of how they threatened to doxx him. Can't publish an article about a blog that doesn't exist without talking about why it's gone.
OP is quite aware of this, and it probably doesn't matter that much. He's made his point anyway.
Worth noting archived material on the Wayback Machine[0].
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/*/slatestarcodex.com
Edit: there are some references in the comments already (didn't spot them because I missed the "More" link).
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/*/slatestarcodex.com
Edit: there are some references in the comments already (didn't spot them because I missed the "More" link).
But that's not entirely effective.
The blog is accessible on archive.org
https://web.archive.org/web/20200609065651/https://slatestar...
It's effective enough to force the hand of the NYTimes to respond -- likely by removing his name or removing the article altogether.
[deleted]
The NYT has reported on Bansky without revealing his name. Why is this different?
[deleted]
New York Times has been a piece of shit lately.
Edit: this comment was not constructive.
This behaviour is very much not going to help. One of the many reasons doxxing is bad is because "speculation" is so often wrong. Anyway, it rather diminishes the force of an argument that the NYT is in the wrong if a mob publishes someone's name in a spasm of outrage over the fact that the NYT wanted to publish someone's name.
It’s not really the same. One person is a pseudonymous blogger who requested to keep their pseudonimity. The other is a reporter for the best known newspaper in the world. But I agree it’s a bad look, I have removed the comment.
GDPR for the win. In Europe you could demand to be deleted from all databases at the time. You could demand them not to disclose any personal information without your consent. If they do regardless (and newspapers tend to think they are above data protection issues sometimes) you could sue them. They might have to pay enormous sums for deliberately not complying. I don't think that you would pocket that money, but you would have quite some power in the whole matter.
The GDPR is somewhat restricted for public figures as there is a "legitimate interest" in reporting about them.
As Scott did publish his own name I don't think the GDPR would be a very sharp sword in this case.
As Scott did publish his own name I don't think the GDPR would be a very sharp sword in this case.
I still miss 'Alone' a lot.
Similar effect when reading the news on a topic that one is an expert in - they usually get it incredibly wrong. And then you turn the page and read the next article completely forgetting how bad the reporting actually is - there is no reason to assume they do a better job on topics that one is not an expert in! I think this bias had a name but I can't remember it.
(We detached this large subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23610880)
I first heard this explained by John C. Dvorak and it has terrified me ever since.
Originally I just believe that journalist just had a terrible understanding of IT, but when you think about it, there's no reason why it's just IT. Why would journalist have a better understanding of medicine, politics, climate, finance or any other topic covered. Basically you're left it a situation where you can only trust highly specialized publication, who hire subject matter experts and let them act as the journalist.
This raises the question: Are journalists actually required?
Originally I just believe that journalist just had a terrible understanding of IT, but when you think about it, there's no reason why it's just IT. Why would journalist have a better understanding of medicine, politics, climate, finance or any other topic covered. Basically you're left it a situation where you can only trust highly specialized publication, who hire subject matter experts and let them act as the journalist.
This raises the question: Are journalists actually required?
As a journalist who's a CS dropout, then later a BoA, and who works as a web dev on the side: I agree.
BUT:
1) The journalist's work is sometime a soul-crushing effort to turn complex things that can't really be made simple into a readable summary. I cover Quantum tech as someone who has at least a grasp of physics: it's insanely difficult.
2) Journalists that behave like the ones you describe, are bad for the whole profession. What you describe is a systemic problem in journalism, which I think it's especially bad in the big newsrooms of big newspapers that are struggling to survive or have still to figure out a proper business model for their future.
That said, I think there are a lot journalist who, like yours truly, tend to stick to what they've studied and know. I would never write about medicine, but I know I'm able to write about tech avoiding the complete lack of knowledge some colleagues show. The real problem: this works for me as a freelancer. Staff writers are considered fungible, and they have to adapt to whatever needs to be written.
Sorry for the sparse thoughts, I have to much in my mind about this, but not enough time to put it down properly right now. I still wanted to chime in, though. :)
P.s. Journalism schools are also part of the problem. They form a cohort of people who think they can do exactly that: write about anything. It's bullshit, and it does not work well for the category. The best colleagues I know all come from very different study fields, and they sort of fell into journalism by chance.
1) The journalist's work is sometime a soul-crushing effort to turn complex things that can't really be made simple into a readable summary. I cover Quantum tech as someone who has at least a grasp of physics: it's insanely difficult.
2) Journalists that behave like the ones you describe, are bad for the whole profession. What you describe is a systemic problem in journalism, which I think it's especially bad in the big newsrooms of big newspapers that are struggling to survive or have still to figure out a proper business model for their future.
That said, I think there are a lot journalist who, like yours truly, tend to stick to what they've studied and know. I would never write about medicine, but I know I'm able to write about tech avoiding the complete lack of knowledge some colleagues show. The real problem: this works for me as a freelancer. Staff writers are considered fungible, and they have to adapt to whatever needs to be written.
Sorry for the sparse thoughts, I have to much in my mind about this, but not enough time to put it down properly right now. I still wanted to chime in, though. :)
P.s. Journalism schools are also part of the problem. They form a cohort of people who think they can do exactly that: write about anything. It's bullshit, and it does not work well for the category. The best colleagues I know all come from very different study fields, and they sort of fell into journalism by chance.
> Journalism schools are also part of the problem. They form a cohort of people who think they can do exactly that: write about anything. It's bullshit, and it does not work well for the category.
This.
100% this.
(I spent about a decade in the trenches as first a part-time then full-time tech journalist -- wrote a column for the UK Computer Shopper for several years -- and the reason CS's feature quality stayed high was because the editors recruited techies who could write and trained them in the basics of journalism, rather than hiring generalist journalists and expecting them to pick up a CS degree by osmosis.)
This.
100% this.
(I spent about a decade in the trenches as first a part-time then full-time tech journalist -- wrote a column for the UK Computer Shopper for several years -- and the reason CS's feature quality stayed high was because the editors recruited techies who could write and trained them in the basics of journalism, rather than hiring generalist journalists and expecting them to pick up a CS degree by osmosis.)
Ah, yes, it's the 90% of bad journalists that give the rest a poor reputation.
> tend to stick to what they've studied and know.
Isn't there a serious risk of bias, there, though? For example, if a journalist is specialized in CS and have to write about the ecological impact of technology, you can expect them to be biased in favor of technology, even in good faith.
While what you're suggesting seems common sense and is indeed better than current situation, I think it could be even better if rather than having one journalist writing one piece, every piece was a joint effort by several journalists, some expert on the subject and some not.
Isn't there a serious risk of bias, there, though? For example, if a journalist is specialized in CS and have to write about the ecological impact of technology, you can expect them to be biased in favor of technology, even in good faith.
While what you're suggesting seems common sense and is indeed better than current situation, I think it could be even better if rather than having one journalist writing one piece, every piece was a joint effort by several journalists, some expert on the subject and some not.
> Isn't there a serious risk of bias, there, though? For example, if a journalist is specialized in CS and have to write about the ecological impact of technology, you can expect them to be biased in favor of technology, even in good faith.
All journalists are biased. Pretending they can be unbiased is silly.
Beyond that, a journalist specialized in CS writing about the ecological impact of technology is no longer "sticking to what they've studied and know" any more than a sportswriter would be writing about the ecological impact of a new stadium.
All journalists are biased. Pretending they can be unbiased is silly.
Beyond that, a journalist specialized in CS writing about the ecological impact of technology is no longer "sticking to what they've studied and know" any more than a sportswriter would be writing about the ecological impact of a new stadium.
Just like in academia, interdisciplinary research is best served not by a single polymath, but by a collaboration between domain experts. In this case, the proper (money-is-no-object) approach for an editor to take, would be to attach both an ecology-expert journalist and a tech-expert journalist on the piece, likely with the tech-expert driving doing the research and the ecology-expert writing the piece.
One could argue that in your situation a journalist trained in CS is simply not the educated party that should be writing a piece anyway. Knowing CS doesn't mean you understand the ecological impact of technology, you'd want someone with an ecology degree.
Sure, but then that journalist doesn't know about technology and is biased toward ecology :)
Although, I guess that rather than having experts and non-experts co-writing the article, it would even be better to have experts on all identified topics. So here, it would be both the journalist with a technological background and the one with an ecological background.
It seems a bit unrealistic to have experts on all subjects at hand, though, so I guess mixing non experts could at least be a minimum effort.
Although, I guess that rather than having experts and non-experts co-writing the article, it would even be better to have experts on all identified topics. So here, it would be both the journalist with a technological background and the one with an ecological background.
It seems a bit unrealistic to have experts on all subjects at hand, though, so I guess mixing non experts could at least be a minimum effort.
What is a BoA?
Maybe Bachelor of Arts aka BA or AB? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Arts
Bachelor of Arts I guess.
It is not a journalist's job to be an expert in the subject they are covering. That's why journalists interview experts, and why journalists don't use themselves as sources.
If you are writing from your own knowledge rather than attributing your information to others, I would argue that you aren't really practicing journalism. (There's nothing wrong with that, I just think it's something else.)
If you are writing from your own knowledge rather than attributing your information to others, I would argue that you aren't really practicing journalism. (There's nothing wrong with that, I just think it's something else.)
Unless a journalist is merely acting as a typist "not using themselves as sources" is not enough.
Journalists gather, assemble and interpret information, and sometimes they build the dreaded 'narrative' for the reader. In this case they must not only _source_ knowledge but consume and comprehend it - at which point they _are_ operating in the specific domain of the information they gathered.
Different knowledge requires differing degrees of investment to comprehend, and for non-trivial subjects being an SME that covers most of the domains involved is going to allow you to validate interpretations made on assembled knowledge i.e the stuff you are operating on rather than merely regurgitating.
I am open to the idea that a journalist could separately have good investigative skills and other journalistic things I am not aware of while not being an SME in much of anything - but in which case they should always work with one or more SMEs, much like the sibling comment's suggestion from 'cousin_it'.
Journalists gather, assemble and interpret information, and sometimes they build the dreaded 'narrative' for the reader. In this case they must not only _source_ knowledge but consume and comprehend it - at which point they _are_ operating in the specific domain of the information they gathered.
Different knowledge requires differing degrees of investment to comprehend, and for non-trivial subjects being an SME that covers most of the domains involved is going to allow you to validate interpretations made on assembled knowledge i.e the stuff you are operating on rather than merely regurgitating.
I am open to the idea that a journalist could separately have good investigative skills and other journalistic things I am not aware of while not being an SME in much of anything - but in which case they should always work with one or more SMEs, much like the sibling comment's suggestion from 'cousin_it'.
Some topics are simpler than others. For example, a lot of stories on "science" tend to focus on people instead. They tell the narrative of the research team, and their success, and usually pick out a single individual to tell a human story about. Often this takes a moralistic or political angle. "A [politically fashionable identity group member] has [destroyed boundaries / revolutionized topic / other post-modern language]." This is not necessarily a bad story to tell, but it's clearly about people and groups of people, rather than a story about science.
By contrast, if journalists were solely focusing on the science, the article would simply be a reprint (or summary) of a research paper. Now, to be fair, some news outlets do a very nice job of this, while others turn everything into a human story, or at least, focus on a part of the story the journalist can understand.
I think this is partially due to the limitations being described. The journalist likely can't understand the science in a meaningful way, but can understand the people, and how they talk about their research, and how the public perceives that. Helpfully, this will also likely be the story that will appeal to more readers. And so, the incentives are aligned in a few directions against the "better" (read: more precise, and requiring more expertise) story.
By contrast, if journalists were solely focusing on the science, the article would simply be a reprint (or summary) of a research paper. Now, to be fair, some news outlets do a very nice job of this, while others turn everything into a human story, or at least, focus on a part of the story the journalist can understand.
I think this is partially due to the limitations being described. The journalist likely can't understand the science in a meaningful way, but can understand the people, and how they talk about their research, and how the public perceives that. Helpfully, this will also likely be the story that will appeal to more readers. And so, the incentives are aligned in a few directions against the "better" (read: more precise, and requiring more expertise) story.
I could bring as examples innumerable “Experts“ who give bad and highly opinionated comments that journalist can skew and apply to their own narrative.
If you are versed in what you write about it’s easier to separate fluff and worthless commentary from actual information.
There's a great Twain story about this: http://inthesetimes.com/rural-america/entry/18515/how-i-edit...
Would it be too much to ask that, when a journalist writes on a topic they don't understand, they should ask an expert "hey can you sanity check this" before publishing?
It's not necessarily malice. Experts rarely have time to review some bullshit for free and the tight timelines don't help.
I asked some science journalists about this on Twitter. Tight deadlines are a problem, but the bigger issue is that there’s some sort of journalistic principle about not letting “sources” see—-or approve—-the completed article.
I don’t totally understand why, but I think they were a little unclear on what most scientists want, which is more like checking language and details (a lot of words that seem synonymous aren't in technical contexts) than controlling the overall message.
I don’t totally understand why, but I think they were a little unclear on what most scientists want, which is more like checking language and details (a lot of words that seem synonymous aren't in technical contexts) than controlling the overall message.
Seems like the obvious argument for open, post-publication review.
... and yet newspapers are shutting down comment sections
Newspaper comment sections are highly problematical. You have occasional thoughtful posts mixed in with hundreds of completely moronic, bigoted, and deeply stupid posts. When a comments section gets bad enough that it demands moderation, perhaps it's better to get out of that business entirely. (No need to get rid of the letters to the editor.)
If the journalist talked to the expert while writing the article, the expert will always be happy for a chance to sanity check. The only reason that's so often not done is because the journalist is on a power trip.
In Germany we have this organisation:
https://www.sciencemediacenter.de/en/
for journalists to quickly find an expert to ask.
https://www.sciencemediacenter.de/en/
for journalists to quickly find an expert to ask.
The problem here is that it's easy to find an expert to mirror the point of view of the journalist, and thus make any point of view seem objective.
> This raises the question: Are journalists actually required?
Depends. The alternative is bloggers.
This situation is ugly. All sorts of motives are being tossed at the journalist, here, but it may be as simple as they think they have a “scoop,” which is pure gold, for journalists (especially young ones).
That said, there are standards that journalists are supposed to meet; usually about things like the number of independent sources they use, and whatnot. It’s fairly obvious that many journalists don’t meet those standards, but they are supposed to.
We’ve all seen what happens with bloggers. There’s good ones, which are basically the same as top-quality journalists, and there are bad ones, which are nightmares that make Joseph Goebbels smirk from his lava pool.
I have been getting downright despondent over the quality of the writing in today’s journalists. I see at least three typos in pretty much every publication I read, every day. Sometimes, terrible ones, in the headline.
I think it’s a shame that the first ones out the door were the editors.
Depends. The alternative is bloggers.
This situation is ugly. All sorts of motives are being tossed at the journalist, here, but it may be as simple as they think they have a “scoop,” which is pure gold, for journalists (especially young ones).
That said, there are standards that journalists are supposed to meet; usually about things like the number of independent sources they use, and whatnot. It’s fairly obvious that many journalists don’t meet those standards, but they are supposed to.
We’ve all seen what happens with bloggers. There’s good ones, which are basically the same as top-quality journalists, and there are bad ones, which are nightmares that make Joseph Goebbels smirk from his lava pool.
I have been getting downright despondent over the quality of the writing in today’s journalists. I see at least three typos in pretty much every publication I read, every day. Sometimes, terrible ones, in the headline.
I think it’s a shame that the first ones out the door were the editors.
Journalists can do great work, provided the incentives are lined up right. One of the only French newspaper that is consistently in the black is an investigative weekly paper called "le canard enchainé". It is read by pretty much anyone, young, old, poor, rich. It is owned by its journalists, accepts no advertising, has a paper subscription model, and nothing they print is put online.
Thing is, they make ministers and sometimes entire French governments fall when they uncover corruption scandals, they have an impeccable reputation for protecting their sources, and they publish scoop after scoop after scoop. The value they offer is unique, you won't be able to read the information they publish anywhere else, and I believe this is how they maintain their integrity and value to the public.
Thing is, they make ministers and sometimes entire French governments fall when they uncover corruption scandals, they have an impeccable reputation for protecting their sources, and they publish scoop after scoop after scoop. The value they offer is unique, you won't be able to read the information they publish anywhere else, and I believe this is how they maintain their integrity and value to the public.
An interesting model, I wonder if there is anything comparable in Britain or America? Private Eye, maybe?
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/
In Holland we have "The Correspondent" which is independently funded too (AFAIK). While I do feel they play it a bit too 'safe' and try to straddle the line between doing 'regular' journalism and more daring stuff, they do some good work, and it's nice to know they're not chasing ad revenue.
And Le Canard has excellent puns, better than The Economist’s, and risqué spoonerisms too, just in French.
Maybe the willingness of journalists to priotize "scoops" over the actual consequences of their reporting is exactly the problem. On some level, they seem to be incapable of thinking of non-journalists as actual, real people who deserve to be treated with decency rather than things they can use in their Very Important Work which is Vital to Democracy and then toss aside - and as you hint at, this is probably structural rather than just a failing of particular reporters.
This is true. It's not a new problem. You can watch black-and-white movies, from the 1930s, where journalists cause huge problems by publishing "scoops."
The issue is that this would apply to bloggers; even more than journalists. Bloggers chase clicks. A quick shufti at the junk that populates Clickbait Row, in any site, will show what drivel people will publish, chasing clicks.
The issue is that this would apply to bloggers; even more than journalists. Bloggers chase clicks. A quick shufti at the junk that populates Clickbait Row, in any site, will show what drivel people will publish, chasing clicks.
Yeah, the current situation is that because mainstream journalism are supposed to have 'standards', you get the product with predictable quality, but this quality is slowly but surely getting shittier. Blogs and twitter by contrast have no constraints, which means that variance in quality is much higher and while there are great blogs (such as, well, Slate Star Codex), trusting a random blog is an even worse idea that trusting a random journalist.
Looks like an opening for a new model of journalism begins to appear - something that captures the grassroots spirit of blogs, but filters out biased, disingenious and clickbait stuff, traces provenance of information and allows for fact-checking from multiple angles. Of course, the problem is genuinely hard because any startup that attempts this without new ideas about how the thing will be financed will fall prey to the same incentives as the conventional media and fail to make a difference.
Looks like an opening for a new model of journalism begins to appear - something that captures the grassroots spirit of blogs, but filters out biased, disingenious and clickbait stuff, traces provenance of information and allows for fact-checking from multiple angles. Of course, the problem is genuinely hard because any startup that attempts this without new ideas about how the thing will be financed will fall prey to the same incentives as the conventional media and fail to make a difference.
It also helps that Slate Star Cortex isn't expected to be unbiased, so instead of pretending to be the diffuse gaze from nowhere, he can simply be up-front about what you should expect.
It's really a mixed bag... there are definitely those that purport to be journalists that are more activist than journalist and will lie, cheat, deceive in order to push an agenda over anything resembling an unbiased truth.
There are also journalists that become activist over a specific study (Nina Teicholz is a good example here). Where the more they dig into a topic, the more they take up a cause to expose corruption, even if they have a reasoned bias.
I wish more publications themselves would have an editorial oversight to reduce instances of narratives injected into their news feeds. Some are better than others at presenting news as closer to just the facts... others do better at balancing bias with multi-sourcing, which works better in video that written.
I've been watching the Rising morning show from Hill.tv lately, which is pretty centrist and more balanced than most sources. I try to avoid CNN, MSNBC and Fox News specifically at this point. Fox is good with "news" but they have too many commentary shows that offset this. CNN and MSNBC conflate it all as news and misrepresent all around. None of it can be trusted though.
Unfortunately, news sources tend to be more about being a profit center, and "journalism" is more about the narrative.
There are also journalists that become activist over a specific study (Nina Teicholz is a good example here). Where the more they dig into a topic, the more they take up a cause to expose corruption, even if they have a reasoned bias.
I wish more publications themselves would have an editorial oversight to reduce instances of narratives injected into their news feeds. Some are better than others at presenting news as closer to just the facts... others do better at balancing bias with multi-sourcing, which works better in video that written.
I've been watching the Rising morning show from Hill.tv lately, which is pretty centrist and more balanced than most sources. I try to avoid CNN, MSNBC and Fox News specifically at this point. Fox is good with "news" but they have too many commentary shows that offset this. CNN and MSNBC conflate it all as news and misrepresent all around. None of it can be trusted though.
Unfortunately, news sources tend to be more about being a profit center, and "journalism" is more about the narrative.
It's not just IT. You can definitely spot terrible understanding of stuff like policymaking/policy analysis and social science, business, etc. Exceptions do exist but they're rare and tend to be well-known on that account. (And I'm definitely not saying that an average journalist should be an expert in these things; what's missing is even the basic knowledge required to e.g. frame issues properly and provide missing information to aid comprehension.)
> Basically you're left it a situation where you can only trust highly specialized publication, who hire subject matter experts and let them act as the journalist.
There’s also “embedded journalism”, where the journalist needs to maintain an ongoing relationship with non-affiliated subject-matter experts. This can end up with some propaganda-like bias in favour of the embedded-in group’s beliefs; but if you can read past that, you’ll find that at least the journalist is being actively fact-checked by the people they’re embedded with. Those people are effectively working together to serve as an editor.
There’s also “embedded journalism”, where the journalist needs to maintain an ongoing relationship with non-affiliated subject-matter experts. This can end up with some propaganda-like bias in favour of the embedded-in group’s beliefs; but if you can read past that, you’ll find that at least the journalist is being actively fact-checked by the people they’re embedded with. Those people are effectively working together to serve as an editor.
Gell-mann Amnesia : https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-ge...
This always bugs me, because “science” is a giant spectrum of fields from astronomy to zoology. Nobody knows even a small portion of it, and yet we expect a few journalists to cover all of it, often on tight deadlines[0]. Politics is probably closer to many journalists’ backgrounds, and it changes slower—-last week’s background helps with this week’s scandal too.
[0] The impetus for most articles is usually the publication of a new paper, but this always seems weird because it’s really more of a hook: papers are almost always incremental progress on a problem and most of the article ends up being background and context anyway.
[0] The impetus for most articles is usually the publication of a new paper, but this always seems weird because it’s really more of a hook: papers are almost always incremental progress on a problem and most of the article ends up being background and context anyway.
As you pointed out in your footnote, science is a bad topic for journalism, intrinsically. Something like Scientific American is about as good as it gets for lay audiences - solicited longform articles from the relevant experts, meant for a general audience.
I wonder just how deep this rabbit hole goes? And how much of our lives is directed by misunderstandings, misinterpretations, bad translations, outright deception, etc.
As a programmer I know that my the screen I'm looking at is the visual output of a house of cards. It's amazing the whole thing works. I suppose you might say the same about society in general.
This makes me think of that Steve Jobs quote where he talks about poking things. I guess one reason why you can change things is because there's a low bar for improvement. ;)
Relevant Steve Jobs quote.
> The minute that you understand that you can poke life and actually something will, you know if you push in, something will pop out the other side, that you can change it, you can mold it. That’s maybe the most important thing. It’s to shake off this erroneous notion that life is there and you’re just gonna live in it, versus embrace it, change it, improve it, make your mark upon it.
I think that’s very important and however you learn that, once you learn it, you’ll want to change life and make it better, cause it’s kind of messed up, in a lot of ways. Once you learn that, you’ll never be the same again.”
As a programmer I know that my the screen I'm looking at is the visual output of a house of cards. It's amazing the whole thing works. I suppose you might say the same about society in general.
This makes me think of that Steve Jobs quote where he talks about poking things. I guess one reason why you can change things is because there's a low bar for improvement. ;)
Relevant Steve Jobs quote.
> The minute that you understand that you can poke life and actually something will, you know if you push in, something will pop out the other side, that you can change it, you can mold it. That’s maybe the most important thing. It’s to shake off this erroneous notion that life is there and you’re just gonna live in it, versus embrace it, change it, improve it, make your mark upon it.
I think that’s very important and however you learn that, once you learn it, you’ll want to change life and make it better, cause it’s kind of messed up, in a lot of ways. Once you learn that, you’ll never be the same again.”
From time to time the regional newspaper contacts my workplace for news (headers like "Business LLC is doing this thing to end world famine") to fill blank space. Every single time we try to be as exact as possible while leaving technicalities aside, but the reporters every single time manage to 1) extract a click-baity/sensationalist headline from an isolated phrase during the dialog and 2) gets 90% of the text slightly wrong on the limit of being a lie.
Dated a journalist who would ask me to explain tech things. Aghast, I asked if this was how she wrote about everything. It was. She's now a management consultant which explains alot.
Isn't it better that she's asking you rather than making up things?
It was the barest of understandings. When I realised there is a class of people who make decisions on what journalists write, I realised how misaligned the 'tech zeitgeist' can be
I'd like to know how you would explain a complicated topic to the average reader, all keeping it between 600-700 words, on a tight deadline, with quotes from a variety of people, and engaging enough to hold a reader's attention to know how this particular topic will impact their lives.
These are the hurdles reporters face when reporting on complicated topics.
These are the hurdles reporters face when reporting on complicated topics.
Why do it in that format at all?
That's how stories are written. Short, succinct and informative enough to give the readers what they need for the day. Now, there are times when reporters work on "enterprise" pieces that dives fairly deep into a particular topic. Many national papers have investigative teams that churn out one or two stories A YEAR, but they are dense thorough. Perhaps that what you might enjoy reading.
Sure, I'm aware that this is how things are done. The problem is that the goal isn't really to convey the information in its best form, it's to alter the information to suit the existing form.
When people are complaining about how a format doesn't suit what it is trying to present, I don't believe the correct response is to underline how difficult it is to properly format things that way. If the format is set in stone for various reasons, perhaps the solution is to not publish things that are complicated rather than failing in an attempt to simplify complex issues.
When people are complaining about how a format doesn't suit what it is trying to present, I don't believe the correct response is to underline how difficult it is to properly format things that way. If the format is set in stone for various reasons, perhaps the solution is to not publish things that are complicated rather than failing in an attempt to simplify complex issues.
Well if I was an expert in it, I would probably be able to. It's the mark of understanding something well that you can explain it easily.
I'm struggling to understand your point beyond "she didn't do literally the worst possible job she could have done".
Would it be worthwhile to create an index where people that are experts in something could vouch for the journalists that seem to know what they're talking about?
E.g. I can verify that on the information security topic Joseph Cox from Motherboard is constantly on topic, but that information is useless to me personally, because by the time Vice publishes something it's already old news for people in the industry (or anyone following infosec twitter really). But that information could be useful for someone else and in return I would like to know which journalists actually know a thing or two about say ML/AI or astrophysics.
E.g. I can verify that on the information security topic Joseph Cox from Motherboard is constantly on topic, but that information is useless to me personally, because by the time Vice publishes something it's already old news for people in the industry (or anyone following infosec twitter really). But that information could be useful for someone else and in return I would like to know which journalists actually know a thing or two about say ML/AI or astrophysics.
>If we wait till we're ready, we'll never get started.
—Eleanor Roosevelt
Carl Zimmer, New York Times (science); Dennis Overbye, New York Times (physics, astronomy); Geoffrey A. Fowler, Washington Post (technology); Nicole Nguyen, Wall Street Journal (technology); Dexter Filkins, New Yorker (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan); Ben Smith, New York Times [ex-BuzzFeed] (media); Bob Woodward
Carl Zimmer, New York Times (science); Dennis Overbye, New York Times (physics, astronomy); Geoffrey A. Fowler, Washington Post (technology); Nicole Nguyen, Wall Street Journal (technology); Dexter Filkins, New Yorker (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan); Ben Smith, New York Times [ex-BuzzFeed] (media); Bob Woodward
This is open to abuse for people, particularly companies, who have an axe to grind and will flood the "index."
This is a bad idea.
This is a bad idea.
That's the incredibly frustrating thing about the problems of journalism. It's a horribly broken, extractive institution, but there are simply no better solutions. Information flow is just too important, it has too many potential exploits, and there's no uninterested agent that can validate it (eg gov't regulation of what journalists publish would be a disaster).
Do you mean something like MetaCritic for journalists? It could work, but then who reviews (and vets) the reviewers?
I first noticed this as a teenager.
But I think in the time since then I have allowed for the idea that it's more complex than this. The "getting it wrong" part is not universal - some people do better than others. Further, when we are experts in something, we are more opinionated, and those firm opinions are not always universally held or appropriate for a general audience, they may even be distracting.
I think the more general thing to say is it's hard to assess the quality of reporting and quoted sources when it's a topic we're less familiar with -- not that the reporting is necessarily all terrible.
But I think in the time since then I have allowed for the idea that it's more complex than this. The "getting it wrong" part is not universal - some people do better than others. Further, when we are experts in something, we are more opinionated, and those firm opinions are not always universally held or appropriate for a general audience, they may even be distracting.
I think the more general thing to say is it's hard to assess the quality of reporting and quoted sources when it's a topic we're less familiar with -- not that the reporting is necessarily all terrible.
As an expert, what you want when you work with many journalists is a dedicated journalist handler who is not an expert.
Make sure this person understands the basics properly and they make sure the journalist understands. After some time explaining the same topic you both usually know the common misunderstandings and easiest-to-understand explanations. Then, give the journalist a phone number and tell them to call for any questions whatsoever.
At least for us, during field measurements, that usually worked quite well, I didn't find any significant mistakes afterwards.
Make sure this person understands the basics properly and they make sure the journalist understands. After some time explaining the same topic you both usually know the common misunderstandings and easiest-to-understand explanations. Then, give the journalist a phone number and tell them to call for any questions whatsoever.
At least for us, during field measurements, that usually worked quite well, I didn't find any significant mistakes afterwards.
Personally, I call it the Dan Brown effect, because when I was a teen I read "The Da Vinci Code" (I am not expert) a few months before reading "Digital Fortress" (I am somewhat knowledgable) and I found it so profoundly bad that it mad me angry for wasting my time.
I met someone our first week of college who chose a CS degree because of Digital Fortress.
It was awkward and I don't think I saw him again past that first week.
It was awkward and I don't think I saw him again past that first week.
Great point. I have exactly same experience when one guy who wrote something with total confidence and absolute cluelessness. I would not have known had I not been very familiar with the subject. This made me think what all other things they might be ignorant but still write with such an expert tone.
[deleted]
Gell-Mann Amnesia
In a speech in 2002, Crichton coined the term Gell-Mann amnesia effect. He used this term to describe the phenomenon of experts believing news articles on topics outside of their fields of expertise, even after acknowledging that articles written in the same publication that are within the experts' fields of expertise are error-ridden and full of misunderstanding. He explains the irony of the term, saying it came about "because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speeches_by_Michael_Crichton
In a speech in 2002, Crichton coined the term Gell-Mann amnesia effect. He used this term to describe the phenomenon of experts believing news articles on topics outside of their fields of expertise, even after acknowledging that articles written in the same publication that are within the experts' fields of expertise are error-ridden and full of misunderstanding. He explains the irony of the term, saying it came about "because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speeches_by_Michael_Crichton
[deleted]
> Similar effect when reading the news on a topic that one is an expert in - they usually get it incredibly wrong.
This is the argument behind the Gell-Mann amnesia effect:
https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/
This is the argument behind the Gell-Mann amnesia effect:
https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/
We really need to retire "Gell-Mann amnesia effect" and relegate it to a /glossary on HN along with the various philosophical razors, "Dunning-Kruger effect", "X fallacy", "gaslighting", and other intellectual placeholders like that.
As soon as I read the grandparent comment, I knew there was going to be a flood of people arriving to supply us with some wiki link.
This way we can just cut to the chase with "Ah, I smell a case of /glossary#4 going on!".
As soon as I read the grandparent comment, I knew there was going to be a flood of people arriving to supply us with some wiki link.
This way we can just cut to the chase with "Ah, I smell a case of /glossary#4 going on!".
Why should it be retired? Is it untrue? Is there a valid reason to doubt it? It is hard to accept a removal of useful mental shortcut for no reason.
Are you suggesting that it's not an actual phenomenon?
[deleted]
[deleted]
The bias is Gell-Mann Amnesia.
Edit: looks like this was already answered by @the-dude
Edit: looks like this was already answered by @the-dude
It's called Gell-Mann Amnesia. And the only reason I remember that is because it was mentioned in a short story written by Scott Alexander.
Yes. Gell-Mann Amnesia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speeches_by_Michael_Crichton#G...
Somewhat related — does anyone know an easier way to cancel one's NYT subscription than going through the rigmarole
of waiting for/talking with multiple "customer service" reps?
After NYT's all-too-credulous parroting of Barr's mischaracherization of the Mueller report I tried to cancel mine, but spent over an hour on the phone with no progress, and gave it up. I should have persisted — I don't want to give them my money any more, and this is all the more reason to cancel. At the same time, I don't have the time or patience to subject myself to phoning them again in the near future. Surely there must be an easier way? Certainly there should be.
After NYT's all-too-credulous parroting of Barr's mischaracherization of the Mueller report I tried to cancel mine, but spent over an hour on the phone with no progress, and gave it up. I should have persisted — I don't want to give them my money any more, and this is all the more reason to cancel. At the same time, I don't have the time or patience to subject myself to phoning them again in the near future. Surely there must be an easier way? Certainly there should be.
Switch your payment method to PayPal and then cancel from the PayPal side. I got burnt by trying to cancel the NYT a few years ago so I made sure not to give them any of my financial details this time around.
I decided to cancel last month due to the Tom Cotton Op-Ed and couldn't figure out an easy way to do it on-site so I just cancelled from the PayPal end. On a lark, I decided to try and cancel from the NYT end as well just to see how difficult it would be. I connected to the live chat and finally got connected to a representative after TWENTY FIVE HOURS on hold and was given 20 minutes to respond before being cut off.
I decided to cancel last month due to the Tom Cotton Op-Ed and couldn't figure out an easy way to do it on-site so I just cancelled from the PayPal end. On a lark, I decided to try and cancel from the NYT end as well just to see how difficult it would be. I connected to the live chat and finally got connected to a representative after TWENTY FIVE HOURS on hold and was given 20 minutes to respond before being cut off.
Credit card chargebacks really hurt, and are the appropriate response to a situation where they continue to take your money.
This is the more punitive action, and I will note that a credit card company will side with you as long as you made a decent effort at canceling. I considered it when I waited 3 hours for a chat without a response, but ended up doing the PayPal way because it required less dealing with a bank in this time of Covid-19 delays.
Most companies pay about $15 per chargeback (independent of if they win or not).
Especially for low value things, even a few percent chargebacks will be really costly.
Source:. Was selling $1 physical items online... The business was profitable until a few percent of packages started going missing in the mail, and rather than contacting us, customers would just chargeback, forcing me to double the price of the service.
Especially for low value things, even a few percent chargebacks will be really costly.
Source:. Was selling $1 physical items online... The business was profitable until a few percent of packages started going missing in the mail, and rather than contacting us, customers would just chargeback, forcing me to double the price of the service.
I had to (or it seemed like I had to) go through a web chat queue and beg multiple times to cancel my crosswords subscription (which was the only NYT subscription I’ve ever had, and there’s nothing wrong with the crossroads product, I just wasn’t able to dedicate enough time to it).
Scummy business practices like that make it very difficult for me to recommend any of that company’s products to anyone, even though I’m sure the people actually making the products have little or no influence on the people who control the transaction mechanics.
Scummy business practices like that make it very difficult for me to recommend any of that company’s products to anyone, even though I’m sure the people actually making the products have little or no influence on the people who control the transaction mechanics.
If you are residing in California, subscriptions are supposed to be cancel-able online by law.
Switch billing to PayPal, cancel the PayPal subscription.
I did that a week ago, worked great.
I did that a week ago, worked great.
I think I replied to one of their daily roundups and asked for them to cancel it. If they can't even filter out deranged calls for violence from their opinion pages, I'm not going to pay them to publish anything.
I just tried the runaround with the chat assistant, then got tired of waiting and did the PayPal trick. I am supposed to be charged on the 29th, I'll see if it goes through (though I suspect it won't).
Created https://cancelnyt.net in case someone not aware of the Paypal trick (or not on HN/this thread) is still trying to figure this out
Never trust a journalist - they are not in it to educate or inform, but rather for their own self-interest and celebrity.
[deleted]
All Journalists Are Bastards
(In precisely the same sense as All Cops Are Bastards, namely that they have a job which purports to be in the public interest, but which is highly distorted by a bunch of societal factors and mostly winds up serving powerful interests. Any given interaction with a journalist/cop has a chance of going badly, and if it does go badly you can be damn sure that you're going to the one that suffers, while the cop/journalist gets away with it.)
(In precisely the same sense as All Cops Are Bastards, namely that they have a job which purports to be in the public interest, but which is highly distorted by a bunch of societal factors and mostly winds up serving powerful interests. Any given interaction with a journalist/cop has a chance of going badly, and if it does go badly you can be damn sure that you're going to the one that suffers, while the cop/journalist gets away with it.)
I actually think there's quite a strong parallel. Both are necessary to the proper functioning of a society in small amounts, and large amounts of either go hand-in-hand with societal dysfunction.
Edit: Looks like they updated the link and title. Thanks!
@dang, you might consider somehow incorporating the name of the blog into the title. I almost didn't click on this because "his blog" is quite generic. Slate Star Codex is frequently posted on HN and is fairly notable.
@dang, you might consider somehow incorporating the name of the blog into the title. I almost didn't click on this because "his blog" is quite generic. Slate Star Codex is frequently posted on HN and is fairly notable.
It's displayed after the title though. There's even a site guideline about this: "If the title includes the name of the site, please take it out, because the site name will be displayed after the link."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The link and title was changed. It was originally another site and a worse title.
The link hasn't changed. The submitted title was "NYT threatens to dox blogger who often gets death threats. He deletes his blog", which broke the site guideline against editorializing, so we changed it.
Thanks for clarifying!
If you haven't read it, I Can Tolerate Anything Except The Outgroup (archive link required now):
https://web.archive.org/web/20200419232247/https://slatestar...
https://web.archive.org/web/20200419232247/https://slatestar...
I'm sure that blog has been archived somewhere pretty hard to just delete stuff from the internet. Take for instance this website I use an RSS feed aggregator to pull the top stories out of this site and put them on my feed within the last year I would say most of the stories are flagged removed basically somebody trying to remove a certain opinion.
Author dives into this in the post a bit, it's more about how would the NYT write the article about a blog that's no longer there without having to explain their part of poisoning the story. They also talk about prior run-ins with doxing and people calling their practice to try to get them fired off reddit witchhunts, so I think they know this, it's all about preventing a NYT-sized catastrophe when they've already seen low-yield reddit-sized explosions.
Wishful Anti-Doxxing is untenable. The arc of technology is destroying the concept of anonymity. The only hope for avoiding the harm of doxxing is to create a society where being known isn't harmful or every single person is prevented from doxxing (not merely punished, though that may be part of a solution.)
It's also not clear to me that someone with such a huge public audience deserves anonymity. Scott had a choice -- he could post anonymously to message boards and not be exposed to doxxing. But he chose to cultivate fame. And he used two-thirds of his real name and his publicly licensed profession.
It's also not clear to me that someone with such a huge public audience deserves anonymity. Scott had a choice -- he could post anonymously to message boards and not be exposed to doxxing. But he chose to cultivate fame. And he used two-thirds of his real name and his publicly licensed profession.
If I was able to find out Scott’s real last name with literally a single Google search, I hardly think writing that name in a news article can be called “doxxing”
Tinyyy(4)
2020 is the year that poaches all good things!
Feel free to use Trim to remove all paywalls and JavaScript from places like the New York Times: https://beta.trimread.com.
How is this not theft?
Journalism is expensive. Of course, there are other business models (full disclosure, we're building one too: https://blog.nillium.com/what-can-napster-teach-local-news/) but circumventing a paywall is not the answer.
Yes, the NYT is one of the few outlets that is doing reasonably well right now. But many newspapers are going out of business, or at least furloughing employees -- employees who already were not earning huge salaries.
If you read the article, and they ask for money to let you do that -- then honor that request. Just because you can hop over a paywall doesnt mean you should.
Journalism is expensive. Of course, there are other business models (full disclosure, we're building one too: https://blog.nillium.com/what-can-napster-teach-local-news/) but circumventing a paywall is not the answer.
Yes, the NYT is one of the few outlets that is doing reasonably well right now. But many newspapers are going out of business, or at least furloughing employees -- employees who already were not earning huge salaries.
If you read the article, and they ask for money to let you do that -- then honor that request. Just because you can hop over a paywall doesnt mean you should.
Loading a page and choosing not to run the code they ship with it is not theft.
[deleted]
Evading a paywall is.
You don't deserve the downvotes. Just because the technical measures used to protect the content are weak doesn't grant you the right to circumvent it. Hacker-types always seem have this fallacy of "if I can do it, I'm allowed to do it. I understand it -- we're all hackers because we get joy out of breaking technical locks and using things for purposes they weren't intended and rule-layering digital systems. But just because someone uses a cheap lock it doesn't mean you have the right to break it.
Who even cares about the copyright violation vs theft distinction at this point? They're offering access to their content for a price, they're not bothering with draconian DRM and so it's a dick move to just take it.
Who even cares about the copyright violation vs theft distinction at this point? They're offering access to their content for a price, they're not bothering with draconian DRM and so it's a dick move to just take it.
Do you have some kind of obligation to read the advertisement sections of a newspaper that gets delivered to your home for free?
Do you have the right to modify your on-prem installation of Gitlab to enable Enterprise features you're not paying for?
Really? What have they lost in this theft? The electricity needed to run the server serving the request?
> How is this not theft?
I call it peaceful protest.
I call it peaceful protest.
How about buying a subscription to not just NYT or other national outlets, but local news organizations so the people reporting on these issues can keep the lights on.
I've gotten the impression it'd cost like $100 / month to subscribe to the different newspapers whose articles I read maybe once a month?
But if there was a way to subscribe to all of them and pay $1 per article
(But I'd like to use Trim for 2 years, for Nyt.)
But if there was a way to subscribe to all of them and pay $1 per article
(But I'd like to use Trim for 2 years, for Nyt.)
How many newspapers would you realistic subscribe to? If you're reading the NYT, LAT, WAPO, WSJ, FT, then yes, the subscriptions add up.
If the newspapers/sites expect every reader to subscribe, it can add up quickly, if you're reading 2 articles in each of 20 publications every month.
I do wish more people would pay for content, but the market hasn't really adjusted to the way people read 1% of dozens of different publications.
I do wish more people would pay for content, but the market hasn't really adjusted to the way people read 1% of dozens of different publications.
Yes, and I find it a bit weird that the newspapers won't collaborate and do sth about this -- I wonder how much money they're missing out on.
@catacombs -- those, + the economist, + 3? more in my home country
Most of all I'd like to support small local newspapers
@catacombs -- those, + the economist, + 3? more in my home country
Most of all I'd like to support small local newspapers
> Yes, and I find it a bit weird that the newspapers won't collaborate and do sth about this -- I wonder how much money they're missing out on.
Way easier said than done.
Way easier said than done.
The NYT in this case should never be supported again.
Scott Alexander does important journalistic work in deeply analyzing the issues.
It’s worth noting that the story is about how he was right about coronavirus in ways that the NYT was not.
The NYT is knowingly attacking his livelyhood and person by exposing him in this way.
Scott Alexander does important journalistic work in deeply analyzing the issues.
It’s worth noting that the story is about how he was right about coronavirus in ways that the NYT was not.
The NYT is knowingly attacking his livelyhood and person by exposing him in this way.
> The NYT is knowingly attacking his livelyhood and person by exposing him in this way.
You have no evidence to back up this claim.
Yes, the fact SSC was fast to publish information about the coronavirus than other organizations. But, do you really think the NYT, a behemoth in the media world, considers an obscure blog -- to many -- a threat?
You have no evidence to back up this claim.
Yes, the fact SSC was fast to publish information about the coronavirus than other organizations. But, do you really think the NYT, a behemoth in the media world, considers an obscure blog -- to many -- a threat?
I think the NYT considers the obscure blog a snack.
I slightly wonder if they wanted to get rid of him? (his blog)
One Scott Alexander is no threat to them, but 10 could be, and this is clearly going to produce a chilling effect.
Edit for clarification:
I mean 10 commentators with his level of diligence who are willing to engage with difficult issues without ignoring the complexity.
We desperately need more of that in our society, and this action by the NYT will have a chilling effect.
It is profoundly wrong and antidemocratic.
Edit for clarification:
I mean 10 commentators with his level of diligence who are willing to engage with difficult issues without ignoring the complexity.
We desperately need more of that in our society, and this action by the NYT will have a chilling effect.
It is profoundly wrong and antidemocratic.
What do you mean 10 could be? Ten copies of SSC? That wouldn't work.
EDIT: Thanks for the clarification, zepto. I see your point now.
EDIT: Thanks for the clarification, zepto. I see your point now.
I mentioned this in another reply, but do you honestly think an obscure blog as SSC is a genuine threat to the NYT?
SSC is a highly influential analytical blog, NYT is fast becoming a fact free propaganda horn.
They're bound to clash.
They're bound to clash.
> ...NYT is fast becoming a fact free propaganda horn.
The Trump Curse in action! "Fake News Media", indeed.
The Trump Curse in action! "Fake News Media", indeed.
I've considered NYT a propaganda rag ever since they marketed the attack on Iraq. Just because Trump is saying something does not mean it is false - a large part of how he gained such a following is from tapping into a lot of real frustrations that people have. Consolidated mainstream media in the US is the equivalent of state media in the USSR - they're both mouthpieces of the ruling power structure. The US just airs competing factions which creates an illusion of vibrancy.
(disclaimer: Please don't take this as some endorsement of Trump. Even though some of his claims are right, he apparently isn't so much opposed to that corruption as an outsider looking into get in on the action. Also after being elected, most presidents tone down the divisive pandering)
(disclaimer: Please don't take this as some endorsement of Trump. Even though some of his claims are right, he apparently isn't so much opposed to that corruption as an outsider looking into get in on the action. Also after being elected, most presidents tone down the divisive pandering)
> ..he apparently isn't so much opposed to that corruption as an outsider looking into get in on the action. Also after being elected, most presidents tone down the divisive pandering
Agreed, of course.
Agreed, of course.
> Just because Trump is saying something does not mean it is false - a large part of how he gained such a following is from tapping into a lot of real frustrations that people have.
Contrary: A majority of his statements have been proven false.
Contrary: A majority of his statements have been proven false.
Can we now stop linking to NYTimes? I have complained about the encroachment of having bulk paywalled stuff on here before, but now with this, it's like anyone linking to these journos are promoting them (Especially now, seeing how badly the ethics is). The best we can do is try to avoid them.
Never trust a journalist
This might be a controversial opinion, but I have just one word to describe most journalists nowadays: "scum".
They seek exciting and sensationalist stories without regard for any consequences in the real world. They twist their stories to manipulate the readers towards their viewpoint.
But worst of all, they have the gall to present themselves as the upholders of morality and the paragons of democracy. Any criticism you may have for these people is deemed "anti-democratic", which in most peoples heads already is a trigger word for "evil", no amount of arguments can sway them.
They seek exciting and sensationalist stories without regard for any consequences in the real world. They twist their stories to manipulate the readers towards their viewpoint.
But worst of all, they have the gall to present themselves as the upholders of morality and the paragons of democracy. Any criticism you may have for these people is deemed "anti-democratic", which in most peoples heads already is a trigger word for "evil", no amount of arguments can sway them.
There's a novel by Balzac (forgot which one), which shows the behind-the-scenes of mid-XIX century Paris journalism. It's essentially the same as you described, but also, the journalists don't flaunt their views, but rather their masters' (the owners of the papers).
The nature of news, gossip, and propaganda predates 19th century France. The Roman god Fama, attendant to Jupiter, trumpeting his words, heedless of truth or falsity:
"At the world's centre lies a place between the lands and seas and regions of the sky, the limits of the threefold universe, whence all things everywhere, however far, are scanned and watched, and every voice and word reaches its listening ears. Here Fama (Rumour) dwells her chosen home set on the highest peak constructed with a thousand apertures and countless entrances and never a door. It's open night and day and built throughout of echoing bronze; it all reverberates, repeating voices, doubling what it hears. Inside, no peace, no silence anywhere, and yet no noise, but muted murmurings like waves one hears of some far-distant sea, or like a last late rumbling thunder-roll, when Juppiter [Zeus] has made the rain-clouds crash. Crowds throng its halls, a lightweight populace that comes and goes, and rumours everywhere, thousands, false mixed with true, roam to and fro, and words flit by phrases all confused. Some pour their tattle into idle ears, some pass on what they've gathered, and as each gossip adds something new the story grows. Here is Credulitas (Credulity), here reckless Error (Error), groundless Laetitia (Delight), Susurri (Whispers) of unknown source, sudden Seditio (Sedition), overwhelming Timores (Fears). All that goes on in heaven or sea or land Fama (Rumour) observes and scours the whole wide world. Now she had brought the news [to Troy] that ships from Greece were on their way with valiant warriors: not unforeseen the hostile force appears."
-- Ovid, Metamorphoses 12. 39 ff
"At the world's centre lies a place between the lands and seas and regions of the sky, the limits of the threefold universe, whence all things everywhere, however far, are scanned and watched, and every voice and word reaches its listening ears. Here Fama (Rumour) dwells her chosen home set on the highest peak constructed with a thousand apertures and countless entrances and never a door. It's open night and day and built throughout of echoing bronze; it all reverberates, repeating voices, doubling what it hears. Inside, no peace, no silence anywhere, and yet no noise, but muted murmurings like waves one hears of some far-distant sea, or like a last late rumbling thunder-roll, when Juppiter [Zeus] has made the rain-clouds crash. Crowds throng its halls, a lightweight populace that comes and goes, and rumours everywhere, thousands, false mixed with true, roam to and fro, and words flit by phrases all confused. Some pour their tattle into idle ears, some pass on what they've gathered, and as each gossip adds something new the story grows. Here is Credulitas (Credulity), here reckless Error (Error), groundless Laetitia (Delight), Susurri (Whispers) of unknown source, sudden Seditio (Sedition), overwhelming Timores (Fears). All that goes on in heaven or sea or land Fama (Rumour) observes and scours the whole wide world. Now she had brought the news [to Troy] that ships from Greece were on their way with valiant warriors: not unforeseen the hostile force appears."
-- Ovid, Metamorphoses 12. 39 ff
Such has a long tradition in France, and lasted well into the 20th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_French_journalism#M...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_French_journalism#M...
Can anyone identify the name of the novel please?
I think it's fair to say that there are plenty of journalists who don't engage in wantonly twisting stories, and honestly try to uphold morality and democracy. There are also others for whom your criticism is completely valid.
For example, I'd consider some of what Scott does (did?) on SSC as "journalism" in that he's writing about recent news in an informative way.
For example, I'd consider some of what Scott does (did?) on SSC as "journalism" in that he's writing about recent news in an informative way.
> he had discovered my real name and would reveal it in the article
So it's an OPSEC failure. Why not learn from it and start a new blog under a different, better pseudonym, then avoid giving details that can get you doxxed.
So it's an OPSEC failure. Why not learn from it and start a new blog under a different, better pseudonym, then avoid giving details that can get you doxxed.
He would have to stop going to meet-ups etc. as well. Really sad that it has come to this. People have to go underground and be paranoid and distribute material like the samizdat of Eastern Europe under the communist dictatorships.
Scott is such a nice, open-minded, compassionate and careful, educated, well-Red intellectual who gives everyone the benefit of the doubt, goes out of his way not to be mean to his critics. If even he gets thrown under the bus, it's a sign of bad times coming. I'd say I'm glad I'm in Europe, but "we're all living in America", these things spread quickly over the pond.
I fear that this whole debacle will attract enough attention to him that many curious people will doxx him and his job could be at great risk. I hope I'm wrong. But it's very hard to put the genie back in the bottle, once it's out.
Scott is such a nice, open-minded, compassionate and careful, educated, well-Red intellectual who gives everyone the benefit of the doubt, goes out of his way not to be mean to his critics. If even he gets thrown under the bus, it's a sign of bad times coming. I'd say I'm glad I'm in Europe, but "we're all living in America", these things spread quickly over the pond.
I fear that this whole debacle will attract enough attention to him that many curious people will doxx him and his job could be at great risk. I hope I'm wrong. But it's very hard to put the genie back in the bottle, once it's out.
I hope not. He was always on my list of people to troll at some point. Current outrage would make that stale however. Still, good reading for what it's worth!
When did "investigative journalism" become "doxxing"? Terminal internet brain.
Why is Scott's real name even relevant to the article? He has good reason not to want it published, and his real name is of no interest to most readers given that his entire public online presence is in the name "Scott Alexander". Knowing that Lewis Carroll was really called Charles Dodgson may be a piece of trivia that makes you win a pub quiz one day, and it may be of niche interest to someone who reads one of his mathematical papers and realises that the author is the same as the author of Alice, but Scott's real name won't even win you a pub quiz and has similarly niche publications that are not of remotely general interest.
qq11ww22ee33(3)
The term "doxxing" is used in communities where it's normalized to harass people and try to ruin their lives because you think they're a jerk. In such a community, exposing someone's real identity against their will is a hostile act.
Unfortunately, all of American society is now such a community, so all investigative journalism about someone's identity is now also doxxing. I'm not any happier about that than you are, and hope we can return to better norms so that investigative journalism is less of a danger for its targets.
Unfortunately, all of American society is now such a community, so all investigative journalism about someone's identity is now also doxxing. I'm not any happier about that than you are, and hope we can return to better norms so that investigative journalism is less of a danger for its targets.
When "journalism" became "activism"
Newpapers have always had an agenda, and interests to forward, so the "when" is "always".
I dont think the NYT is what it purports to be.
Still run by the BBC's Mark Thompson I see.
https://imgur.com/VUdcIou
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIMxvS-WEAER49I.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CINJUoqUwAEkSip.jpg
Still run by the BBC's Mark Thompson I see.
https://imgur.com/VUdcIou
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIMxvS-WEAER49I.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CINJUoqUwAEkSip.jpg
I'm not super clear what this blog is or the overall context, but after reading the post my takeaways is "this guy did an interview with a reporter, on the record, and then asked not to be quoted by name". Is that accurate?
Being quoted by name is not being doxxed. If you don't want to be named in a newspaper article, do not talk to a newspaper reporter.
My main takeaway here is that this is yet another example of people co-opting the language of woke victimhood to avoid accountability.
Being quoted by name is not being doxxed. If you don't want to be named in a newspaper article, do not talk to a newspaper reporter.
My main takeaway here is that this is yet another example of people co-opting the language of woke victimhood to avoid accountability.
Scott Alexander is reaching Scott Aaronson levels of hysterics.
It's specifically telling that they would choose to do this with Scott Alexander and not another psychiatrist prior to this point: the NYT has in the last few weeks been overcome from the inside by a new moral zealotry, and Scott makes a prime, juicy target for the moral assaults that will gain it plaudits among other zealots.
This will make the backroom media Slack quite pleased, I'm sure, especially if the article attempts to tie him back to white supremacy. It'll be seen as a good score, and might appease the mob for a short time. But they'll be back again for fresh blood soon enough.
This will make the backroom media Slack quite pleased, I'm sure, especially if the article attempts to tie him back to white supremacy. It'll be seen as a good score, and might appease the mob for a short time. But they'll be back again for fresh blood soon enough.
"In the last few weeks"? The NYT has been going in this direction for years.
Correct, but the Tom Cotton op-ed in context of all other events lit a spark that caused a lot of internal tension to snap.
One of the most interesting pieces of insight we got at the time was from Matthew Yglesias of Vox Media, who tweeted[1] about discomfort with what was going on in a private media Slack group the day the NYT was reportedly going through turmoil. The tweets were shortly deleted, for clear reasons. From his description, it sounded like an effective struggle session was taking place in the Slack channel, which had been kicked off by the Cotton op-ed.
So the direction has been mounting for years, yes. But the significant shift in internal leadership, direction, and principles within the last few weeks cannot be overestimated.
[1]: https://twitter.com/JimLaheyTPBs/status/1268718489654697984
One of the most interesting pieces of insight we got at the time was from Matthew Yglesias of Vox Media, who tweeted[1] about discomfort with what was going on in a private media Slack group the day the NYT was reportedly going through turmoil. The tweets were shortly deleted, for clear reasons. From his description, it sounded like an effective struggle session was taking place in the Slack channel, which had been kicked off by the Cotton op-ed.
So the direction has been mounting for years, yes. But the significant shift in internal leadership, direction, and principles within the last few weeks cannot be overestimated.
[1]: https://twitter.com/JimLaheyTPBs/status/1268718489654697984
I saw those tweets from Yglesias when he posted them; I didn't realise he'd deleted him.
To clarify: you say that Yglesias deleted his tweets "for clear reasons" - are the reasons really clear (e.g. Yglesias confirmed his reasons) or is that just your surmise? Also, you mention a private media Slack group but the tweet thread you linked doesn't say anything about a Slack group - is there another link where I can learn more about this?
I remember there was some other woke controversy at the NYT a couple of years ago where a private NYT Slack thread was leaked; I can only imagine the inner turmoil at the NYT given recent controversies (and an extra two years' worth of new, woke graduates entering the org.)
To clarify: you say that Yglesias deleted his tweets "for clear reasons" - are the reasons really clear (e.g. Yglesias confirmed his reasons) or is that just your surmise? Also, you mention a private media Slack group but the tweet thread you linked doesn't say anything about a Slack group - is there another link where I can learn more about this?
I remember there was some other woke controversy at the NYT a couple of years ago where a private NYT Slack thread was leaked; I can only imagine the inner turmoil at the NYT given recent controversies (and an extra two years' worth of new, woke graduates entering the org.)
Best I can tell, he would have gotten in immediate trouble for even hinting he had a problem with / that there was anything happening behind the scenes. The specific reason is pure speculation, but I can't see him remaining unpressured to take them down. That said, yes, it's just my surmise.
You have a fair point - looking back on the tweets, I think I conflated two things: that he mentioned something in (presumably Vox) Slack, and that his concerns stemmed from a Slack conversation. The latter has no evidence, and I incorrectly assumed it.
I'm still expecting that the discussion was happening between multiple media orgs - at minimum, NYT and Vox, given context and timing - but I can't speak to more than that.
You have a fair point - looking back on the tweets, I think I conflated two things: that he mentioned something in (presumably Vox) Slack, and that his concerns stemmed from a Slack conversation. The latter has no evidence, and I incorrectly assumed it.
I'm still expecting that the discussion was happening between multiple media orgs - at minimum, NYT and Vox, given context and timing - but I can't speak to more than that.
I thought he was smarter than this. Of course talking to the press would put him in the spotlight and the press doesn't like pseudonyms (it might be accused of making it all up). Just suppress the narcissistic instincts and don't talk to the press if you like your privacy. As for the NYT's actions... It's as good as many other occasions to rethink one's attitude towards that paper.
Knowing well how NYT "operates" I don't believe this story, sorry. Surely this is about some sort of de-escalation or weird deal with them, but I don't buy the motivation about staying pseudonymous. It literally takes less than a minute of browsing Wikipedia to find his full name. And I just assume more people have access to Wikipedia than to NYT.
Currently if you google his real name SSC is not even on the first page of results. If the NYT publishes his name in an article about SSC it will be the top result.
Also I am not sure what you mean about Wikipedia - I don't see a current article about him (there was an old one with a wrong name but it was marked for deletion).
Also I am not sure what you mean about Wikipedia - I don't see a current article about him (there was an old one with a wrong name but it was marked for deletion).
Has anyone considered this is fake?
After Steve Hsu was cancelled a few days ago due to the Twitter mob wilfully misinterpreting his words, I reqd a comment somewhere saying “Scott Alexander is next” (which could make sense, as he’s posted “wrong” opinions on his blog before).
Maybe the NYT story is just a cover, or maybe the article wouldn’t be that “positive”...
After Steve Hsu was cancelled a few days ago due to the Twitter mob wilfully misinterpreting his words, I reqd a comment somewhere saying “Scott Alexander is next” (which could make sense, as he’s posted “wrong” opinions on his blog before).
Maybe the NYT story is just a cover, or maybe the article wouldn’t be that “positive”...
I don't believe Scott would lie like that in that situation. Sure, it's a judgement call on his character; but I really do not think this is a likely thing we'd see from him if your scenario were the case.
The journalist writing the NYT story have been in contact with several SSC commenters
And I believe (not 100%) it started before the Hsu story
And I believe (not 100%) it started before the Hsu story
A number of commenters mentioned over the last week or so that a journalist from the NYT had contacted them for interviews regarding SSC, so I believe it's real.
Have you considered that the NYT reporter might be a fan of this cancel culture?
Am I the only one who is reading this as Scott flexing on NYT and that there's nothing to be sad about?
> After considering my options, I decided on the one you see now. If there’s no blog, there’s no story. Or at least the story will have to include some discussion of NYT’s strategy of doxxing random bloggers for clicks.
So his blog will be offline for a bit but it is clearly not permanent (if everything goes as planned).
Great move and probably will gain him even more clout within the rationalist community.
> After considering my options, I decided on the one you see now. If there’s no blog, there’s no story. Or at least the story will have to include some discussion of NYT’s strategy of doxxing random bloggers for clicks.
So his blog will be offline for a bit but it is clearly not permanent (if everything goes as planned).
Great move and probably will gain him even more clout within the rationalist community.
This is a very dumb move on his part.
He just went from "big interesting blog" to "very suspicious behavior".
Think about it from a reporter's perspective, they were about to write about an interesting blog, and suddenly the blog gets deleted because his real name will be revealed. Well, that's a pretty big reaction, so big we can't ignore it. The reporter's first question now will be "Wow, what's he trying to cover up?"
One thing is certain, reporters are now trying to dig up the thing that they're imagining he's trying to cover up.
And maybe he does have something to hide given his irrational behavior, who knows?
This won't end now until reporters find something, and they're gonna go to great lengths to find something.
He just went from "big interesting blog" to "very suspicious behavior".
Think about it from a reporter's perspective, they were about to write about an interesting blog, and suddenly the blog gets deleted because his real name will be revealed. Well, that's a pretty big reaction, so big we can't ignore it. The reporter's first question now will be "Wow, what's he trying to cover up?"
One thing is certain, reporters are now trying to dig up the thing that they're imagining he's trying to cover up.
And maybe he does have something to hide given his irrational behavior, who knows?
This won't end now until reporters find something, and they're gonna go to great lengths to find something.
It's not a dumb move. The current reality is that you can get #cancelled for telling students you won't give them higher marks just because of their race. Scott wasn't exactly politically correct, him getting fired for something he wrote was a very real risk.
Fuck that reporter.
Fuck that reporter.
On the contrary, it's a smart and deeply reasonable move. Scott is being quite transparent about the reasons for his choice, and the NYT reporters' and editors' behavior will look far more suspicious than anything he's doing.
Except a journalist isn't going to sit back and take his "reasons for his choice" as true and go away, they're going to dig even more and he's smart enough to know that.
He just made things worse for himself by deleting that blog and drawing attention to himself.
Now it's not just the original reporter looking into this story, a whole bunch of journalists have dived in, and are now looking for an even bigger story.
He just made things worse for himself by deleting that blog and drawing attention to himself.
Now it's not just the original reporter looking into this story, a whole bunch of journalists have dived in, and are now looking for an even bigger story.
They're going to "dig" in obscure web archives to try and make him look bad? Anyone could do that, but good luck trying to sell that as reasonable after you've doxxed the guy. It would be so obvious that this is what they're doing, they probably wouldn't even bother.
And Scott has no reason to care about "drawing attention to himself" at this point - you can't beat a NYT article (even a sympathetic one!) as far as "attention" goes, and that was already in the cards.
And Scott has no reason to care about "drawing attention to himself" at this point - you can't beat a NYT article (even a sympathetic one!) as far as "attention" goes, and that was already in the cards.
I think his given explanation is plausible. Having that much opinion and personal information tied publicly to his real identity _would_ make it hard to do his job as a psychiatrist well. Presumably that is very important to him, possibly even more important than the blog, especially when you take into account the personal safety issues of doxxing.
I agree, it's plausible.
But journalists don't stop at "plausible" and then write, they keep digging until they have "the facts" (or their biased version of the facts) right?
But journalists don't stop at "plausible" and then write, they keep digging until they have "the facts" (or their biased version of the facts) right?
I'd take what Scott Alexander has to say about this with a grain of salt. He is a bit obsessed with people who criticize him on the internet, going as far as to write about his borderline paranoid suspicions behind people making fun of him online in several of his blog posts.
Some people can't handle the judgment that comes with being a somewhat public figure, and Scott is one of them.
Some people can't handle the judgment that comes with being a somewhat public figure, and Scott is one of them.
> He is a bit obsessed with people who criticize him on the internet…
… is he? I think you've been reading a different blog to me; I have read all of SlateStarCodex. Can you give some examples?
… is he? I think you've been reading a different blog to me; I have read all of SlateStarCodex. Can you give some examples?
What an utterly bizarre claim.
He's most likely aware that he can't handle that level of judgment. Lots of people can't! That's why he's elected not to become a public figure, and why it's so toxic for the NYT to try and make him one against his will.
Exactly this. And the community plays into it. They imagine themselves to be Galileo —- persecuted by the state and society just for telling the truth.
After reading this, I looked up NYT's policy of using real names, and it turns out this isn't the worst time that the NY Times has done this[1].
I've long said that if you want to know who an organization serves, see where its money comes from. The NY Times gets 60% of its money from subscriptions, but it also gets 30% of its money from advertisers[2]. Keep in mind that subscribers can be hard to court, and losing one advertiser is a bigger chunk of money, so the NY Times is likely to be disproportionately influenced by the 30% of their income that comes from advertisers.
We're better off with organizations who receive their money from donations. I have been constantly impressed with the reporting of Mother Jones[3] and ProPublica[4] and would encourage you to both read and donate.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/sep/26/new-york-times...
[2] https://dashboards.trefis.com/no-login-required/5gNimvTR/New...
[3] https://www.motherjones.com/
[4] https://www.propublica.org/